Lawmakers hope to change Pennsylvania’s rules on police shootings | TribLIVE.com
Pennsylvania

Lawmakers hope to change Pennsylvania’s rules on police shootings

Associated Press
1034149_web1_AP_19071510696316
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. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)
1034149_web1_ptr-rosegallery11-031019
Photos of for Antwon Rose Jr. were carried by marchers on Fifth Avenue during Pittsburgh’s Juneteenth Parade from Freedom Corner in the Hill District to Point State Park, Saturday, 23, 2018. The parade served as an outlet for the crowd to protest East Pittsburgh police officer Michael Rosfeld’s fatal shooting of 17-year-old Antwon Rose, a Woodland Hills High School honors student.

HARRISBURG — A group of Democrats in the General Assembly said Tuesday shootings by police show the need to change the rules for when Pennsylvania officers can use deadly force and to reform their oversight and training.

Members of the Legislative Black Caucus outlined a legislative agenda that would also include appointing special prosecutors to investigate police shootings. Another proposal would limit the power of arbitrators in police discipline matters.

Several spoke of concerns about the fatal shooting last year of an unarmed black teen by a white police officer who was subsequently acquitted of homicide.

A lawyer for the family of Antwon Rose II, who was shot in the back as he ran from an officer, has attributed the verdict to Pennsylvania’s law on the use of force by police, a law he believes is unconstitutional.

The use of force legislation, said Rep. Summer Lee, D-Allegheny, will require de-escalation and nonlethal force options before lethal force is allowed when making an arrest. Lethal force could only be justified to prevent imminent threat to life.

The proposals are being drafted and could face tough questions in the Republican-controlled Legislature.

House Republican caucus spokesman Mike Straub said police or elected officials who abuse power or commit crimes should be held accountable.

“Our members are willing to engage in worthy discussions over how those who abuse power are held accountable, but not at the expense of unfairly burdening the men and women who are willing to make their own sacrifices to keep us safe,” Straub said.

Officer Michael Rosfeld had pulled over the vehicle in which Rose was a passenger because he correctly believed it may have been involved in a drive-by shooting nearby.

Rosfeld defense attorney Patrick Thomassey considered the state’s lethal force law the key to the case.

“We have to give the police the right to shoot people, we need to do that,” Thomassey said. “And there are certain circumstances where they’re justified in doing that.”

Lindsay Vaughan, executive director of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, said Pennsylvania law on the use of deadly force by police meets state and federal constitutional requirements, and like most other states requires a reasonable belief in the possibility of death or serious bodily injury.

“Pennsylvania’s use of force laws strike the necessary and appropriate balance between the constitutional rights of every person and the very real need of law enforcement to protect the community, as well as themselves and their fellow officers when in the line of duty,” Vaughan said.

Pennsylvania law says police may also use deadly force if they reasonably believe it will prevent a suspect from resisting or escaping arrest and that the suspect has committed or tried to commit a “forcible felony” or has a deadly weapon and is trying to escape.

Police and correctional officers may use deadly force to prevent a prisoner from escaping, if they have the same concerns about possible death or bodily harm to themselves or others. They can also use deadly force if it would be required “to prevent the apprehension from being defeated by resistance” and if the escapee has been convicted of a forcible felony or has a deadly weapon.

Deadly force can only be used to prevent suicide or the commission of a crime, under Pennsylvania law, if an officer thinks there’s a “substantial risk” a suspect will harm or kill someone and the use of force does not put third parties at risk. Deadly force can also be deployed under those circumstances if an officer thinks it’s needed to suppress a riot or mutiny, and rioters or mutineers have been told to disperse and warned force will be used if they do not.

Pennsylvania Superior Court in 1990 interpreted the law to say “the statute is not to be read to allow deadly force to be used against a person who poses no threat to human life or safety.”

Categories: News | Pennsylvania | Top Stories
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.