Link?
A unarmed college student was fatally shot by a Pennsylvania police officer
- Thread starter volsrocks
- Start date
cawacko
Well-known member
According to his father he was talking to his friends or facetiming or something at 12:32am then dead by 12:35.
You have to take what the family says with a grain of salt.
What we don't know yet is what happened once the cop arrived. The kid went to the wrong house (and tried to enter) so it makes sense the cops were called, but why did he end up dead?
Seems either the cops way overreacted or the kid attacked the cops.
The castle doctrine of Pennsylvania extends to the police, and even common citizens, much like defense of others is the same as self defense. If my neighbor's house is being broken into, my neighbor has a right to kill the offender, the police have the right to kill the offender, and even I have the right to kill the offender. Once you accept the castle doctrine is self defense, then it is also defense of others.
We do not know yet. He was extremely angry, and threatening before the police arrived. His parents say what a wonderful kid he was, but he apparently has a violent criminal record, and was threatening people all night.
His parents say what a wonderful kid he was, and that is what they want us to judge him on. His friends begged him to go home, and said he was scaring them. They specifically left him at the bar, and the bouncer threw him out of the bar. He walked to the house he believed they were hiding from him at, threatened to kill the people in the house, and broke into the house. When the police arrived and saw him breaking into the house, that is what they had to evaluate him on, not his mother's love.
Did the police overreact? Maybe. That being said, he gave them a lot of reasons to be freaked out.
The arguments for self defense is identical to the arguments for defense of others under common law. If the legislature divides the two, OK, but if not, like in Pennsylvania, the two are identical levels of justification. In Pennsylvania, breaking and entering, or even just trespassing, often rises to the level of self defense/defense of others. Making threats to kill someone while he breaks into a house is a serious issue.
Maybe the police should have deescalated things more... But he should not have been attacking the occupants of that house... And saying it was the "wrong house" is not a defense, because he should not have been attacking any house.
They might have a case that the police needed to do a better job, but I think murder went out the window with him breaking and entering, and threatening to kill people.
Pysher was breaking into a house, threatening to kill the people inside. I do not think right house or wrong house mattered at that time.
Or put another way imagine it had been the "right house." His friends consider him a violent mess, leave him at a bar, begging him to just go home. He walks to their house alone, loudly cursing all the way. He first tries to enter through the front door, but finding it locked, goes around back breaking in threatening to kill everyone inside. The people in the "right house" call the police, because he is out of control. It really does not change any of the important facts.
Had he been invited to the "right house", they would have allowed him into the car going to the "right house." Even if it was the "right house", they had no obligation to let him in. Had he gotten to the "right house" and had not been allowed to enter, he should have just politely left. Politely left, much like he should have done at the "wrong house."
Pysher did not get shot because he was at the "wrong house." He got shot because he was trying to break into a house with the stated purpose of murdering the people inside.
volsrocks
Verified User
Uncilivazed Negros burnt down
We are mot the same
This is how uncivilized Negros act when they think a Negro shooting wasn't justified
We are mot the same
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.
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.
Try that sometime.
yes - so STFU
From my understanding, Pysher was confronted in the backyard while everything else was happening. The parents have gotten their claims out, and the police have been slower, so the exact facts are uncertain, but it does appear to have happened while he was still in the process of breaking and entering.
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.
Your explanation is dependent on him coming to his senses before being shot. I have been a bouncer, and while your explanation is possible, it cannot be assumed.
Yes, but saying he was breaking into the house with the stated goal of killing those inside, and had refused to stop, is a completely legal reason to kill someone in Pennsylvania. Just because it is legal does not mean it should be police policy. I definitely would have liked to see more deescalation.
He is an upper middle class suburban white kid, so the case will be completely investigated. We will not see a cut short investigation like with many of the cases about a Black death. So in the end we will know if he did come to his senses mid mania, or not.
It appears Pysher has a long history of drunken violence, which is amazing to say about a 22 year old. He was also a high school and college baseball player. I used to be an athlete, and back then if you were repeatedly arrested for drunken violence, you were punished by being suspended from the team. Pysher was never punished for his actions (other than the occasional few hours in jail).
It might be argued that the failure here was to not teach Pysher that actions have consequences.
It might be argued that the failure here was to not teach Pysher that actions have consequences.
Now you’re just making shit up. Where is the evidence that he spent “over an hour” continuously trying to get into the house and that “nothing stopped him until the bullet”?
The limited evidence we actually have includes phone records showing he was talking to friends. The facts of what happened immediately before the shooting still have not been released.
You keep filling those gaps with whatever story makes your conclusion work. Why? What is wrong with simply admitting we don’t know yet?
Besides, he was only white. Had he been the superior race, you'd be OUTRAGED and supporting riots.
Martin judges people by the color of their skin, not the content of their character.
It's the democrat way.
White lives don't matter.
Shooting of Ralph Yarl, teen who mistakenly rang the wrong doorbell, sparks outrage
Lawmakers and celebrities alike are calling on members of the public to demand that charges are filed against the suspected shooter.www.cbsnews.com
Man, 86, who shot black teen who knocked on wrong door dies after guilty plea
Ralph Yarl was shot in the head by Andrew Lester after he mistakenly knocked on the door of Lester's home in Missouri in 2023. Lester, who was 86, died just days after pleading guilty to the attackwww.mirror.co.uk
Ralph Yarl: Black teen shot at doorstep after ringing wrong doorbell
Ralph Yarl's parents sent him to pick up his brothers, but he arrived at the wrong address.www.bbc.com
The shot heard 'round the world...
Yes, but Ralph Yarl was a member of the superior race.
We can't expect people of the inferior race to be treated the same under the law.
White lives don't matter.
Besides, he be white - and white lives don't matter.
Because @martin judges people and situations by the color of their skin, not the content of their character.
This case is identical to the Ralph Yarl case, where the left rioted and prosecuted the cop. Well, identical other than the skin color of the victims. And thus, the massive difference in reaction.
Pysher's friends spent an hour begging him at the bar to go home. They finally left the bar and drove to a house. Pysher was kicked out of the bar, and then walked two miles to what he believed was the house. He spent a while trying to break into the house.
That is an hour or two of intense anger that was not dissipating. Again, maybe he did come to his senses at some point before he died, but it seems unlikely to me. The problem here was Pysher, and at any point he could have ended the problem. He did not.
Talking or screaming? He was screaming through the door to be let into the house or he would kill his friends. He then called his friends, assumably to scream at them what he thought he had just shouted at them through the door. And when they hung up on him, he went back to screaming through the door.
What the phone conversation tells me is his friends were too scared of him to tell him that he was attacking the wrong house. If the house attack was all in good fun, they would have told him he was attacking the wrong house.
We both have major gaps in our narratives, because there are gaps in the facts. I am honest about the gaps, and honest about why I am filling in the gaps the way I am. You are being dishonest about your gap filling.
It is possible after an hour or two of manic anger, he suddenly came to his senses and stopped lashing out. It is not probable, and certainly cannot be assumed as you have. He was a very angry man, who had never faced consequences. I can tell you those sort of people can be very dangerous.
and? your stupidity here is too much and a waste of time.