http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.s ... tatio.html

Police tell the TV station that Donald Meyer opened the door, then shut it, then reopened the door and exchanged words with Steele. He then pointed a loaded .223-caliber rifle that had been concealed near his side at Steele's chest, police said.

Steele then unholstered his handgun and fired one shot, which went through Donald Meyer's left arm and struck his daughter, who wa

s standing behind

Further sadness is reading the comments of those who had to add, embellish, or twist the story to indite the police officer.

This happened during an eviction. They owed less than $1,500 in back rent plus late fees.

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/01/pe ... ation.html

They should charge the father with manslaughter.

Sad. One more FUBAR situation with firearms.

They charged the father with the homicide committed by the constable.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/us/pennsy ... index.html

(CNN)The father of a 12-year-old has been charged with homicide after the girl was accidentally shot to death by a police constable in Pennsylvania, authorities said.

Ciara Meyer was killed by a police constable who was serving eviction papers at their apartment in Perry County on January 11.

Constable Clark Steele's action was justified, and he did not face any charges in the shooting, authorities said.

BKinzey wrote:Further sadness is reading the comments of those who had to add, embellish, or twist the story to indite the police officer.

You called that one right.

DispositionMatrix wrote:They charged the father with the homicide committed by the constable.

It's called the "Felony Murder Rule. The father was pointing a rifle at the constable's chest - a felony pretty much everywhere.

The guy with the rifle most likely had the drop on the officer and could have probably shot him first, but he didn't. He was just angry and upset about losing his home, and he was behaving stupidly. The cop had a choice, to kill the guy for daring to threaten him, or to back off and let things simmer down. He decided to be a tough guy and to try to kill him and he accidentally killed the man's daughter instead. Charging the man with his own daughter's homicide is offensive. It's not like he was using his daughter as a human shield, and he is in plenty of trouble already for pointing the rifle at the cop. What's the point?

SilasSoule wrote:The guy with the rifle most likely had the drop on the officer and could have probably shot him first, but he didn't. He was just angry and upset about losing his home, and he was behaving stupidly. The cop had a choice, to kill the guy for daring to threaten him, or to back off and let things simmer down. He decided to be a tough guy and to try to kill him and he accidentally killed the man's daughter instead. Charging the man with his own daughter's homicide is offensive. It's not like he was using his daughter as a human shield, and he is in plenty of trouble already for pointing the rifle at the cop. What's the point?

If you point a gun at a police officer, you deserve the consequences.

I'm sorry to say this, but your assertion that the cop could have just walked away is utterly baseless, just like your speculation that the rifle guy had the drop. If I were the cop and somebody is pointing a gun at me, the only thing I care about is to either make him or the gun drop.

Everybody has the right to be angry, but nobody has the right to point a gun at anyone other than in self defense.

As for the charge, if you are committing a crime resulting in anybody's death, you will be charged with murder even though you personally don't pull the trigger. That is standard. If three people rob a bank and one of them kills someone, all three are going to get a murder charge.

Loss of life is always a tragedy - with children even more so.

I'm curious though, if a distraught someone pointed a .223 at my chest and I drew my weapon and fired at him, would I be considered to be in "tough guy" mode?

If I pointed a weapon at a police officer, I (in a rational frame of mind) would expect to be shot dead.

SilasSoule wrote:The guy with the rifle most likely had the drop on the officer and could have probably shot him first, but he didn't. He was just angry and upset about losing his home, and he was behaving stupidly. The cop had a choice, to kill the guy for daring to threaten him, or to back off and let things simmer down. He decided to be a tough guy and to try to kill him and he accidentally killed the man's daughter instead. Charging the man with his own daughter's homicide is offensive. It's not like he was using his daughter as a human shield, and he is in plenty of trouble already for pointing the rifle at the cop. What's the point?

Pointing a firearm at anyone without a lawful reason is a felony assault. It is a clear demonstration of hostile intent.

This isn't a novel or a Hollywood script - "The shit got real" as we say in the vernacular when Meyer opened the door with weapon in hand. Bat, knife, or gun, same thing. He's the one who escalated the situation into an armed confrontation, not Steele.

Sad but clear. The cop's actions have nothing to do with being a tough guy and everything to do with not being deceased. Meyer should have been the only deceased party. People make mistakes but his actions, history of violence and involuntary commitment suggest he was a profoundly unfit parent. Permanently removing him from his daughter's life before he did more damage may have been best worst outcome.

Yeah, there's no "deciding to be a tough guy" in a situation like that, only split second reaction. The officer reacted exactly like he was and should be trained, by stopping a clear and deadly threat. Hesitating and backing away could very well have gotten him shot.

It's really sad the girl was hit but that's all on her father's decisions.

So when police officers pointed automatic weapons at unarmed protesters in Ferguson, were they charged with crimes? I don't believe so. Were the threatened ｐｒｏｔｅｓｔｅｒs then legally permitted to open fire on the officers who pointed weapons at them? I don't believe so.

SilasSoule wrote:So when police officers pointed automatic weapons at unarmed protesters in Ferguson, were they charged with crimes? I don't believe so. Were the threatened ｐｒｏｔｅｓｔｅｒs then legally permitted to open fire on the officers who pointed weapons at them? I don't believe so.

