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.

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.

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.

Premeditation is not required for First Degree Murder of a Law Enforcement Officer.

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).

Premeditation isn’t a required element for any of the charges on his docket.

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.