Submitted by OaSoaD t3_11wtzl6 in pittsburgh
Comments
BurghPuppies t1_jd0vcfi wrote
Seems unlikely they’ll actually pursue the death penalty, they know that makes convictions more complicated. Most likely using the threat of it for a plea to life instead.
uglybushes t1_jd0abil wrote
I like dbl down and more death penalties and completing them under a 2 year period
IamChantus t1_jd1v4b8 wrote
Alright douchebag, I'll engage.
Why do you feel it's ok to have state sanctioned executions of innocents in a timely fashion just to make sure the guilty are killed?
his_purple_majesty t1_jd1xxlp wrote
> Alright douchebag
I bet they totally want to have a reasonable discussion with you now.
IamChantus t1_jd24ex1 wrote
Not like they were trying to have one in the first place.
his_purple_majesty t1_jd24hz5 wrote
Why? Because they expressed an opinion you don't agree with?
Avocado_Amnesia t1_jd2k2zc wrote
When their opinion is "quickly murder our incarcerated" I think it's okay to treat them as at least somewhat unreasonable.
his_purple_majesty t1_jd4llvt wrote
Some people actually have that opinion. Maybe you could change their mind if you approached them in some other way than "alright douchebag."
I'm against the death penalty, even if we could be 100% certain that person were guilty.
IamChantus t1_jd3fs8c wrote
For the most part it seems, folk that post edge lord stuff seem to just want to stir the pot, not actually engage in a reasonable discussion.
While I could be wrong with this user, odds are I am not.
uglybushes t1_jd27u4j wrote
How many people are proven innocent after years of appeals?
MorningTimes t1_jd2j65w wrote
MORE THAN ONE
IamChantus t1_jd3ajql wrote
The overall success rate of appeals is between 7%-20% depending on the year. Proven innocent is lower I'm sure, but not zero.
Onlyroad4adrifter t1_jd01w3x wrote
With the exception of repeat pedophiles.
therealpigman t1_jd05fjn wrote
No exceptions. Life in prison can be worse than death anyway, and there’s a chance the person can actually repent and become a better person
headpsu t1_jd0rmno wrote
The problem with the death penalty isn’t that convicted criminals won’t have the chance to repent and better themselves.
The real horror of the death penalty is that innocent people get convicted of crimes they didn’t commit. Death is absolute. You can’t commute a sentence and award damages to a wrongfully convicted person if you kill them.
The system is flawed, it’s is created and run by humans who are flawed, and we know some unacceptable amount of innocent people are in prison. Some of those people are on death row.
I would rather have all of the atrocious criminals, spend life in prison, than have one innocent person committed to death. that innocent person could be your coworker, or childhood friend, or sibling, or you…. or your child.
Until our criminal justice system can operate at 100% effectiveness, the permanency of a death sentence is unacceptable.
[deleted] t1_jd1xzkw wrote
[deleted]
where_is_the_key t1_jd0ojfw wrote
That’s quite the hope in our prison system lmao Maybe if we focused on prevention & rehabilitation instead of punishment we would get more people that become better. But a life prison sentence isn’t gonna do that either Bc it’s still more of a punishment than a rehabilitation lol
Onlyroad4adrifter t1_jd1kebj wrote
There is no reforming a child predator. They are the worst kind of human possible.
IamChantus t1_jd1v6me wrote
Yeah, repent is totally the wrong word for an area with Zubik as the Bishop.
Healthy_Artichoke_97 t1_jd0fwoo wrote
We will kill a veteran with mental health problems but give a cop a raise and paid time off when they wrongly kill us. This country is amazing definitely (not) proud to be an American for sure. Can’t kneel for a flag in protest of this shit but we can sentence them to death for denying them help and treatment and sending them off to fight in senseless wars that started all of this
charlieshammer t1_jd1hojo wrote
A jury of his peers will take all that into account before they decide to sentence him to death or not.
IamChantus t1_jd1vb0n wrote
My 2¢ is that reasonable doubt is too low a bar, incontrovertible truth should be the standard for death penalty.
TheApprentice19 t1_jd0qo5u wrote
Cop shoot’s man, paid administrative leave. Man shoots cop, death penalty. This seems problematic.
trs21219 t1_jd14tvp wrote
Cops get paid administrative leave while the investigation is going on. Because its unjust to not pay them for weeks/months when they could have very well acted appropriately, legally and within policy. What you fail to mention here though is that if a cop is found guilty of a crime when a shooting occurs, they have to pay that paid leave money back.
