In response to mother of another's message:

RE: The AFTERNOON of December 24
CB- Finally a thougthful and common sense response. I was very upset at Bev for saying things that she did. And for the record, I will say that I would never want to harm anyone, let alone a child, forgive me, I was angry. I must say, you have made the most sense,,,so thank you. Out of all the varied answers, I praise you.

It looks like breaking the law is just a family tradition for the Ellerbe/Hickenbotham family. The cop suing "father" is a convicted dope head who got busted again while on probation. Now he wants his trial moved some where else because of all of his cop suing publicity. http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/new s.cfm?newsid=19504957&BRD=2280& ;PAG=461&dept_id=468520&rfi=6
Put me on the jury. I guarantee he will get a fair and just trial.

In response to CB's message:

RE: The AFTERNOON of December 24
Sgt. Baranowski was the incident commander that day. He questions why there were not powder burns or other damage to the fence, why shell casings were found in places that didn't correspond with the troopers' positions at the time of the shooting, etc.
Tough job that trooper Nassan & Curry have, but, that doesn't excuse what may have been an error in judgement which they regret.
According to the troopers, Curry ran after Michael with his gun drawn, but, according to experts, he shouldn't have, for the reason that if he tripped and fell, his gun might discharge.
Nassan did not confirm that Curry had been shot, but, according to the experts, he should have.
So, running with a drawn gun and shooting on the basis of a belief that a colleague had been shot, resulted in the shooting of a 12 year old whom witnesses testified was one of many children to exit the SUV that afternooon.
Just the fact that Curry was running with his gun drawn should have put both troopers on alert that if he tripped and fell, his gun might discharge.
Don't you think that as a professional trooper Nassan should have realized that perhaps Curry was not shot, that perhaps his gun had discharged while climbing the fence?
Also, if Nassan was in pursuit of Michael, I wonder what obstructed his view that he was not able to SEE that Michael had not turned and fired a weapon at Curry.
Nassan has appeared to be truly distraught - I think he truly regrets his actions that afternoon.
It's true that parents need to instruct their children not to "steal" vehicles, and, it's true that state troopers need to be instructed on, and follow, proper protocol.
The jury has rejected police claims that Michael was driving the stolen SUV.
Michael's family may have instructed him to never "steal" a vehicle. and the state troopers may have been instructed to never run after a feeing suspect with guns drawn, and, to first confirm whther or not a colleague has been injured by a fleeing suspect, before shooting at the fleeing suspect.
Just a terribly sad, unfortunate outcome for everyone involved.

CB- Finally a thougthful and common sense response. I was very upset at Bev for saying things that she did. And for the record, I will say that I would never want to harm anyone, let alone a child, forgive me, I was angry. I must say, you have made the most sense,,,so thank you. Out of all the varied answers, I praise you.

Interesting to see discussion of which local politician supports which candidate. I've gone to hear both candidates or their family representatives speak just to learn more, to make an informed decision. Presence at Divito park or at any of Sen. Obama's stops doesn't mean someone necessarily is voting for that person. If you and I have that right to attend to hear what's going on and said... can't Tim Mahoney, too? Goodness, why waste time debating his choice based on mere attendance with his family at Divito Park?

In response to Joe's message:

RE: The AFTERNOON of December 24
I agree, too, that the police should have realized that a person dressed in the droop fashion which many children and young adults wear, may not be able to run without using a hand to hold up their pants.
In addition, protocol demands that a police officer who THINKS his colleague has been shot, MUST FIRST verify that what he THINKS is TRUE actually is.
If Nassan had performed his job correctly, he would have asked Curry if he had been shot.

