Posted on 05/07/2008 6:09:50 AM PDT by PittsburghAfterDark
A Knoxville man shot and killed a Pittsburgh police dog Tuesday before the canine's handler returned fire, killing the man in what city police Chief Nate Harper called "an unfortunate" but justifiable action. The shooting outraged and angered the family of the 19-year-old man, Justin Jackson. He was pronounced dead by a passing paramedic almost immediately after the shooting that occurred at 6:53 p.m. in front of the UPMC facility on Arlington Avenue on the border of Knoxville and Mt. Oliver.
Harper said the dog's handler ordered the canine -- a 6-year-old German shepherd named Aulf -- to attack after Jackson pulled a gun from under his shirt. Both the officer, an eight-year-veteran Harper did not identify, and Jackson fired several shots, the chief said.
"They shot my son in the head. The officer told me, 'Our dog got shot so we shot him.' They killed my son over a dog," said Donald James Jackson of the West End.
"My 19-year-old son is lying there dead, shot in the head, execution-style. My son's brains are laying on the street. This is crazy. I'm going to do whatever I have to do, file charges against the officers, for my son. It's terrible, the mentality they have," Jackson said as he tried to comfort his wife.
"We are not going to let them get away with this!" Anna Jackson screamed. "They will pay for killing my son. They are going to pay for shooting my son over a dog!"
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
So now the kid’s dad is saying they are not sure he even had a gun and that the officers killed the dog and their son? I read that in another article.
If someone pulls a gun and starts shooting, is there really time for an officer to determine who or what the person is shooting at?
They stopped because they believed he was carrying a gun, the chief said. What gave the police officers cause to believe he was carrying a gun?
- The article doesn’t say. We do know that (1) there was a report of shots fired and (2) he was in the vicinity of it. Anything else is an assumption by the reader of the article.
they are cruising down the street at 35 or 40 miles an hour (conservatively),
-Made up fact. Their job was to go to the area the call was reported and look for people who might have fired the shot. Why do you believe they would do it a 40 mph?
they see this guy walking down the street and say to each other, “That guy has a gun. We can’t see the gun, we don’t have anyone that says he’s got a gun, but we know, he has a gun.”
- Made up fact. From the article, it could be read that he had his hand in his shirt. Perhaps he was sweating, out of breath, matched a description, had a bulge under his shirt, the gun was partially visible, he turned away when he saw them, acted suspiciously, etc. The point is that we don’t know, but you make up out of whole cloth a conversation between the cops leaving capriciousness as the only explanantion. Whatever it was that piqued their suspicion, they were RIGHT. He did have a gun.
, they come to a screeching halt and tell him to take his hands out of his pockets.
-Exactly as they should do. Him not complying is where this goes wrong for him.
Something doesn’t look right here.
Either they saw something that gave them pause or this is right out of Minority Report.
-Either they saw something that gave them pause.... Exactly. Either the cops saw something that gave them pause, or they happened to coincidentally stop someone who coincidentally had a gun coincidentally in the vicinity of a shots fired report who coincidentally refused to comply with their instructions to show his hands, and coincidentally pulled the gun out on the police. Which version is more likely?
*I live in Pittsburgh too...and not attacking you...but I wouldn’t much credance in the ‘witnesses’ who are stepping up to the local TV microphones.*
They probably waddled up to the mikes wearing their “don’t snitch” t-shirts, too, I’d bet.
There will be an investigation, and no doubt a scummy lawyer driven law suit. But I have to give all benefit of doubt to the Pittsburgh PD in this one. Knoxville, gunfire, and a crowd of gangbangers (who don't respond to police directions) equals trouble. Again, I'm buying the cops side of this all the way.
And for those of you non-Pittsburgh area FReepers, go to any of the Pittsburgh news websites (ThePittsburghChannel.com for one) and watch for yourselves the 'interviews.' See which side you think is telling the truth.
Even better would be
Man shot after firing on officer and his canine partner
The kid was 19, not old enough for a CCW. Legal age for a CCW is 21. Gun was concealed under his shirt, he wasn’t legally carrying.
You can blindly back the cops. However blindly backing the cops is no less knee jerk than the family attacking the cops.
The investigation will hopefully be handled by an outside entity, and whether it was a clean shoot or not will be discovered.
The cops story and the witnesses at the scenes stories as of right now don’t jive with each other, why they don’t match up is what the investigation will determine.
I’ve seen cops cover up for each other before, so I will not blindly take their word for it. There is only one man who ever walked this earth that I will blindly follow, and he never wore a Policeman’s uniform, and come to think of it was killed by the authorities for no crime of his own.
I respect law encorcement, and I am not saying these cops acted improperly. However the stories from witnesses at the scene do bring up serious questions. Time will tell if they are exonerated or not.
It's not just some welfare momma and a rolling stone baby-daddy somewhere.
The cops know that these people mean business and will be hassling them about making a "threat" of some sort.
I do believe that should something like this ever befall our family I will keep my mouth shut, but there will be some Hell to pay for somebody down the line. One of the black commentators used to call it a "white riot". Before it was over the municipal authorities would definitely be coughing up huge chunks of change in payment for the moment's stupidity of one of the folks they mistakenly hired. He'd be coughing up huge chunks of change too ~ enough so his wife would leave him and the kids would have to be placed for adoption. Sue the wife as well just to bankrupt her and leave her in penury.
Could be that's what this couple may have in mind ~ and there's dozen of lawyers out there who'd take their case in a second on a contingency.
It’s the drugs. They dull the senses and leave people unprepared to differentiate between dogs and men.
It's not worth the risk. However, as this case demonstrates, it may well be better in some towns to fire at the cops first, then the dog.
Don't worry, the lawyers taking this case are going to come down hard on the "trained dog" angle.
If the lady has a witness to the cop saying that little tit for tat business she wins the lotto. Irrespective of the situation or any other factors, the statement would reflect the officer’s intent in shooting ~ that is, to kill a man over a dog.
Look, you’re one of the guys who wants to pretend the dog is a human being ~ so get a dog to act like a human and we’ll talk.
There's definitely something to their point of view.
A lot of those dogs are not trained. They’re along just for the show and threat value.
Please provide a link to support that.
Where do you get this sh*t? The cops have every right confront people and question them. They were responding to reports of shots fired.
According to the article, he was told to show his hands, when this moron pulled out a gun and started firing. Of course they are going to cut the dog loose.
You expect them to just sit there and wait for the suspect to shoot all of them?
Tell ya what slick, call the cops and report a man with a gun...Then go stand out there with your hand under your shirt when they pull up and when they tell ya to show your hands, refuse and see what happens.
Compare and contrast.
Come to your own conclusions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.