Submitted by OaSoaD t3_11wtzl6 in pittsburgh
AntiStatistYouth t1_jd06m2m wrote
Reply to comment by Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer in DA to seek death penalty against man accused of fatally shooting McKeesport officer by OaSoaD
First, where is that in the article?
Second, ranting about going on a shooting spree would be a clear indication of a mental health disorder, not premeditation of a specific murder.
extrahandgrenades t1_jd07nez wrote
That’s the reason Police we’re even there. They were conducting a welfare check after he called an out of state credit union threatening to go on a killing spree.
AntiStatistYouth t1_jd0a6k6 wrote
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.
extrahandgrenades t1_jd0ax5j wrote
It was publicly reported.
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).
AntiStatistYouth t1_jd0c2hh wrote
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.
extrahandgrenades t1_jd0ck7g wrote
Premeditation is not required for First Degree Murder of a Law Enforcement Officer.
AntiStatistYouth t1_jd0d8mc wrote
Ok, I wasn't discussing "First Degree Murder of a Law Enforcement Officer" specifically, just premeditation, but we can discuss the charges as well, if you'd like.
extrahandgrenades t1_jd0h4qw wrote
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.
AntiStatistYouth t1_jd0ic3f wrote
See other post for why manslaughter is the appropriate charge.
extrahandgrenades t1_jd0krvg wrote
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.
AntiStatistYouth t1_jd0dwgl wrote
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.
extrahandgrenades t1_jd0vato wrote
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.
[deleted] t1_jd0tcpm wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments