United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Officer Admitted He 'F***ed Up' After Fatally Shooting an Unarmed Man
Source:
Reason
URL Source: http://reason.com/blog/2018/08/09/o ... o-fatally-shot-unarmed-man-tol
Published: Aug 9, 2018
Author: Joe Setyon
Post Date: 2018-08-10 06:49:18 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1118
Comments: 8
Not long after fatally shooting an unarmed man, a Pennsylvania police officer reportedly admitted to a fellow cop at the scene that he "fucked up." South Whitehall Township Police Officer Jonathan Roselle was charged with involuntary manslaughter on Tuesday, less than two weeks after the July 28 shooting. The 33-year-old U.S. Army veteran had only been a cop for about six months when the shooting occurred. Prior to the shooting, Roselle was monitoring traffic when a "hysterical and frantic" woman pulled up alongside his police car, according to Lehigh County District Attorney Jim Martin. The woman told Roselle that a man had attempted to break into her car. ABC News recounts what happened next: Roselle then encountered a bleeding man walking on the street, and the man banged on his car and jumped on the hood, Martin said. After that, Roselle reported the incident over radio—saying that the man may have mental issues—and issued several commands for the man to get off the vehicle and step away. Martin says the man—44-year-old Joseph Santos—started walking away but then turned around, refusing Roselle's orders to get on the ground. According to Martin, Santos said, "Don't do it," before Roselle shot at him five times. Santos was taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Roselle, meanwhile, told at least one fellow officer at the scene that he "fucked up" and "didn't know what to do," Martin says. According to the district attorney, there's no reason to believe race played a factor. But he believes the shooting was still unjustified. "This was the act of a relatively inexperienced officer, who held a subjective fear for his own safety, but made a decision which objectively was unreasonable in light of the facts as they existed and appeared at the time he discharged his weapon and killed Mr. Santos," Martin says. "[Santos] was not running or rushing," Martin adds in a statement. "He did not have anything visible in his hands; he was not clenching his fists; he did not present a threatening posture." Roselle's attorney, on the other hand, says the "deadly force" his client used was "justified and appropriate." Roselle was released on bail and has been placed on paid leave by the South Whitehall Township Police Department. As I noted yesterday, that's not a particularly surprising short-term fate, given that getting paid not to work is a pretty common "consequence" for officers involved in controversial shootings. What is surprising is that Roselle was charged so quickly. In fact, just 90 police officers involved in fatal shootings have faced criminal charges since 2005, according to Bowling Green State University professor Phil Stinson (there have been 613 officer-involved fatal shootings so far in 2018 alone). Of those 90, just 32 have actually been convicted. Roughly half of those convictions resulted from guilty pleas. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
As the cop is a public employee with a property interest in his job, he cannot be fired without due process, i.e., a fair hearing and an opportunity to be heard. As it would be unlawful to fire him without said due process, the lawful choices are to return him to duty with pay, or to place him on administrative leave with pay. They placed him on administrative leave with pay. Would you prefer the only other legal alternative, returning him immediately to duty with pay? Have all these writers you find gone to some special school for the gifted?
Um... Dicktard doesn’t believe in “due process” for cops.
I do wonder sometimes how these propadangists can find so many writers or stenographers who appear, or make believe, that they do not know about the notice and right to be heard. They would all have to be dumber than the dumbest union steward on the planet. Just to document the obvious that all but the yellowist of stenographers knows about, there is Loudermill, which gave rise to the terms Loudermill Letter and "Loudermill Hearing." Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 US 532, 542 (1985) Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 US 532, 546 (1985) - - - - - - - - - -
There are no replies to Comment # 4. End Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestRoselle was released on bail and has been placed on paid leave by the South Whitehall Township Police Department. As I noted yesterday, that's not a particularly surprising short-term fate, given that getting paid not to work is a pretty common "consequence" for officers involved in controversial shootings.
#3. To: nolu chan (#2)
#4. To: GrandIsland (#3)
Um... Dicktard doesn’t believe in “due process” for cops.
An essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, or property "be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case." Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). We have described "the root requirement" of the Due Process Clause as being "that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest." 1 Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371, 379 (1971) (emphasis in original); see Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535, 542 (1971). This principle requires "some kind of a hearing" prior to the discharge of an employee who has a constitutionally protected property interest in his employment. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S., at 569-570; Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 599 (1972). As we pointed out last Term, this rule has been settled for some time now. Davis v. Scherer, 468 U. S. 183, 192, n. 10 (1984); id., at 200-203 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Even decisions finding no constitutional violation in termination procedures have relied on the existence of some pretermination opportunity to respond.
The essential requirements of due process, and all that respondents seek or the Court of Appeals required, are notice and an opportunity to respond. The opportunity to present reasons, either in person or in writing, why proposed action should not be taken is a fundamental due process requirement. See Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing," 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1281 (1975). The tenured public employee is entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story.
Replies to Comment # 4.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]