A unarmed college student was fatally shot by a Pennsylvania police officer

So where are the protests/March Ben Crump? Mom Dad on CNN with lawyer screaming for justice

You know why protests/marches and Ben Crump are nowhere to be seen, don't you?

Likewise Mom & Dad on CNN with lawyer screaming for justice.
 
Dumb thread. Kid mistakenly was at the wrong house, banging on the back door, yelling for someone to let him in. He was taken for a thug. If there's a political angle to this tragedy it's in your imagination.
Actually, the OP poster aside, I think the thread can be very relevant. Go back to the rhetoric after the George Floyd killing. There were people who thought cops were killing unarmed black people every day when the numbers show something very different. In fact, more unarmed white people get killed by the cops than black people (though unarmed black people are killed by the cops on a higher percentage basis).

Now does Ben Crump have to go represent this family? Of course not. But for those who speak out against police brutality (and specifically the shooting of unarmed people) it reasons it would be beneficial to speak out against basically all cop shootings of unarmed people if the ultimate goal is to reduce them.
 
So he deserved to be shoot because he was "taken for a thug". St. George of Fentanyl wasnt a thug though right?
the rush to judgement makes no sense to me

how did he respond to the incident when confronted for tresspassing? Until I know, I see no reason to jump to conclusions
 




The shot heard 'round the world...
 
Actually, the OP poster aside, I think the thread can be very relevant. Go back to the rhetoric after the George Floyd killing. There were people who thought cops were killing unarmed black people every day when the numbers show something very different. In fact, more unarmed white people get killed by the cops than black people (though unarmed black people are killed by the cops on a higher percentage basis).

Now does Ben Crump have to go represent this family? Of course not. But for those who speak out against police brutality (and specifically the shooting of unarmed people) it reasons it would be beneficial to speak out against basically all cop shootings of unarmed people if the ultimate goal is to reduce them.
There is a difference in the cases. In the present case the victim was aggressive, or appeared to be. He was banging on a back door and yelling to be let in. Probably he was just horsing around but it was alarming conduct for the stranger he seemed to be to those inside.
 
There is a difference in the cases. In the present case the victim was aggressive, or appeared to be. He was banging on a back door and yelling to be let in. Probably he was just horsing around but it was alarming conduct for the stranger he seemed to be to those inside.
Look at the Mike Brown case. The guy attacked a cop, yet his shooting helped fuel an entire movement based on the claim that the shooting wasn't justified.
 
One side of a contested long ago story.
Obama's Justice Department investigated it and said Brown attacked Wilson and went for his gun.

So if I'm understanding your position correctly, and please tell me if I'm not, that this was justified because the kid was pounding on someone's door then how can attacking an officer and going for their gun be viewed any differently?
 
Obama's Justice Department investigated it and said Brown attacked Wilson and went for his gun.

So if I'm understanding your position correctly, and please tell me if I'm not, that this was justified because the kid was pounding on someone's door then how can attacking an officer and going for their gun be viewed any differently?
I said it was a panic shooting, therefore understandable in a way it wouldn't otherwise be. Whether it was legally justified is a different question. Is the cop guilty of murder? I doubt it. Could the parents win a civil case alleging negligent homicide. They well might. But the shooting wasn't so outrageous as to warrant angry demonstrations of police misconduct. It has more an appearance of tragedy. You have your facts mixed up in the Brown case. Brown was shot long after the gun grabbing incident in the car.
 
Last edited:
Dumb thread. Kid mistakenly was at the wrong house, banging on the back door, yelling for someone to let him in. He was taken for a thug. If there's a political angle to this tragedy it's in your imagination.
Going back to this, two things.

1) we don't know the full story here; it's totally understandable a family would call the cops when someone they don't know is banging on their back door; what doesn't make sense based on what we know so far is why that would cause him to be killed; officers can't use a taser gun to stop someone from doing this? Or did the kid attack them?

2) you ever heard of Tony Timpa? Most people haven't. He was George Floyd before George Floyd. He was killed in Dallas in 2016 basically the exact same way George Floyd was. But we didn't hear a word because he was white.

I'm not going all volstruck here but I am speaking to how police killings get viewed and reacted to.
 
Mom Dad on CNN with lawyer screaming for justice
His parents and their lawyer are appearing throughout the news to try to shape the narrative on this one, just like if he were Black.

how did he respond to the incident when confronted for tresspassing?
He broke a window, so it is breaking and entering. That might sound like a technicality, because his feet did not enter the building, but it does mean deadly force was legal. He was an angry young man, so most signs point to a very angry encounter.