Also, there are 2 investigations that happen when a shooting occurs. The first is the criminal investigation, where the officer has 5th amendment rights. Only after that one is over do they proceed with the internal employer investigation where the officer has to give a full statement and that statement is compared against other statements, bodycam, etc to determine if they violated policy and should be fired. The second can only happen after the first due to the 5th amendment rights of the officer in a criminal investigation.
MeetTheTwinAndreBen t1_jd1fnh4 wrote
Lol ok, if I kill someone at work I don’t get to go on paid vacation until they sort out the details of what happened
trs21219 t1_jd1g5m7 wrote
I would imagine your job doesn’t send you into situations on a regular basis where you might have to kill someone.
No one would want to be a cop if they could be without a paycheck for months for doing the right thing in a dangerous situation.
You seem to be focusing on the bad instances but there are plenty where a cop shoots someone who is pointing a gun at them or someone else and it’s totally justified. Should they be without pay for months until the investigations, grand jury decision and employment investigation is concluded?
[deleted] t1_jd1sa55 wrote
[deleted]
BurghPuppies t1_jd0v56i wrote
It also seems like two different issues. Giving the suspect life won’t bring back victims killed by cops, and putting cops in jail won’t bring back this officer. Keep your eye on the ball.
unenlightenedgoblin t1_jd0vneg wrote
Killing the guy also won’t bring back the officer…just increases the total body count from the incident
BurghPuppies t1_jd0wm4d wrote
I totally agree. I’m not for the death penalty. But I understand why it’s there. It’s the public’s desire to have the last word.
LeibnizThrowaway t1_jd1b5jf wrote
You misspelled "play God."
BurghPuppies t1_jd2eao9 wrote
Yup. “That’ll show ‘em”.
[deleted] t1_jd02ce7 wrote
[deleted]
dshd66 t1_jd05huw wrote
Zappala is a cunt
myhouseisabanana t1_jd082s0 wrote
I'm pretty much just against the death penalty in general except in really rare cases. Neither of these fit for me.
embssly t1_jd0csk0 wrote
As long as we have the death penalty it will always be enacted in an unfair way because we have an unfair system. Imo it should no longer be used in the U.S.
PoorGuyCrypto t1_jd0jfe1 wrote
Eh. Calvin Crew is about as clear cut a case of, "if we're going to even have a death penalty - this is who it's for" as we're going to see.
If we're not going to kill him, then just end the damn death penalty altogether.
askmeaboutmysciatica t1_jd0k68c wrote
Agreed
PersonalAd2039 t1_jd0aovk wrote
Ambushing a public servant doesn’t make the cut?
What exactly does??
myhouseisabanana t1_jd0ep71 wrote
Some sort of mass casualty event I think. I don't really know. I more or less lean towards no death penalty but would possibly reserve the right.
PersonalAd2039 t1_jd0gq41 wrote
Gotcha. Got me thinking some. Genuinely curious. Is there a number when it because “mass” enough?
This guy attempted to kill two other officers including shooting one in the face.
myhouseisabanana t1_jd0hqak wrote
It's more than two.
That's a heinous crime and I'm fine with him being locked up forever.
RedModsSuck t1_jd0imat wrote
Come on, this is reddit. "Defund the racist police!!!" followed by "Why is crime so bad downtown?"
not28 t1_jd05msz wrote
That cops > citizens I guess? Something tells me that isn't the narrative you were looking for.
the_real_xuth t1_jd0gj5i wrote
The fact that the DA sees the police as more important than those people who are not police is really fucked up, regardless of any other biases and prejudices they might have. And this disgusting relationship causes issues in lots of manners. This includes:
- It means that an action against a police officer (including many things that are not criminal) is treated much more harshly, often in a retaliatory manner rather than merely upholding justice and maintaining the peace while crimes against others are often ignored. And it's not uncommon for someone to have great injustices done to them because too many police officers take a person asserting their basic rights as a personal affront.
- when police commit crimes their actions are routinely ignored or just given extremely gentle treatment.