Sgt. Baranowski was the incident commander that day. He questions why there were not powder burns or other damage to the fence, why shell casings were found in places that didn't correspond with the troopers' positions at the time of the shooting, etc.
Tough job that trooper Nassan & Curry have, but, that doesn't excuse what may have been an error in judgement which they regret.
According to the troopers, Curry ran after Michael with his gun drawn, but, according to experts, he shouldn't have, for the reason that if he tripped and fell, his gun might discharge.
Nassan did not confirm that Curry had been shot, but, according to the experts, he should have.
So, running with a drawn gun and shooting on the basis of a belief that a colleague had been shot, resulted in the shooting of a 12 year old whom witnesses testified was one of many children to exit the SUV that afternooon.
Just the fact that Curry was running with his gun drawn should have put both troopers on alert that if he tripped and fell, his gun might discharge.
Don't you think that as a professional trooper Nassan should have realized that perhaps Curry was not shot, that perhaps his gun had discharged while climbing the fence?
Also, if Nassan was in pursuit of Michael, I wonder what obstructed his view that he was not able to SEE that Michael had not turned and fired a weapon at Curry.
Nassan has appeared to be truly distraught - I think he truly regrets his actions that afternoon.
It's true that parents need to instruct their children not to "steal" vehicles, and, it's true that state troopers need to be instructed on, and follow, proper protocol.
The jury has rejected police claims that Michael was driving the stolen SUV.
Michael's family may have instructed him to never "steal" a vehicle. and the state troopers may have been instructed to never run after a feeing suspect with guns drawn, and, to first confirm whther or not a colleague has been injured by a fleeing suspect, before shooting at the fleeing suspect.
Just a terribly sad, unfortunate outcome for everyone involved.

In response to mother of another's message:

RE: The AFTERNOON of December 24
Bev-----are you stupid??? Are you really saying that all officers should be trained to catch bullets in their teeth? That statement makes as much sense as what you have been on here saying!!! Do you really think that the officers should be "sensitive" to the "baggy pants thungs"? How about the parents teach the kids to stop when commanded by an officer! How about that???? Dont ever spout that crap about boys playing with cars! I surely hope that you're not a parent. Really! If you are a parent,,,then dont be so surprised if your child comes to steal my car,,,,and he catches a bullet! Baggy pants or not,,,,afternoon or post-midnight,,,,teach your child right,,,and we will not have a problem! Young Michael's life was cut short because he was not taught better, plain and simple.

I agree, too, that the police should have realized that a person dressed in the droop fashion which many children and young adults wear, may not be able to run without using a hand to hold up their pants.
In addition, protocol demands that a police officer who THINKS his colleague has been shot, MUST FIRST verify that what he THINKS is TRUE actually is.
If Nassan had performed his job correctly, he would have asked Curry if he had been shot.

In response to mother of another's message:

RE: The AFTERNOON of December 24
Bev-----are you stupid??? Are you really saying that all officers should be trained to catch bullets in their teeth? That statement makes as much sense as what you have been on here saying!!! Do you really think that the officers should be "sensitive" to the "baggy pants thungs"? How about the parents teach the kids to stop when commanded by an officer! How about that???? Dont ever spout that crap about boys playing with cars! I surely hope that you're not a parent. Really! If you are a parent,,,then dont be so surprised if your child comes to steal my car,,,,and he catches a bullet! Baggy pants or not,,,,afternoon or post-midnight,,,,teach your child right,,,and we will not have a problem! Young Michael's life was cut short because he was not taught better, plain and simple.

The jury has determined that police were wrong to shoot Michael Ellerbe as he ran away from a SUV.
I agree with the jury.

In response to Bev's message:

RE: The AFTERNOON of December 24
Young children, especially boys, it seems, have an interest in motor vehicles.
They play with miniature cars, construction equipment, etc., from the time they're toddlers.
I've read accounts of children as young as 5 taking off in motor vehicles.
Most young children who take off in a motor vehicle do so for the "play" value, not because they have criminal intentions.