By "pointed" do you mean in the general direction or actually aiming? Anybody familiar with the rules of gun safety knows that you don't point your gun at anything you're not willing to destroy. If the protesters are coming from the west and the muzzle points east, it doesn't necessarily mean "pointed".

If protesters are throwing objects at cops, then the pointing is justified.

I do think the police can be heavy handed at times, and there are many cases where they were wrong, but in this particular instance your accusation is baseless.

SilasSoule wrote:So when police officers pointed automatic weapons at unarmed protesters in Ferguson, were they charged with crimes? I don't believe so. Were the threatened ｐｒｏｔｅｓｔｅｒs then legally permitted to open fire on the officers who pointed weapons at them? I don't believe so.

Totally unrelated incident. Has nothing to do with this so what's your point?

These officers are pointing rifles at this man. He fears for his life. Is he allowed to "neutralize the threat"?

No charges for LAPD officers who fired 103 shots at two unarmed women, wounding them both.

"When one of the women threw a newspaper onto the pavement in the early-morning hours, an officer believing the sound was a gunshot opened fire. Officers unable to see clearly into the truck sprayed it with 103 rounds, and hit seven nearby homes and nine other vehicles with gunshots and shotgun pellets."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/offi ... olice.html

At least six of these guys got fired after firing 137 shots killing two unarmed motorists, but no murder charges?

Six Cleveland police officers fired for fatal '137 shots' car chase in 2012

"In the end, the Justice Department said in its report, police cruisers surrounded Russell's car in a school parking lot in East Cleveland, and 13 officers fired 137 shots at the car; Russell and Williams were both struck more than 20 times each."

"The officers, who were firing on the car from all sides, reported believing that they were being fired at by the suspects," the Justice Department report stated. "It now appears that those shots were being fired by fellow officers."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... story.html

Seems like a huge double standard.

I see. Since the Police at a full blown riot points a gun at rioters, then in this incident the officer must have been the wrong party.

This is the perfect example of prejudice, which if directed toward any group based on religion, skin color, gender, etc. would be called bigotry. You know no more than us about the facts of the case, yet you assume the officer in Cleveland was wrong despite no evidence pointing to that conclusion, based on the action of cops in Ferguson.

I dislike people with prejudice, both on the left and the right. All cops are the same eh? Just like all Muslims?

SilasSoule,

I won't insult your intelligence by explaining why there's a legal difference between an identified LE officer pointing a weapon and a random citizen doing the same during a hostile confrontation with police. Do you propose to "level the playing field" legally? Removing threat of force from the law enforcement toolbox entirely? That would be an interesting social experiment but please wait until I retire overseas, as planned.

Your last post spun off into an unrelated topic so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Is "Ferguson!" becoming the left wing equivalent of "Benghazi!"?

Again, NOTHING to do with the situation in question.

The "playing field" gets leveled in the courtroom, Silas, not on the street. That's all there is to it - you can save the Yeahbutwhuddabout arguments for when you're King by Divine Right.

begemot wrote:SilasSoule,

I won't insult your intelligence by explaining why there's a legal difference between an identified LE officer pointing a weapon and a random citizen doing the same during a hostile confrontation with police. Do you propose to "level the playing field" legally? Removing threat of force from the law enforcement toolbox entirely? That would be an interesting social experiment but please wait until I retire overseas, as planned.

Your last post spun off into an unrelated topic so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Distraught man being evicted points rifle at officer, gets the death penalty (misapplied to an innocent bystander). Officers who actually opened fire on unarmed civilians are not charged with anything.

SilasSoule wrote:

begemot wrote:SilasSoule,



Distraught man being evicted points rifle at officer, gets the death penalty (misapplied to an innocent bystander). Officers who actually opened fire on unarmed civilians are not charged with anything.

Distraught man should never have pointed a rifle at anyone he didn't intend to shoot. His daughters tragic death is on him. The constable will (unfairly) have to live with the outcome as well. Total fault lies with distraught man who seemingly didn't posess the maturity of judgement to be allowed to handle weapons.

Officers opening up on unarmed protesters? Totally different dynamic at play there.

SilasSoule wrote:

begemot wrote:SilasSoule,

I won't insult your intelligence by explaining why there's a legal difference between an identified LE officer pointing a weapon and a random citizen doing the same during a hostile confrontation with police. Do you propose to "level the playing field" legally? Removing threat of force from the law enforcement toolbox entirely? That would be an interesting social experiment but please wait until I retire overseas, as planned.

Your last post spun off into an unrelated topic so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Distraught man being evicted points rifle at officer, gets the death penalty (misapplied to an innocent bystander). Officers who actually opened fire on unarmed civilians are not charged with anything.

So the officer has no right to defend himself when the distraught man points the gun at him? Simply by being an officer he has to accept the death penalty visited upon him by the distraught man? Without the gift of clairvoyance how could the officer know that the guy wasn't going to shoot?

Again, you have nothing other than speculation to support your opinion than the guy wouldn't have shot the officer.

I mean, in what world did he live in where pointing a gun to a cop first is acceptable?

We as a society agree that having a police force is better than letting each person administer his own justice. The police is not (and never going to be) perfect, but history has proven that it works better than vigilante justice. As part of the job they are authorized to arrest and point guns at people first. If they have the exact same role as other civilians, then there's no point of having cops.

If you think cops are unnecessary, then we have nothing more to talk about. I'm not a fan of libertarianism, I like her big sister anarchy even less.