Jury foreman in Rosfeld trial says ex-cop ‘has a right to do what he did’ | TribLIVE.com

Jury foreman in Rosfeld trial says ex-cop ‘has a right to do what he did’

Paul Guggenheimer
Former East Pittsburgh police officer Michael Rosfeld, charged with homicide in the shooting death of Antwon Rose II, arrives at the Dauphin County Courthouse in Harrisburg, Pa., Tuesday, March 12, 2019.
Former East Pittsburgh police officer Michael Rosfeld became emotional when he took the stand in his own defense during the third day of his trial.

Jesse Rawls Sr. believes Antwon Rose II would be alive today had he not run from police.

“When someone jumps out of a car that you know was just involved in a drive-by shooting, would you assume that they’re not armed?” said Rawls, the foreman of the jury from Dauphin County that acquitted former East Pittsburgh police Officer Michael Rosfeld. “All those things came into play.”

Rawls, 72, said Rosfeld’s homicide trial was not a complex case. In a phone interview Monday with the Tribune-Review, he said acquitting Rosfeld was the right decision based on the evidence.

A judge ruled to select a jury from outside of Allegheny County because of intense pretrial publicity.

Rawls said Rosfeld was justified in shooting Rose, 17, based largely on Rose’s involvement in a drive-by shooting earlier that evening. He said Rosfeld made a felony traffic stop and tried to gain control of the situation with three people in the car.

“When there’s a felony stop, that’s high alert,” Rawls said. “You have to stop the person. We came up with the fact that he (Rosfeld) has a right to do what he did.”

Rawls, one of three black people on the jury, said some jurors were concerned that Rose was unarmed. He countered that Rosfeld would not have known that at the time of the June 19 traffic stop.

Rawls said the Pennsylvania law that police officers are justified in using force when they believe it is necessary to prevent death or serious injury to themselves or others was a big factor in the jury’s decision. Rosfeld’s testimony also played a part in convincing the jury of his innocence.

“When he got on the stand and he talked, I could see that he was terribly upset,” Rawls said. “You have to follow the rule of the law. He said ‘I saw his (Rose’s) hand and I thought he had a gun. And I shot.’’’

Rawls said he believes that even an all-black jury would have come to the same conclusion as the mostly white jury did in this case.

“If they went in with the same thought process that I had, they would. If they went in with a clear mind and listened to the evidence and followed the guidelines, they would have,” he said.

The jury could have convicted Rosfeld of either first-degree murder, third-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter.

After the verdict was read Friday, many in the Pittsburgh community reacted angrily and protested in the streets. Rawls understands the reaction.

“Being an African-American and having young sons, I understand exactly,” he said. “ And you ask yourself all the time: ‘Why is it a white police officer is always shooting black boys?’ But that wasn’t the first incident that Antwon was involved in.”

Rawls said he has gotten feedback about the verdict from people he knows. Not all of it has been positive.

“A couple of my friends said: ‘Why didn’t you convict him?’” said Rawls. “I said: ‘I can’t, I couldn’t’ and after I explained it to them they understood. And when I explained it to my son, he said he understood. He said ‘I would have done the same thing (Rosfeld) did.’”

Paul Guggenheimer is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Paul at 724-226-7706 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.