- The DA and police often see each other as partners in attempting to get convictions for the DA rather than the true job of the investigatory role of police which is to investigate potential crimes in an unbiased manner. And while it is a criminal action for a DA to withhold exculpatory evidence, this "partnership" routinely sees police turning a blind eye towards evidence in favor of the accused and so the DA never has it in their possession to withhold.
anonymouspoliticker t1_jd0mrrf wrote
Violent crimes against peace officers are indeed prosecuted more harshly, not because of the DA, but because those are the statutes on the books federally and in literally every state
the_real_xuth t1_jd0p5rv wrote
Except I wasn't talking about how they were sentenced.
throwaway01002030405 t1_jd0dwou wrote
The death penalty is immoral, anyway. Trying to parse the circumstances when it would apply is a waste of time.
mainelinerzzzzz t1_jd0ko9m wrote
Yep. Don’t kill!, you kill someone? Let’s kill you. Huh?
SmellView42069 t1_jd0kbsy wrote
Cops showing up for other cops and saying screw everyone else. Nothing new here.
Important_Tip_9704 t1_jd0ckii wrote
Good point. But I don’t think that we need to equivocate for the cop killer’s actions in order to recognize that the priorities of the prosecutors are fucked up. Death penalty should have been sought for in both cases.
sparrowmint t1_jd0jbam wrote
The woman was working class from a lower income area.
Cops exist to defend monied interests. They're more valuable to those in power.
Death penalty shouldn't exist regardless.
not28 t1_jd05nfy wrote
That cops > citizens I guess?
Or wait, that isn't the narrative you were going for.
RedModsSuck t1_jd0iiz1 wrote
Both should get the permanent cure for criminal behavior.
kaitb1103 t1_jczxbmy wrote
Cool cool. So we’re just going after our veterans with mental health issues now?
I realize that this is nothing new and our veterans already don’t receive the amount of support they should be
Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_jczynm7 wrote
The failure of the system is that nobody picked up Morris sooner. He's been making shooting threats (and very credible ones) for weeks leading up to the incident.
But, him being a Veteran has nothing to do with anything. He was stationed in North Carolina for a bit, he never saw any combat.
kaitb1103 t1_jczyyk7 wrote
He’s a man with severe mental health problems. ‘veteran suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder’.
Instead of focusing on helping PTSD and mental health sufferers, we’d rather seek the death penalty? That’s beyond backwards.
Monkeyswine t1_jd00ag6 wrote
The time to help him was before he killed someone. Either way, he was still responsible for his actions.
kaitb1103 t1_jd00lxh wrote
But is death really the answer here for this particular instance?
Killing someone in a premeditated murder is one thing. Killing someone while you’re going through a mental health episode is another. At least- I can see the distinction and think it should be vastly different repercussions.
CARLEtheCamry t1_jd01gg6 wrote
The last person executed in this state was in 1999. The death penalty in PA is just a life-sentence with expensive appeals to virtue signal from the DA to Police that he is "on their side".
MeetTheTwinAndreBen t1_jd1fi3x wrote
Yeah. If Poplawski didn’t get the death penalty idk how they could argue for it in this case?
Monkeyswine t1_jd03ugz wrote
I am against the death penalty too but it isn't likely in PA anyway. He committed premeditated murder. I dont care if he is a veteran and i dont care if he was having a mental health issue. He is beyond help at this point.
AntiStatistYouth t1_jd04w3w wrote
Where are you getting the premeditated murder stuff from? From the article, it sounds like he thought the police were going to kill him, so he shot them.
Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_jd05n0w wrote
He had been threatening to go on a shooting spree for weeks.
AntiStatistYouth t1_jd06m2m wrote
First, where is that in the article?
Second, ranting about going on a shooting spree would be a clear indication of a mental health disorder, not premeditation of a specific murder.
extrahandgrenades t1_jd07nez wrote
That’s the reason Police we’re even there. They were conducting a welfare check after he called an out of state credit union threatening to go on a killing spree.
AntiStatistYouth t1_jd0a6k6 wrote
Again, first, where is that in any of that in the public reporting?
If he called an "out of state credit unit" (not sure what that is, but anyway...) threatening to go on a killing spree, that is not premeditating killing a police officer who he believed was trying to run him down with his patrol car and then shoot him:
>Kinavey said Morris alleged that police tried twice to hit him with a car, and he racked his gun to try to scare them off, and when that didn't work he fired twice into the vehicle. After being wounded, he said he feared a third officer who was approaching was “out for blood” and fired after the officer reached for his gun, Kinavey said.
extrahandgrenades t1_jd0ax5j wrote
It was publicly reported.
First degree murder of a law enforcement officer (18 PAC.S 2507A) is the “intentional killing of a law enforcement officer while in the performance of duty knowing the victim is a law enforcement officer.” There is no premeditation required. Simply the intentional killing when there is no reasonable belief that the killing would otherwise be justified (there’s legally specific criteria for what Pennsylvania law considers justified homicide, found in 18 PA Chapter 5).
