Will a jury convict?

Sounds like they should, at least for manslaughter, but they certainly might not.

Certainly he intended to shoot the kid in order to stop his flight.

Apparently, he fired three times because the first two, hitting the face and arm, didn't stop him.

Apparently, the third shot hit him near the center of the back and killed him.

Did he intend to kill him?

How do you prove that?

East Pittsburgh officer charged with homicide in fatal shooting of unarmed teen

The East Pittsburgh police officer who shot Antwon Rose II in the back as the unarmed 17-year-old ran from him should never have opened fire, District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. said Wednesday after charging the officer with criminal homicide.

Officer Michael H. Rosfeld, 30, of Penn Hills, gave conflicting statements to investigators about the fatal June 19 shooting, at first saying he saw “something dark” in the teenager’s hand and thought it was a gun, prompting him to fire three shots — but then saying he did not see a gun and wasn’t sure what he saw in Antwon’s hand, according to the criminal complaint.

The teen’s hands were empty, Mr. Zappala said, and both video and witness accounts suggest Antwon showed the officer his empty hands before he sprinted away.

"You do not shoot somebody in the back when they are not a threat to you," Mr. Zappala said. 

"I find that Rosfeld's actions were intentional, and they certainly brought about the result he was looking to accomplish.”

But read the story.

Doesn't look like the sweet and innocent kid he's been painted to be by his family and others.

It is difficult to believe that, had he not been shot himself, he would not have been charged with something in connection with the drive by shooting, even if he did not personally shoot.

Antwon was shot three times: on the right side of his face, in his right elbow and in his mid-back, to the right of his spine, according to a criminal complaint. 

The wound to the back was fatal.

. . . .

Mr. Zappala said Wednesday that Officer Rosfeld should have waited for backup after he stopped the Chevy Cruze.

"You've got three guys in the car,” he said. “You wait for backup."

An officer may not shoot at a fleeing felon, Mr. Zappala said, unless he is "in fear of death or serious injury. Those elements, clearly, are not there."

Mr. Zappala said that Officer Rosfeld was "remorseful" in his interview with county detectives.

Mr. Thomassey said his client sobbed through his first interview with him, and cried throughout his interview with county homicide detectives.

“He’s very, very remorseful. He’s not remorseful because he’s been charged. He legitimately is sad that this happened,” the attorney said. 

“Mike kept saying, ‘I can’t believe this happened. I can’t believe that kid didn’t have a gun in his hand.’”

In filing a general charge of criminal homicide, Mr. Zappala said, his office will let a jury determine which of five possible crimes would apply. 

They range from first-degree murder — a premeditated, deliberate killing — down to involuntary manslaughter.

"The evidence supports third-degree murder," Mr. Zappala said. 

But he continued, "We think we should have the right to argue first-degree murder."