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 the police chief is a liar?
What was he supposed to do???
He complied with their request.
If he'd refused to pull his hand out, they might very well have released the dog on him, too, and said that he had refused their request. If he'd let go of the gun and it had fallen to the ground, what if it had gone off (or even if it hadn't, he'd have been endangering others).
Note that the chief didn't say that the victim pointed the gun at anyone until the dog was released and he defended himself.
Read the article. According to the police chief, it was compliance with their request that got him killed!
Are you in the Pgh area?
Please read my post at 219. If you are ‘local’ did you see the live coverage of Chief Harper’s 6 pm statement?
What...are you some kind of American or something?
Sheesh. All your mamby-pamby "assumed innocent until proven guilty" garbage has no place here...just ask the peanut gallery!
:-(
Actually, he did comply. His hand just happened to contain a .357. :-(
“what was he supposed to do”????
DIE !
Like the fool he was.
You have the RIGHT to bear arms... but you have the RESPONSIBILITY and the RISK that goes with them.
The End... for him.
The question is...why was the dog released?
Did he point the gun at the officers? Or was it just a chance to use the dog?
It’s unreasonable to expect a citizen to know whether a dog is trying to disarm him or attack him. If this had been the wrong person, just an innocent civilian, how is he to know that he’s not in danger?
...unless you want the police just releasing dogs to attack people without reason, then there had better be a reason for the release. Did the chief say that Mr. Jackson was shooting first, before the dog was released? Or even threatening anyone? Or just complying with the request?
By that standard we should not allow cops to carry guns, batons or tazers, since they are not qualified to judge whether a person is a danger or not.
A police dog is a lesser use of force than the gun. They tried to save his worthless life by trying to disarm him with a dog. They could have just shot him without releasing the dog. He'd be just as dead, but the dog would still be alive.
This dog died trying to save the deceased from his own stupidity. How sad is that?
I shouldn't be surprised at the number of FReepers coming down against the cops. But I am...so I'll throw out the question...would anybody be happier here tonight if we were talking about two dead Pittsburgh Cops? Or how about a few bystanders taken down too. Things happen. And things happen incredibly fast. These officers (IMO) did the best call they could. Period.
Ah, yes...you have the freedom to do exactly as we tell you. And oh, life can be so risky...don't hold on too tightly to that life of yours...never know when you might comply with a police officer's request. That's just your risk, citizen.
Wouldn't it be safer to just turn in your guns?
There, there...what a nice citizen. So safe and secure now.
Again, did you see or hear Chief Harper at 6? The officers involved did not know the dog had been shot until Jackson was downed. It was that fast. Jackson drew and shot (the officers seemed to think they were being fired upon...not the dog). When the shooting stopped, Jackson and the dog were both down. What is hard to understand about that?
Just one more thing to note...from the local reports...the dog would have responded to the ‘stand down’ command. He would not have mauled Jackson. He was in a ‘disarm’ move.
Or is an armed citizen moving to use his weapon against police a menace requiring disarmament...?
While these are split-second decisions--and the officers must be given the discretion to act--unless we question them later, then we are destined to move to the wrong choice. Heck, I'll never be on a jury in part because I answer that I'm more likely to trust the testimony of a police officer because of his profession (which includes training, etc.), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful against knee-jerk responses!
The firearm used by Jackson was a stolen .357 magnum that was reported missing after a 2006 burglary in Elliot.
He was a thug, a cop killer, a drug dealer, a thief and he died pulling his stolen gun.
F*** him!
No, I didn’t hear Chief Harper at 6, so I didn’t know that his story had changed.
How about turning in the ones that are stolen and resold on the street or (shudder) stolen and kept by the perp who stole them for future use. It was a stolen gun (traced by the serial number). That was also stated at 6pm by Chief Harper.
Amended... not “HIS” gun, but “the stolen” gun.
HE did not own or have the rights to the weapon for which he was killed using.
Well, instead of getting out of their vehicle or whatever, why didn’t they just shoot him from an armored car if they knew he had a stolen gun?
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.