AntiStatistYouth t1_je1zpth wrote

Maybe, but large organizations like UPMC, whether they call themselves 'non-profit' or not, are driven by profit. Diverting police away from the hospitals is likely just going to create a public relations nightmare.

The effective way to pressure UPMC is to impact their bottom line. Use the permitting process to prevent their new hospital wing or administrative building from opening for even a couple months and they will lose millions of dollars. And that is money they will lose immediately, before they can effectively retaliate monetarily by forcing the city to pay legal fees fighting in court.


AntiStatistYouth t1_je0lmo8 wrote

I'm curious to see how far the Gainey Administration is willing to take the fight and if he's willing to play real hardball. Long-term, the city can't maintain it's infrastructure or services without getting some of the larger "non-profits" to contribute. What that will looks like is the big question. There has to be leverage to get UPMC to agree to a new PILOT. Whether that's revoking the tax-exempt status of certain properties, or getting down in the trenches and revoking/blocking work permits for new hospitals and administrative buildings, UPMC isn't going to do it voluntarily


AntiStatistYouth t1_je0j15d wrote

This is indeed the strategy, although it remains unclear whether it will work. UPMC has shown itself willing to spend huge sums of money on legal fees to fight taxation, even in excess of the initial tax amount itself. They might decide to fight a long legal battle now over the small stuff, even if they don't expect to win because it will delay and deter future efforts to tax the big stuff. UPMC can drain the cities coffers with legal fees and tie this effort up in court for long enough, they come out ahead.

UPMC has explicitly threatened to bankrupt the city with legal fees if their tax exempt status is revoked entirely. I suspect even trying to tax them at the edges is going to be a fight.


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.


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.


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.


AntiStatistYouth t1_jd04dlf wrote

>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.


AntiStatistYouth t1_j5p6u6x wrote

>“There can be over 50 kids hanging out, waiting at the bus stop at any given time. Many hang out in front of my building. Last week, the kids broke my large play glass front window of my karate studio. $975 to replace. Every day, they litter and more,” Mowod said.

If you have a storefront in a business district by a city bus stop there are going to be lots of people hanging around. If there is a giant city highschool around the corner, there are going to be lots of teenagers. There will be litter, there will be loud crowds, etc. That is just reality.

That said, something should be done if windows are getting broken. That is way too far. Guy should be more selective with his word choice though.