Police officer charged in fatal shooting of student who went to the wrong house

[Guno צְבִי]

A Pennsylvania police officer has been charged with voluntary manslaughter stemming from the fatal shooting this month of a college student whose parents said he was mistaken for a burglar after knocking on the door of a residence he wrongly thought was a friend's house, authorities said.

Cpl. Sean Farrell, a veteran member of the Upper Pottsgrove Township Police Department, was charged in the Aug. 23 death of Glenwood "Bubba" Pysher, Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin R. Steele announced at a news conference Tuesday.

"At the time these two fatal shots were fired, Mr. Pysher had his hands up," Steele said, citing footage from Farrell's body-worn camera. "He had no weapon. He did not charge the officer or act aggressively in any way. He was not a threat to the homeowners who were inside their residence."

Police officer charged in fatal shooting of student who went to the wrong house

Glenwood "Bubba" Pysher was fatally shot on Aug. 23.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Valentino]

How is it possible that a 'veteran' police officer does something like this?

 

[Walt]

How is it possible that a 'veteran' police officer does something like this?

If Pysher was Black, you would be arguing that the police officer was well within his rights. Pysher was making violent threats, and was not complying with police orders. That being said, he might not have understood police orders. Pysher was not armed, but there was no way for the police officer to know that.

 

[Walt]

We have more facts, but we still do not know the key facts.

The facts we already knew were all correct. Pysher had become angry at the bar, was left behind by his friends, tried to follow his friends by foot, and went to the wrong house. He still banged on the front door of the wrong house, demanding to be let in, and saying he would kill the occupants of the house(who he believed were his friends). He then contacted his friends using his cell phone, demanding to be let in, and saying he would kill them.

This is the first part where we have more information. His friends responded he was not outside of their house. He sent them a picture, which they said was not their house. He sent them a location, which again they said was not their house. They became concerned, because Pennsylvania is an extreme castle doctrine state, and what he was doing was very dangerous. They told him they would come to the location he gave, pick him up, and take him home.

Apparently, he did not believe them. If he thought his friends were coming for him, and he was at the wrong house, he would have stopped attacking the house. Instead, he moved around the house to the back of the house, all along the way trying to find a window that was unlocked. At the back of the house, he continued to bang against the back door, threatening to kill people, and broke a window.

@zymurgy was wrong when he says the confrontation started afterwards. The confrontation started with Pysher trying to get into the house, and ended with Pysher advancing towards the police officer(Farrell). We have more information on the confrontation, but some of the information is still incomplete and contested.

Farrell(the police officer) had a body cam, so, in theory, we will at some point have a lot of the answers. Farrell told Pysher, "Police, let me see your hands... Hands up, hands up now, drop to the ground." At that point, Pysher raised his arms, but started walking(or running) towards Farrell. That is a halfway compliance, but also a noncompliance. Farrell shouted instructions again, "Drop to the ground... Stop or I'll..." and then shot. He struck Pysher at 20 feet away, and approaching.

The prosecution has released a still of the video, but not the video itself. So there are a few things we do not know.

Farrell claims that "The guy fucking charged me, screaming, and yelling, and wouldn't get down on the ground." The prosecution claims that Pysher was not screaming and yelling when he got shot. The question here becomes how close to when he was shot was he screaming and yelling? Pysher was definitely advancing on Farrell, but was in "charging" or was it walking?

Pysher was definitely not complying with law enforcement orders to "drop to the ground", and was instead advancing on the police officer. Here again there are question. They might be the most important questions. Pysher was drunk and angry, so did he understand the orders being given him? Is it Farrell's job to communicate orders better, or to take into account that orders might not be understood?

In the end, it becomes a training issue. There definitely should have been more deescalation. That being said, Pennsylvania is a state that does not require deescalation, so it is extremely iffy whether this will end in a conviction.

 

[Valentino]

If Pysher was Black, you would be arguing that the police officer was well within his rights. Pysher was making violent threats, and was not complying with police orders. That being said, he might not have understood police orders. Pysher was not armed, but there was no way for the police officer to know that.

How dare you!

 

[Walt]

How dare you!