AntiStatistYouth t1_jd0c2hh wrote
Excellent. The guy called Navy Federal Credit Union threatening to go on a shooting spree at their branches. That is unequivocally not premeditation of the murder of the police officer. It is an entirely different crime and a clear indication that the man was mentally ill.
Now moving on to the event in question:
>Authorities have said that officers were called to a home over a dispute involving a man who police said was having a “mental health crisis.” Police allege they caught up with him after he walked away, and he “suddenly produced a handgun" and shot them. Officer Sean Sluganski, 32, was killed and another officer was wounded.
>
>Authorities said Morris, wounded in the leg by return fire, ran to a parking lot and told two people he had been shot and needed help. Authorities say a witness putting a tourniquet on his leg reported seeing Morris pull a handgun and point it at an approaching officer, and an exchange of gunfire wounded the suspect.
>
>Detective Patrick Kinavey testified Friday during a preliminary hearing that Morris told him three days after the shooting that he didn’t remember shooting at Sluganski and only opened fire after racking his gun wasn’t enough to scare the officers off.
The guy was clearly mentally ill, paranoid and dangerous. Sending armed men to his house just reinforced his paranoia and resulted in tragedy. He needed a social worker and therapist, not a cop.
extrahandgrenades t1_jd0ck7g wrote
Premeditation is not required for First Degree Murder of a Law Enforcement Officer.
AntiStatistYouth t1_jd0d8mc wrote
Ok, I wasn't discussing "First Degree Murder of a Law Enforcement Officer" specifically, just premeditation, but we can discuss the charges as well, if you'd like.
extrahandgrenades t1_jd0h4qw wrote
There’s really no reason to carry on discussing whether it was premeditated or not since it isn’t a legal requisite for Johnathan Morris’ first degree murder charge. It’s a moot point.
He can use his PTSD as a legal defense, but in order to use PTSD as an affirmative insanity defense he has to prove that he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of what he was doing.
He knew that pointing a gun at police officers and racking the slide was threatening, because he knew what the gun was capable of. That means he knew what firing it would do, so mens rea exists.
AntiStatistYouth t1_jd0ic3f wrote
See other post for why manslaughter is the appropriate charge.
extrahandgrenades t1_jd0krvg wrote
It doesn’t meet the criteria for any of those subsections.
(c)(1)(i) Police presence alone does not warrant “serious provocation by the victim killed.” Officers were there for a legitimate reason - a named complainant called 911 concerning the safety of one or more people. The Allegheny County District Attorney reported, “neither Sluganski nor Thomas had drawn their weapons when they approached Morris on Monday.” This is not serious provocation.
(c)(1)(ii) He did not negligently kill Sean Sluganski in the course of defending himself from serious provocation by another person.
(c)(2) His actions are not justified under any of the Chapter 5 sections pertaining to self-defense.
AntiStatistYouth t1_jd0dwgl wrote
The appropriate charge is not "First Degree Murder of a Law enforcement Officer": § 2507. Criminal homicide of law enforcement officer. (a) Murder of a law enforcement officer of the first degree.-
but is actually c) Manslaughter of a law enforcement officer in the first degree.-
>(c) Manslaughter of a law enforcement officer in the first degree.--A person commits a felony in the first degree who does any of the following:
>
>(1) Without lawful justification kills a law enforcement officer while in the performance of duty and with knowledge that the victim was a law enforcement officer, if at the time of the killing:
>
>(i) the person is acting under a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation by the victim killed; or
>
>(ii) the person is acting under a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation by another individual whom the actor endeavors to kill, but the person negligently or accidentally causes the death of the victim.
>
>(2) Intentionally or knowingly kills a law enforcement officer while in the performance of duty and with knowledge that the victim was a law enforcement officer, if at the time of the killing the person believes the circumstances to be such that, if they existed, would justify the killing under Chapter 5 (relating to general principles of justification), but his belief is unreasonable.
Specifically, because of subsection (2). The man's mental state is a factor in determining the appropriateness of the charge. If he were indeed having a mental health crisis and believed that the officer's were trying to kill him, manslaughter is actually the appropriate charge.
extrahandgrenades t1_jd0vato wrote
18 PaC.S 505 Use of Force in Self Protection
Limitations on justifying necessity of use of force:
- 18 PaC.S 505(b)(1)(i) - The use of force is not justifiable under this section; to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful.
- 18 PaC.S 505(b)(2) - The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.
