Posted on 02/23/2002 9:00:18 AM PST by RCW2001
Pennsylvania state trooper fatally shoots woman who answers the door armed with shotgun
JOE MANDAK, Associated Press Writer
Saturday, February 23, 2002
©2002 Associated Press
URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/02/23/national1229EST0497.DTL
(02-23) 09:29 PST PITTSBURGH (AP) --
A state trooper responding to a report of fighting at a suburban apartment complex Saturday shot and killed a woman who answered her door armed with a shotgun, police said.
Bonnie F. Bugosh, 42, of East Huntingdon Township, about 35 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, was hit with a one bullet from the trooper's gun, said state police spokeswoman Jeanne Martin.
It was not immediately known if the shotgun Bugosh held was loaded.
Martin said a resident at the Laurel Hill Apartments complex called police around midnight to report a fight in a hallway. Initial reports indicated that Bugosh's daughter, who is in her late teens or early 20s, may have been involved in the fight, but it wasn't immediately clear who directed police to Bugosh's apartment or why, Martin said.
Neighbors told the troopers that Bugosh was home and that her car was parked outside, but the officers got no response to repeated knocks and a demand that the door be opened, Martin said. When Bugosh did open the door, she allegedly pointed a shotgun at the troopers, and one them fired, Martin said.
Neither trooper's name was released.
There will be an internal investigation, which is routine whenever a trooper fires his weapon, Martin said.
A message left on the answering machine at Bugosh's apartment on Saturday was not immediately returned.
©2002 Associated Press
By your reasoning, kind of makes the following useless:
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right (not privilege) of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The "nature of the business" is the other way around. Cops cannot shoot before they are shot at. That is the "nature of the business."
Otherwise, the 2nd amendment and similar "right to keep and bear arms" amendments in state constitutions, are meaningless.
A cop does not have a "right" to shoot a person, just because a weapon was pointed at them.
They have the "privilege," bestowed on them from the consent of the govern, to shoot at citizens who shoot at them or at others.
Not pre-emptively.
This implies that the troopers knocked on the door with guns drawn. Why would they do that?
Need more information.
More details are needed....
This comment is a textbook example of the problem with getting instant news- and even faster opinion- on the WEB.
I make the (reasonable) assumption that the poster was NOT at the scene, was NOT involved in this shooting, and knows nothing more about it than what appears in this (unreliable) media story.
Yet, note how quickly the finger is pointed, blame is assgned, and the poster assumes an air of omniscience!
That's my essay for this morning. More later...
It seems she used bad judgement. It seems te cop over-reacted.
Does that make you feel better?
Good point. If she had intent to shoot them they would not have had time to draw on her before being shot.
Sounds like sloppy police work to me.
Regards.
Try disagreeing with THAT! Hehe...
I'm not sure where you get your information, but you are completely wrong. THis is from New York, but the laws in PA (and everywhere else for that matter) are similar:
Under § 35.30, a police officer may use deadly physical force to the extent he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or someone else from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or to arrest a suspect
Obviously, having a shotgun pointed at you, you could reasonably assume you are in danger.
Also see post 27.
He certainly does. As do I have the right to shoot you if you point a weapon at me.
Pointing a shotgun at one would certainly give the feeling of danger.
Since when did anarchist's start posting on FR?
The right to keep and bear arms does NOT give you the right to use the weapon irresponsibly. It is irresponsible to threaten a person with the weapon. Answering the door with a weapon pointed at whoever is on the other side is THREATENING, no matter what time of day it is.The proper thing to do if you feel afraid of answering the door is NOT answer it.
Can anybody else find a link to another article on this?
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.