Tamir Rice was a Black 12 year old with no criminal record. He was shot in the back with no warning. The police showed up, got out of the car, and shot him in the back. They then realized he was unarmed, made up a fake story of being shot at, and tried to get a gun to drop on the kid. Rice slowly died while they ignored him. When a federal law enforcement agent who had heard on the radio showed up, they began to do first aid for the kid, and called for an ambulance. Too much time had gone by to save Rice.

The only reason we know the police were lying about every element of the story was there was a CCTV camera they did not know about.

It was decided that Rice, being Black, was such an extreme threat that it was OK to shoot him without warning. Once having shot him, supposedly by mistake, the prosecutor felt that there was no obligation to try to save his life. Even if you accept the argument it was a mistake, I say they killed him by not calling in that they had shot a child, and getting medical aid.

But Rice was Black and not committing a crime, and Pysher was a white, ADULT committing a crime.

 

[zymurgy]

@zymurgy was wrong when he says the confrontation started afterwards.

You can't quote me saying this. you altered by claim because you are a serial shit stain liar

the confrontation starts when the confrontation starts. it is circular

 

[zymurgy]

@Walt

did you start a new thread because of how retarded your claims are proving to be on the other one?

Let me put it to you like this, over an hour of different people begging him to stop had not gotten him to stop. I doubt anything stopped him until the bullet. He had not gotten into the house, so was continuing to try.

So, we still don't know much, but we know the officers did not shoot him because he was actively trying to get it he house. they shot him out of fear for themselves, not the fucking house you retard

remember your retarded castle doctrine bullshit?

fuck of Walty

 

[Uncensored2008]

You can't quote me saying this. you altered by claim because you are a serial shit stain liar

the confrontation starts when the confrontation starts. it is circular

Never Truthful Walt is lying?

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tells ya...

 

[zymurgy]

Never Truthful Walt is lying?

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tells ya...

he is a total shit head

The castle doctrine may explain when a homeowner—or someone defending that homeowner—can lawfully use force against an intruder. But the police officer did not shoot him while watching him break into the house. The officer encountered him afterward.

 

[zymurgy]

@Walt

" Pysher raised his arms, but started walking(or running) towards Farrell."

are you such a shit head, you won't admit your castle doctrine explanation is obviously asinine?

You tagged me claiming you were right. JFC. you are an asshole. I was fine letting your shit headed behavior in that thread go

 

[Walt]

You can't quote me saying this. you altered by claim because you are a serial shit stain liar

Hmmm...

But the police officer did not shoot him while watching him break into the house. The officer encountered him afterward.


Saying “he broke into a house, therefore the police had the right to kill him later” is not how use-of-force analysis works. I’m waiting for the facts of the actual shooting.

So, we still don't know much

We are learning a lot more, but none of the previously known stuff is being changed. Pysher was still a very angry young man. Now we know his friends had told him that he was at the wrong house, and offered to pick him up. He continued to attack the house.

If he had believed his friends, he would have left the front door, gone to the sidewalk, and waited for his friends. Instead, upon being told it was the wrong house, he moved around the house, looking for an unlocked window, and finally started trying to break in the back door. There was no legitimate reason for him to move around to the back of the house. Even if his friends were lying about him being at the wrong house, it would be a sign they did not want him there.

but we know the officers did not shoot him because he was actively trying to get it he house. they shot him out of fear for themselves, not the fucking house you retard

Only one police officer shot him. The police engaged with him when he was breaking into the house. Farrell then shot him when Pysher refused to "drop to the ground", and instead advanced on Farrell.

 

[Walt]

@Walt

did you start a new thread

No, I did not start the new thread. You should have the intelligence to see who started the thread.

 

[zymurgy]

Hmmm...



We are learning a lot more, but none of the previously known stuff is being changed.

you used castle doctrine and the claim the cop was defending the house. you said the kid spent hours breaking into the house, including when the officer encountered him

it was all bullshit. you are full of shit

we have enough facts to know that was wrong. you are wrong. but you are too much of a jackass to say so

 

[Walt]

you used castle doctrine and the claim the cop was defending the house.

The castle doctrine involves defending the people inside the house, not the house. If the house is known to have no one inside, there is no castle doctrine.

