Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

kaitb1103 t1_jczxbmy wrote

Cool cool. So we’re just going after our veterans with mental health issues now?

I realize that this is nothing new and our veterans already don’t receive the amount of support they should be

82

Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_jczynm7 wrote

Replying to kaitb1103 (#2,283,653)

The failure of the system is that nobody picked up Morris sooner. He's been making shooting threats (and very credible ones) for weeks leading up to the incident.

But, him being a Veteran has nothing to do with anything. He was stationed in North Carolina for a bit, he never saw any combat.

56

kaitb1103 t1_jczyyk7 wrote

Replying to Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer (#2,283,750)

He’s a man with severe mental health problems. ‘veteran suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder’.

Instead of focusing on helping PTSD and mental health sufferers, we’d rather seek the death penalty? That’s beyond backwards.

34

kaitb1103 t1_jd00lxh wrote

Replying to Monkeyswine (#2,283,893)

But is death really the answer here for this particular instance?

Killing someone in a premeditated murder is one thing. Killing someone while you’re going through a mental health episode is another. At least- I can see the distinction and think it should be vastly different repercussions.

29

CARLEtheCamry t1_jd0164t wrote

Replying to Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer (#2,283,750)

> he never saw any combat.

So while I agree that maybe the term PTSD is maybe overused, just because he hasn't seen combat doesn't mean he didn't have it. The way it is presented in the article and criminal complaint may imply that his PTSD is from military service, but who knows.

Edit : That it is in the criminal complaint makes it seem to me that it's a legitimate confirmed diagnosis. Not a "someone cut in front of me at Sizzler and now I have PTSD" kind of situation.

31

CARLEtheCamry t1_jd01gg6 wrote

Replying to kaitb1103 (#2,283,916)

The last person executed in this state was in 1999. The death penalty in PA is just a life-sentence with expensive appeals to virtue signal from the DA to Police that he is "on their side".

37

Monkeyswine t1_jd03ugz wrote

Replying to kaitb1103 (#2,283,916)

I am against the death penalty too but it isn't likely in PA anyway. He committed premeditated murder. I dont care if he is a veteran and i dont care if he was having a mental health issue. He is beyond help at this point.

2

AntiStatistYouth t1_jd04dlf wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,284,095)

>According to the criminal complaint, Morris had told two witnesses that "the police were trying to kill him" and asked that they film him as he walked down Grandview Avenue toward Versailles Avenue.
>
>Officers encountered him in front of 1300 Grandview Ave. "The suspect suddenly produced a handgun and shot the two McKeesport officers," Kearns said.

He might have been paranoid and in need of mental health services, but that sounds like a man acting in what he believed to be self-defense, not one premeditating murder. He thought the police were out to kill him.

5

AntiStatistYouth t1_jd0a6k6 wrote

Replying to extrahandgrenades (#2,284,405)

Again, first, where is that in any of that in the public reporting?

If he called an "out of state credit unit" (not sure what that is, but anyway...) threatening to go on a killing spree, that is not premeditating killing a police officer who he believed was trying to run him down with his patrol car and then shoot him:

>Kinavey said Morris alleged that police tried twice to hit him with a car, and he racked his gun to try to scare them off, and when that didn't work he fired twice into the vehicle. After being wounded, he said he feared a third officer who was approaching was “out for blood” and fired after the officer reached for his gun, Kinavey said.

https://www.wesa.fm/courts-justice/2023-02-20/trial-ordered-in-mckeesport-shooting-that-killed-1-officer-wounded-2nd

−3

extrahandgrenades t1_jd0ax5j wrote

Replying to AntiStatistYouth (#2,284,567)

It was publicly reported.

Pittsburgh Gazette

TribLive

First degree murder of a law enforcement officer (18 PAC.S 2507A) is the “intentional killing of a law enforcement officer while in the performance of duty knowing the victim is a law enforcement officer.” There is no premeditation required. Simply the intentional killing when there is no reasonable belief that the killing would otherwise be justified (there’s legally specific criteria for what Pennsylvania law considers justified homicide, found in 18 PA Chapter 5).

7

AntiStatistYouth t1_jd0c2hh wrote

Replying to extrahandgrenades (#2,284,617)

Excellent. The guy called Navy Federal Credit Union threatening to go on a shooting spree at their branches. That is unequivocally not premeditation of the murder of the police officer. It is an entirely different crime and a clear indication that the man was mentally ill.

Now moving on to the event in question:

>Authorities have said that officers were called to a home over a dispute involving a man who police said was having a “mental health crisis.” Police allege they caught up with him after he walked away, and he “suddenly produced a handgun" and shot them. Officer Sean Sluganski, 32, was killed and another officer was wounded.
>
>Authorities said Morris, wounded in the leg by return fire, ran to a parking lot and told two people he had been shot and needed help. Authorities say a witness putting a tourniquet on his leg reported seeing Morris pull a handgun and point it at an approaching officer, and an exchange of gunfire wounded the suspect.
>
>Detective Patrick Kinavey testified Friday during a preliminary hearing that Morris told him three days after the shooting that he didn’t remember shooting at Sluganski and only opened fire after racking his gun wasn’t enough to scare the officers off.

The guy was clearly mentally ill, paranoid and dangerous. Sending armed men to his house just reinforced his paranoia and resulted in tragedy. He needed a social worker and therapist, not a cop.

−4

Important_Tip_9704 t1_jd0ckii wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,284,061)

Good point. But I don’t think that we need to equivocate for the cop killer’s actions in order to recognize that the priorities of the prosecutors are fucked up. Death penalty should have been sought for in both cases.

2

AntiStatistYouth t1_jd0dwgl wrote

Replying to AntiStatistYouth (#2,284,776)

The appropriate charge is not "First Degree Murder of a Law enforcement Officer": § 2507. Criminal homicide of law enforcement officer. (a) Murder of a law enforcement officer of the first degree.-

but is actually c) Manslaughter of a law enforcement officer in the first degree.-

>(c) Manslaughter of a law enforcement officer in the first degree.--A person commits a felony in the first degree who does any of the following:
>
>(1) Without lawful justification kills a law enforcement officer while in the performance of duty and with knowledge that the victim was a law enforcement officer, if at the time of the killing:
>
>(i) the person is acting under a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation by the victim killed; or
>
>(ii) the person is acting under a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation by another individual whom the actor endeavors to kill, but the person negligently or accidentally causes the death of the victim.
>
>(2) Intentionally or knowingly kills a law enforcement officer while in the performance of duty and with knowledge that the victim was a law enforcement officer, if at the time of the killing the person believes the circumstances to be such that, if they existed, would justify the killing under Chapter 5 (relating to general principles of justification), but his belief is unreasonable.

Specifically, because of subsection (2). The man's mental state is a factor in determining the appropriateness of the charge. If he were indeed having a mental health crisis and believed that the officer's were trying to kill him, manslaughter is actually the appropriate charge.

1

Healthy_Artichoke_97 t1_jd0fwoo wrote

We will kill a veteran with mental health problems but give a cop a raise and paid time off when they wrongly kill us. This country is amazing definitely (not) proud to be an American for sure. Can’t kneel for a flag in protest of this shit but we can sentence them to death for denying them help and treatment and sending them off to fight in senseless wars that started all of this

124

the_real_xuth t1_jd0gj5i wrote

Replying to not28 (#2,284,276)

The fact that the DA sees the police as more important than those people who are not police is really fucked up, regardless of any other biases and prejudices they might have. And this disgusting relationship causes issues in lots of manners. This includes:

  • It means that an action against a police officer (including many things that are not criminal) is treated much more harshly, often in a retaliatory manner rather than merely upholding justice and maintaining the peace while crimes against others are often ignored. And it's not uncommon for someone to have great injustices done to them because too many police officers take a person asserting their basic rights as a personal affront.
  • when police commit crimes their actions are routinely ignored or just given extremely gentle treatment.
  • The DA and police often see each other as partners in attempting to get convictions for the DA rather than the true job of the investigatory role of police which is to investigate potential crimes in an unbiased manner. And while it is a criminal action for a DA to withhold exculpatory evidence, this "partnership" routinely sees police turning a blind eye towards evidence in favor of the accused and so the DA never has it in their possession to withhold.
13

extrahandgrenades t1_jd0h4qw wrote

Replying to AntiStatistYouth (#2,284,776)

There’s really no reason to carry on discussing whether it was premeditated or not since it isn’t a legal requisite for Johnathan Morris’ first degree murder charge. It’s a moot point.

He can use his PTSD as a legal defense, but in order to use PTSD as an affirmative insanity defense he has to prove that he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of what he was doing.

He knew that pointing a gun at police officers and racking the slide was threatening, because he knew what the gun was capable of. That means he knew what firing it would do, so mens rea exists.

5

PoorGuyCrypto t1_jd0jfe1 wrote

Replying to myhouseisabanana (#2,284,429)

Eh. Calvin Crew is about as clear cut a case of, "if we're going to even have a death penalty - this is who it's for" as we're going to see.

If we're not going to kill him, then just end the damn death penalty altogether.

8

mainelinerzzzzz t1_jd0jvpa wrote

Why bother, give him life without parole and be done with him.

3

extrahandgrenades t1_jd0krvg wrote

Replying to AntiStatistYouth (#2,285,116)

It doesn’t meet the criteria for any of those subsections.

(c)(1)(i) Police presence alone does not warrant “serious provocation by the victim killed.” Officers were there for a legitimate reason - a named complainant called 911 concerning the safety of one or more people. The Allegheny County District Attorney reported, “neither Sluganski nor Thomas had drawn their weapons when they approached Morris on Monday.” This is not serious provocation.

(c)(1)(ii) He did not negligently kill Sean Sluganski in the course of defending himself from serious provocation by another person.

(c)(2) His actions are not justified under any of the Chapter 5 sections pertaining to self-defense.

6

montani t1_jd0l0oz wrote

I think there should be life sentences with a voluntary death penalty. Like, you kill someone you’re in jail forever but you can opt for lethal injection instead. The death penalty as it stands in too costly, unfair, and something from the Stone Age.