Johnathan Morris was not under arrest and neither officer had their weapons drawn when they approached Morris. Under Chapter 5, it was not lawful to use any force against McKeesport Officers even if they were affecting an arrest and there was no possible way that, even in crisis, he could articulate that his belief that Officers were trying to kill him was reasonable.
There is no self-defense justification for his actions.
[deleted] t1_jd0tcpm wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jd02ueo wrote
[deleted]
AntiStatistYouth t1_jd04dlf wrote
>According to the criminal complaint, Morris had told two witnesses that "the police were trying to kill him" and asked that they film him as he walked down Grandview Avenue toward Versailles Avenue.
>
>Officers encountered him in front of 1300 Grandview Ave. "The suspect suddenly produced a handgun and shot the two McKeesport officers," Kearns said.
He might have been paranoid and in need of mental health services, but that sounds like a man acting in what he believed to be self-defense, not one premeditating murder. He thought the police were out to kill him.
extrahandgrenades t1_jd09l3y wrote
Premeditation isn’t a required element for any of the charges on his docket.
CARLEtheCamry t1_jd0164t wrote
> he never saw any combat.
So while I agree that maybe the term PTSD is maybe overused, just because he hasn't seen combat doesn't mean he didn't have it. The way it is presented in the article and criminal complaint may imply that his PTSD is from military service, but who knows.
Edit : That it is in the criminal complaint makes it seem to me that it's a legitimate confirmed diagnosis. Not a "someone cut in front of me at Sizzler and now I have PTSD" kind of situation.
dmcd0415 t1_jd0dhx2 wrote
Is that the Chance At A Better Life* ™️ they're always peddling?
*YMMV
babyyodaisamazing98 t1_jd0m4pz wrote
How about we do the cops killing civilians first then we can talk.
h3mip3nultim4te t1_jd0vegc wrote
“DA to make last ditch effort at winning election.”
whip_m3_grandma t1_jd10xzg wrote
How is the narrative so warped this guy isn’t accountable for his actions because he’s a veteran? How is PTSD in any way excuse murdering a police officer? Don’t agree with death penalty but this guy should be institutionalized and then imprisoned when mentally well.
[deleted] t1_jd16jlo wrote
[deleted]
whip_m3_grandma t1_jd468xy wrote
Did you read my comment?
gucci_gucci_gu t1_jd12ci5 wrote
Boooo
mainelinerzzzzz t1_jd0jvpa wrote
Why bother, give him life without parole and be done with him.
[deleted] t1_jd00xtt wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jd0602w wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jd0sn5o wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jd0vhe3 wrote
[deleted]
montani t1_jd0l0oz wrote
I think there should be life sentences with a voluntary death penalty. Like, you kill someone you’re in jail forever but you can opt for lethal injection instead. The death penalty as it stands in too costly, unfair, and something from the Stone Age.
Dookiedoodoohead t1_jd0n6qh wrote
That would do nothing to solve the established issues surrounding the death penalty. Life in prison is already a nightmare with virtually no practical safeguards from systemic abuse. There's nothing to stop anyone from being coerced or "convinced" into a choice.
Imagine this guy gets the "death if you want it" penalty". The guy becomes marked and is known to the C.O.s as "the guy we can legally kill if we make his life miserable enough".
If that sounds good to you, then I mean sure, great plan. But you're just adding more steps to the process in order to create an illusion so we can pretend we're somehow progressing in criminal justice.
montani t1_jd15tvk wrote
How so? The issues are that innocent people get put to death and the appeals process takes forever and costs way more than imprisoning someone for life. If it’s opt in then it’s just prisoners who want to die. I’m not sure what any of that has to do with systematic prison abuse.
anatoli_smolin t1_jd28rk2 wrote
To me I see an immediate problem of COs purposely making inmates’ lives miserable for the sake of coercion to take the death penalty. There is already rampant abuse within the prison system, imagine if someone who was already an abuser suddenly had the option to torment someone as much as they wanted to because the person could eventually just choose suicide if they don’t want to put up with abuse anymore. At least that’s the way I see it.
burritoace t1_jd2a445 wrote
If CO staffs are full of people like this who are itching to kill someone (entirely possible, I don't know) then we've got big problems and maintaining the death penalty as is would surely be a mistake.
anatoli_smolin t1_jd2c4tx wrote
Yes you are confirming exactly what I said. It is a systemic issue.
bill_pgh t1_jczwmts wrote
Abolish the death penalty.