Bev-----are you stupid??? Are you really saying that all officers should be trained to catch bullets in their teeth? That statement makes as much sense as what you have been on here saying!!! Do you really think that the officers should be "sensitive" to the "baggy pants thungs"? How about the parents teach the kids to stop when commanded by an officer! How about that???? Dont ever spout that crap about boys playing with cars! I surely hope that you're not a parent. Really! If you are a parent,,,then dont be so surprised if your child comes to steal my car,,,,and he catches a bullet! Baggy pants or not,,,,afternoon or post-midnight,,,,teach your child right,,,and we will not have a problem! Young Michael's life was cut short because he was not taught better, plain and simple.

In response to Who Dey?'s message:

RE: The AFTERNOON of December 24
We understand. How much of the settlement are you in line for? Why do you keep replying to your own comments. We don't care. Our taxes will pay the settlement. Maybe Rendell will use the slots money to pay Ellerbe's absentee father. Maybe the Welfare department will step in and collect all the money that they paid to support Ellerbe while his father wouldn't. Maybe this was an act of a compassionate God taking Ellerbe to a better place so he won't rot in jail when he reached adulthood. God is mercy. Ellerbe is in a better place, IF he was the "angel" everyone says he was, except for the police and now his "dad" is better off if he gets to keep the settlement except for whatever he promised you.

Of course YOU don't care about injustice - you never have, right?
You're correct that everyone described Michael Ellerbe in positive terms, except, of course - the DA & State Police.

In response to Bev's message:

RE: The AFTERNOON of December 24
Regarding Nancy Vernon's comment that "It's significant that he was not at home on Christmas Eve anxioiusly awaiting the next day".
YES, IT IS SIGNIFICANT that Michael Ellerbe could not be at home on Christmas Eve anxiously awaiting the next day because he had been shot in the back at 2:30 PM and died before Christmas Eve.
Otherwise, Michael Ellerbe could have been home at Christmas Eve, anxiously awaiting the next day, as many other children did.

We understand. How much of the settlement are you in line for? Why do you keep replying to your own comments. We don't care. Our taxes will pay the settlement. Maybe Rendell will use the slots money to pay Ellerbe's absentee father. Maybe the Welfare department will step in and collect all the money that they paid to support Ellerbe while his father wouldn't. Maybe this was an act of a compassionate God taking Ellerbe to a better place so he won't rot in jail when he reached adulthood. God is mercy. Ellerbe is in a better place, IF he was the "angel" everyone says he was, except for the police and now his "dad" is better off if he gets to keep the settlement except for whatever he promised you.

In response to What??'s message:

RE: The AFTERNOON of December 24
12:01 AM until 12:00 NOON is MORNING.
12:01 PM until 6:00 PM is AFTERNOON.
6:01 PM until 12:00 MIDNITE is EVENING.
You should know that!

WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This christmas eve noun the day before Christmas WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source - Share This Christmas Eve December 24 Arabic: ليل& #1577; عيد الم& #1610;لا&#1583 ; Chinese (Simplified): 圣诞节&a mp;#21069;夜 Chinese (Traditional): 聖誕節&a mp;#21069;夜 Czech: Štědrý den, *večer Danish: juleaften Dutch: kerstavond Estonian: jõululaupäev Finnish: jouluaatto French: veille de Noël German: der Heilige Abend Greek: παρ&#94 5;μον&# 942; Χρι&#96 3;του&# 947;ένν& ;#969;ν Hungarian: szenteste Icelandic: aðfangadagskvöld Indonesian: malam Natal Italian: vigilia di Natale* Japanese: クリス&a mp;#12510;スイ& ;#12502; Latvian: Ziemassvētku vakars Lithuanian: Kūčios Norwegian: julaften Polish: Wigilia Portuguese (Brazil): véspera de Natal Portuguese (Portugal): véspera de Natal Romanian: Ajun (al Crăciunului) Russian: соч& #1077;ль&#1085 ;ик Slovak: Štedrý deň Slovenian: božični večer Spanish: Nochebuena Swedish: julafton Turkish: Noel arifesi