−12

Dookiedoodoohead t1_jd0n6qh wrote

Replying to montani (#2,285,302)

That would do nothing to solve the established issues surrounding the death penalty. Life in prison is already a nightmare with virtually no practical safeguards from systemic abuse. There's nothing to stop anyone from being coerced or "convinced" into a choice.

Imagine this guy gets the "death if you want it" penalty". The guy becomes marked and is known to the C.O.s as "the guy we can legally kill if we make his life miserable enough".

If that sounds good to you, then I mean sure, great plan. But you're just adding more steps to the process in order to create an illusion so we can pretend we're somehow progressing in criminal justice.

10

where_is_the_key t1_jd0ojfw wrote

Replying to therealpigman (#2,284,261)

That’s quite the hope in our prison system lmao Maybe if we focused on prevention & rehabilitation instead of punishment we would get more people that become better. But a life prison sentence isn’t gonna do that either Bc it’s still more of a punishment than a rehabilitation lol

15

TheApprentice19 t1_jd0qo5u wrote

Cop shoot’s man, paid administrative leave. Man shoots cop, death penalty. This seems problematic.

112

headpsu t1_jd0rmno wrote

Replying to therealpigman (#2,284,261)

The problem with the death penalty isn’t that convicted criminals won’t have the chance to repent and better themselves.

The real horror of the death penalty is that innocent people get convicted of crimes they didn’t commit. Death is absolute. You can’t commute a sentence and award damages to a wrongfully convicted person if you kill them.

The system is flawed, it’s is created and run by humans who are flawed, and we know some unacceptable amount of innocent people are in prison. Some of those people are on death row.

I would rather have all of the atrocious criminals, spend life in prison, than have one innocent person committed to death. that innocent person could be your coworker, or childhood friend, or sibling, or you…. or your child.

Until our criminal justice system can operate at 100% effectiveness, the permanency of a death sentence is unacceptable.

37

extrahandgrenades t1_jd0vato wrote

Replying to AntiStatistYouth (#2,284,817)

18 PaC.S 505 Use of Force in Self Protection

Limitations on justifying necessity of use of force:

  • 18 PaC.S 505(b)(1)(i) - The use of force is not justifiable under this section; to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful.
  • 18 PaC.S 505(b)(2) - The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.

Johnathan Morris was not under arrest and neither officer had their weapons drawn when they approached Morris. Under Chapter 5, it was not lawful to use any force against McKeesport Officers even if they were affecting an arrest and there was no possible way that, even in crisis, he could articulate that his belief that Officers were trying to kill him was reasonable.

There is no self-defense justification for his actions.

1

whip_m3_grandma t1_jd10xzg wrote

How is the narrative so warped this guy isn’t accountable for his actions because he’s a veteran? How is PTSD in any way excuse murdering a police officer? Don’t agree with death penalty but this guy should be institutionalized and then imprisoned when mentally well.

10

trs21219 t1_jd14tvp wrote

Replying to TheApprentice19 (#2,285,653)

Cops get paid administrative leave while the investigation is going on. Because its unjust to not pay them for weeks/months when they could have very well acted appropriately, legally and within policy. What you fail to mention here though is that if a cop is found guilty of a crime when a shooting occurs, they have to pay that paid leave money back.

Also, there are 2 investigations that happen when a shooting occurs. The first is the criminal investigation, where the officer has 5th amendment rights. Only after that one is over do they proceed with the internal employer investigation where the officer has to give a full statement and that statement is compared against other statements, bodycam, etc to determine if they violated policy and should be fired. The second can only happen after the first due to the 5th amendment rights of the officer in a criminal investigation.

−28

montani t1_jd15tvk wrote

Replying to Dookiedoodoohead (#2,285,454)

How so? The issues are that innocent people get put to death and the appeals process takes forever and costs way more than imprisoning someone for life. If it’s opt in then it’s just prisoners who want to die. I’m not sure what any of that has to do with systematic prison abuse.

0

trs21219 t1_jd1g5m7 wrote

Replying to MeetTheTwinAndreBen (#2,287,293)

I would imagine your job doesn’t send you into situations on a regular basis where you might have to kill someone.

No one would want to be a cop if they could be without a paycheck for months for doing the right thing in a dangerous situation.

You seem to be focusing on the bad instances but there are plenty where a cop shoots someone who is pointing a gun at them or someone else and it’s totally justified. Should they be without pay for months until the investigations, grand jury decision and employment investigation is concluded?

−8

anatoli_smolin t1_jd28rk2 wrote

Replying to montani (#2,286,693)

To me I see an immediate problem of COs purposely making inmates’ lives miserable for the sake of coercion to take the death penalty. There is already rampant abuse within the prison system, imagine if someone who was already an abuser suddenly had the option to torment someone as much as they wanted to because the person could eventually just choose suicide if they don’t want to put up with abuse anymore. At least that’s the way I see it.

3

burritoace t1_jd2a445 wrote

Replying to anatoli_smolin (#2,288,847)

If CO staffs are full of people like this who are itching to kill someone (entirely possible, I don't know) then we've got big problems and maintaining the death penalty as is would surely be a mistake.

1