What we know: There was a party at a bar. Pysher became angry for reasons unknown. The rest of his friends decided to drive to a private residence to continue the party without Pysher. Pysher walked to what he believed was the private residence, but was a wrong address. He banged first on the front door demanding to come in, and then tried to get in through windows and he backdoor. He finally broke the window on the backdoor, screaming he would kill the people inside if they did not let him in. Breaking the window meant his hand entered the house, and under PA law he was breaking and entering.

The police have not released a statement on what happened, but he was described as confrontational.

Ralph Yarl
Yarl was knocking on the front door. Pysher broke a window in the back of the building. Yarl was asking where his brother was. Pysher was breaking into a house threatening to kill the people inside. He may have meant it more figuratively, but how is anyone supposed to know that?

And that is not even touching the fact that Pysher was attacking police when shot, where Yarl had attacked no one. Yarl called the police.

I doubt there was a racial element to the Pysher shooting. Pysher is white, as is the vast majority of Upper Pottsgrove Township. Several of the other shootings that happened of unarmed young people around the time of Yarl's shooting were white on white shootings, and so I see a bigger problem with people shooting young people for just knocking on the wrong door.

Pysher seems to be more a problem with how police deal with an angry young man.
 
He broke a window, so it is breaking and entering. That might sound like a technicality, because his feet did not enter the building, but it does mean deadly force was legal. He was an angry young man, so most signs point to a very angry encounter.
You’re premising this wrong. The property owner did not shoot him — a police officer did.

Everything you wrote may explain why the homeowner had reason to fear him or potentially use force. It still does not answer the question I asked: what happened when police confronted him?

I don’t know that yet, so I’m not rushing to judgment. Apparently you already know everything you need to know from what happened before the officer arrived. I don’t think that’s a serious way to evaluate a police shooting.

 
His parents and their lawyer are appearing throughout the news to try to shape the narrative on this one, just like if he were Black.


He broke a window, so it is breaking and entering. That might sound like a technicality, because his feet did not enter the building, but it does mean deadly force was legal. He was an angry young man, so most signs point to a very angry encounter.

What we know: There was a party at a bar. Pysher became angry for reasons unknown. The rest of his friends decided to drive to a private residence to continue the party without Pysher. Pysher walked to what he believed was the private residence, but was a wrong address. He banged first on the front door demanding to come in, and then tried to get in through windows and he backdoor. He finally broke the window on the backdoor, screaming he would kill the people inside if they did not let him in. Breaking the window meant his hand entered the house, and under PA law he was breaking and entering.

The police have not released a statement on what happened, but he was described as confrontational.


Yarl was knocking on the front door. Pysher broke a window in the back of the building. Yarl was asking where his brother was. Pysher was breaking into a house threatening to kill the people inside. He may have meant it more figuratively, but how is anyone supposed to know that?

And that is not even touching the fact that Pysher was attacking police when shot, where Yarl had attacked no one. Yarl called the police.

I doubt there was a racial element to the Pysher shooting. Pysher is white, as is the vast majority of Upper Pottsgrove Township. Several of the other shootings that happened of unarmed young people around the time of Yarl's shooting were white on white shootings, and so I see a bigger problem with people shooting young people for just knocking on the wrong door.

Pysher seems to be more a problem with how police deal with an angry young man.
Trivial objections fallacy.
 
His parents and their lawyer are appearing throughout the news to try to shape the narrative on this one, just like if he were Black.


He broke a window, so it is breaking and entering. That might sound like a technicality, because his feet did not enter the building, but it does mean deadly force was legal. He was an angry young man, so most signs point to a very angry encounter.

What we know: There was a party at a bar. Pysher became angry for reasons unknown. The rest of his friends decided to drive to a private residence to continue the party without Pysher. Pysher walked to what he believed was the private residence, but was a wrong address. He banged first on the front door demanding to come in, and then tried to get in through windows and he backdoor. He finally broke the window on the backdoor, screaming he would kill the people inside if they did not let him in. Breaking the window meant his hand entered the house, and under PA law he was breaking and entering.

The police have not released a statement on what happened, but he was described as confrontational.


Yarl was knocking on the front door. Pysher broke a window in the back of the building. Yarl was asking where his brother was. Pysher was breaking into a house threatening to kill the people inside. He may have meant it more figuratively, but how is anyone supposed to know that?

And that is not even touching the fact that Pysher was attacking police when shot, where Yarl had attacked no one. Yarl called the police.

I doubt there was a racial element to the Pysher shooting. Pysher is white, as is the vast majority of Upper Pottsgrove Township. Several of the other shootings that happened of unarmed young people around the time of Yarl's shooting were white on white shootings, and so I see a bigger problem with people shooting young people for just knocking on the wrong door.

Pysher seems to be more a problem with how police deal with an angry young man.
That's a horse of a different color.
 
Back
Top