Uniontown Pennsylvania Message Forums - WWW.UNIONTOWN.COM

In case the name doesn't ring a bell, Trooper Samuel Nassan was the cop who shot and killed a 12 year old boy ( Michael Ellerbe ) back in '02, and just settled for $12 million last month.

This is a different case. This time he's accused of police brutality from throwing someone to the ground outside a bar. The suspect Christopher Strothers broke his ankle.

REF: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08341/933241-53.stm

I am starting to think this guy might be a little too aggressive to be a cop.

Welp, Nassan killed another person. Maybe it was justified, maybe it wasn't. Some cops go their whole career without needing to even draw their weapon and yet this guy has 2 kills in 7 years. Makes you wonder if he's not a little over zealous.

"PITTSBURGH (AP) — A state trooper who killed an unarmed 12-year-old boy in 2002, leading to a $12.5 million state settlement, was one of two police officers involved in a fatal police shooting during a weekend drunken-driving patrol.

Trooper Samuel Nassan III is under investigation for firing at Nicholas Haniotakis, 32, of Pittsburgh, about 1:30 a.m. Sunday on the city's South Side, state police spokesman Jack Lewis said."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ikvPFFgFVGY48kZ_gNXcs-enjaKQD96V9CA80

"Online court records show Haniotakis was sentenced to 11 1/2 to 23 months in prison for trying to run over police during a suburban traffic stop in 2005. Those records indicate he had a record of arrests dating to at least 1999 for crimes as varied as ethnic intimidation and aggravated assault."

I think you accidentally forgot to quote that last part. It's probably not important information though. Let's just lynch the guy instead.

Not sure how my statement "Maybe it was justified, maybe it wasn't. Some cops go their whole career without needing to even draw their weapon and yet this guy has 2 kills in 7 years. Makes you wonder if he's not a little over zealous" is a lynch, but whatever.

Facts are that this cop is statistically ranking above average in his "killing statistics". So, maybe he's a little over zealous. Yes, I'm standing by that statement. And no, it's not a lynch.

Here's some more I can quote as well that you forgot to quote, or this must not be important information.

"In the complaint, Christopher Strothers, 27, said Trooper Nassan threw him to the ground and broke his ankle outside Rumshakers Bar on July 6."

"In a second suit in 2005, a motorist said Trooper Nassan illegally cited him after the trooper said the man showed his middle finger. The case was settled for $7,500."

Yea, maybe this guy is a little over zealous.

There is enough wrong to go around. First I don't think the shooting was justified, as Nasson was chasing Ellerbe at the time. According to what I read he heard a shot and looked at his partner who fell, but what was he looking at when the shot was fired. When your chasing a suspect you don't take your eyes off him if at all possible. According to Nasson he thought Ellerbe fired a shot, but if Ellerbe is running away he would have to stop turn fire and start running away. Again wasn't Nasson looking at his suspect during the chase?

Second problem the the mother has custody. What type of mother looses track of her 12 year old son long enough for him to steal a car. Its about time to start charging some parents with child endangerment when they let their children go anywhere anytime without supervision. I can clearly say that if I was that 12 year child and I wasn't killed, my father just might do the job.

Its sad but Ellerbe's parents are not deserving of the Civil damages.

Yes, I agree completely with you that there is a lot of blame to go around. But my biggest concern is that the Police, who we entrust with license to use deadly force, are only using deadly force to directly counter imminent and immediate deadly force. The kid was shot in the back! If the kid had a wallet in his hand and was posed as though he were pointing towards the cops, then I would understand. I would believe that the cop thought he was trying to counter deadly force. But that wasn't the case.


And again I agree completely. At the very least the mother should be charged with child endangerment, just like someone who leaves their kid unattended at home. Why hasn't that been done? You are right.


Once again I totally agree with you. The parents should NOT be rewarded in any way. However, I feel so strongly that the police need to be sent this message that shooting someone in the back with no opposing deadly force present is the ultimate in wrongness, that I believe that the lawsuit needs to happen. The police need to take that financial hit to send the message that they were wrong, even if it has the unfortunate side effect that the terrible undeserving parents of this kid are rewarded in the process.