Uniontown Pennsylvania Message Forums - WWW.UNIONTOWN.COM

Regarding: $12.5 million settlement in November 2008, Police shot and killed a 12 year old Michael Ellerbe in Uniontown Xmas eve 2002

Apparently I have a very unpopular view about this. Everyone I know disagrees with me and it shocks me that people don't "get it". If someone can convince me otherwise I'd love to hear it.

But, before you do so, please make sure you are thinking and reacting with facts and logic, not emotion. Emotion will skew your logic, and this is a very emotional issue.

My point: Even if the 12 year old was wrong, even if he was running from Police, even if the car was stolen, the penalty for all of the above is not death. Deadly force can only be used to counter deadly force, officer Nassan made a mistake with fatal results.

Even if the penalty for all of the above "was" death, it shouldn't be the police officer's position to be judge, jury and executioner. And, the police have a strong duty to follow the law, moreso than anyone since they are entrusted with the duty of being a police officer. The law is quite clear:

http://www.acslpa.org/pa_uniform_firearms_act.htm

"PA Uniform Firearms Act - Title 18, §505. Use of Force in Self-Protection.

(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.—The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion."

Before I applied for a concealed weapons permit, I made a point to be instructed on the laws regarding firearms. When the public trusts me to carry a weapon capable of killing, I absolutely understand that I am held to a standard where deadly force can only be used to counter immediate and imminent deadly force. It's that simple. That's the law.

If you feel that someone stealing a car and running from police is a crime where a cop can shoot him as he's running away, then campaign to change the law. Until then, it's not ME that says the cop was wrong, THE LAW says the cop was wrong. He made a mistake. I feel that it's incredibly important to send a message to the police and public about the reckless use of deadly force. I also hate the idea that the parent ( Michael Hickenbottom ) of a potential thief and criminal was rewarded, but that's an unfortunate side effect of punishing a wrongdoer and making it known how serious this mistake was.

This is why we see Lady Justice holding the scales usually wearing a blindfold. The law is the law. Everyone must abide.

I don't know if my opinion of this is popular or unpopular but I do not put any blame on those police officers for their actions that evening. That young boy, who was already leading a life of crime at such a young age and was from a broken, drug-addicted home, put himself in that position and knew EXACTLY what he was doing. I'm not actually saying that he "deserved" what he got but he put those officers lives in danger, along with any other innocent person while driving that stolen car and those officers reacted. If not for those officers that night, who would have been watching out for the "average joe" who was driving down the street that night and may have possibly got hit head on by this boy while he was speeding down the highway, or Lord knows if the kid would have gotten away with it he would have been out doing it again, or possibly something even worse, like actual car jacking and maybe even murder. I'm just glad it's one more juvenile delinquent that I don't have to worry about anymore while I am out and trying to live my life. As far as the monetary lawsuit that the father got, that's another story!!! Totally ridiculous!!

The way I look at it, you play with fire your going to get burnt. Steal a car and do crime and you might get shot. Crap happens.