An example is Ahmaud Arbery. Arbery went into a house construction site and used the hose to get a drink of water. If the house had been completed, castle doctrine could have been mentioned, but it was not.

you said the kid spent hours breaking into the house, including when the officer encountered him

I never said either. First off, Pysher was a 22 year old adult, not a kid. He was at the house for minutes, not hours. I said he spent over an hour angry, but he was in the bar, arguing with the bouncer, and walking for much of that time. He was breaking into the house when Farrell first encountered him.

Pysher had been told by his friends he was at the wrong house. They said they would come pick him up, and take him home. This all happened while he was at the front door. Why did he go to the back door and try to break into the house?

Had Farrell encountered Pysher sitting at the curb, saying that he was waiting for his friend, this would have ended very differently. Instead, Farrell encountered Pysher trespassing at the back door, and breaking and entering.

 

[zymurgy]

how AI judges the debate:

Issue	Zymurgy	Walt
Wait for facts of the actual police encounter	Correct	Acknowledged uncertainty but then repeatedly speculated
Prior break-in automatically justifies police shooting	Correctly rejected	Wrong
Pysher was attacking/charging police	Did not assume it	Apparently false
Pysher was actively breaking into house when shot	Questioned it	Apparently false
Importance of circumstances at moment deadly force was used	Correct	Largely ignored
Pysher was no longer a threat to the house/homeowner and was now responding to the officer	Correct	Continued treating the earlier break-in as though it justified the later shooting
Was the shooting legally justified?	Waited for evidence	Said it was essentially legal

 

[Nordberg]

A Pennsylvania police officer has been charged with voluntary manslaughter stemming from the fatal shooting this month of a college student whose parents said he was mistaken for a burglar after knocking on the door of a residence he wrongly thought was a friend's house, authorities said.

Cpl. Sean Farrell, a veteran member of the Upper Pottsgrove Township Police Department, was charged in the Aug. 23 death of Glenwood "Bubba" Pysher, Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin R. Steele announced at a news conference Tuesday.

"At the time these two fatal shots were fired, Mr. Pysher had his hands up," Steele said, citing footage from Farrell's body-worn camera. "He had no weapon. He did not charge the officer or act aggressively in any way. He was not a threat to the homeowners who were inside their residence."

Police officer charged in fatal shooting of student who went to the wrong house

Glenwood "Bubba" Pysher was fatally shot on Aug. 23.

www.yahoo.com

Do burglars knock in Pennsylvania?

 

[Walt]

Pysher was attacking/charging police

I did not say that. Farrell claimed Pysher was charging him. I said Pysher was advancing on him. Pysher did not stop, and instead did move towards Farrell. "Charging" would put some intent to the action I did not put, but Farrell did put. As for attacking the police officer, no one said that.

Prior break-in automatically justifies police shooting

I did not say that either. You claimed that people outside the house have no right to defend those inside the house from attack. I corrected you that castle doctrine allows the defense of those inside the house by anyone. You then claimed that the break in had happened before the encounter, so castle doctrine could not have applied. I pointed out that the encounter appears to have started with the break in, and played out in the backyard. That has been born out by the evidence.

I have never actually said that castle doctrine definitely applies, just that your assumptions about when castle doctrine are wrong. I never said automatically.

 

[Walt]

Do burglars knock in Pennsylvania?

Pysher was being accused of trying to gain access to the house to kill the people inside, which was his stated goal. He did not mention anything about burglary.

It was the middle of the night. They heard someone banging on their door demanding to be let in. They asked him to go away. He stated if they did not let him in, he would kill them. He walked around the house trying to get in, and saying he would kill them.

As it turns out, he believed there was a party in the house that he was not invited to. Those actions were still illegal, even if he got the right house. Homeowners have the absolute right to deny entry to random people who want to come to a party.

 

[zymurgy]

I have never actually said that castle doctrine definitely applies, just that your assumptions about when castle doctrine are wrong. I never said automatically.

You repeatedly invoked castle doctrine to defend the shooting based on what Pysher had done at the house. My point from the beginning was that the officer’s justification had to be judged from the circumstances when he fired, not simply inherited from the homeowner’s earlier danger.

Now we have those facts. Pysher was outside, unarmed, hands up, and the threat to the house and homeowner was over.

So if you’re now saying castle doctrine doesn’t establish justification under these facts, great....but at the time you were desperate to find anything to justify this