In response to Bev's message:

RE: The AFTERNOON of December 24
Sign On San Diego reported that Nancy Vernon told them "It is significant that he was not at home on Christmas Eve anxiously awaiting the next day. Instead, Michael was on the streets engaging in an adult crime and facing adult consequences.”
IMO, Nancy Vernon used the phrase "Christmas Eve", instead of 2:30 PM on December 24, to claim that Michael Ellerbe was different than other children in that he had no desire to be at home anxiously looking forward to the next day.
Further, she states that not only was Michael Ellerbe different than other children because they were at home on "Christmas Eve" anxiously awaiting the next day, but, that Michael Ellerbe is also different than other children because he was "on the streets'.
She goes on to say that he was on the streets, unlike other children, "engaging in an adult crime" for which he received an "adult consequence".
Closer examination of Nancy Vernon's statement reveals the lies she told.
First of all, Michael Ellerbe could not have been at home on Christmas Eve anxiously awaiting the next day because he was shot in the back by a state trooper at approximately 2:30 PM on the afternoon of December 24.
At 2:30 PM on December 24, MANY other children were "on the streets" because although the temperatures were lower, it was a sunny afternoon.
So, Michael Ellerbe wasn't different than all the other children because he was "on the streets" at 2:30 in the afternoon.
She said Michael Ellerbe engaged in an "adult crime" but he didn't. First of all, the JURY REJECTED POLICE CLAIMS that Michael Ellerbe drove a stolen motor vehicle and, secondly, he was 12 years old, not an adult.
She said the death of Michael Ellerbe is an "adult consequence" but, at 12 years old, Michael Ellerbe could not have been, according to our law, subjected to an "adult consequence" even if he had driven a stolen motor vehicle.

Regarding Nancy Vernon's comment that "It's significant that he was not at home on Christmas Eve anxioiusly awaiting the next day".
YES, IT IS SIGNIFICANT that Michael Ellerbe could not be at home on Christmas Eve anxiously awaiting the next day because he had been shot in the back at 2:30 PM and died before Christmas Eve.
Otherwise, Michael Ellerbe could have been home at Christmas Eve, anxiously awaiting the next day, as many other children did.

In response to What??'s message:

RE: The AFTERNOON of December 24
12:01 AM until 12:00 NOON is MORNING.
12:01 PM until 6:00 PM is AFTERNOON.
6:01 PM until 12:00 MIDNITE is EVENING.
You should know that!

Sign On San Diego reported that Nancy Vernon told them "It is significant that he was not at home on Christmas Eve anxiously awaiting the next day. Instead, Michael was on the streets engaging in an adult crime and facing adult consequences.”
IMO, Nancy Vernon used the phrase "Christmas Eve", instead of 2:30 PM on December 24, to claim that Michael Ellerbe was different than other children in that he had no desire to be at home anxiously looking forward to the next day.
Further, she states that not only was Michael Ellerbe different than other children because they were at home on "Christmas Eve" anxiously awaiting the next day, but, that Michael Ellerbe is also different than other children because he was "on the streets'.
She goes on to say that he was on the streets, unlike other children, "engaging in an adult crime" for which he received an "adult consequence".
Closer examination of Nancy Vernon's statement reveals the lies she told.
First of all, Michael Ellerbe could not have been at home on Christmas Eve anxiously awaiting the next day because he was shot in the back by a state trooper at approximately 2:30 PM on the afternoon of December 24.
At 2:30 PM on December 24, MANY other children were "on the streets" because although the temperatures were lower, it was a sunny afternoon.
So, Michael Ellerbe wasn't different than all the other children because he was "on the streets" at 2:30 in the afternoon.
She said Michael Ellerbe engaged in an "adult crime" but he didn't. First of all, the JURY REJECTED POLICE CLAIMS that Michael Ellerbe drove a stolen motor vehicle and, secondly, he was 12 years old, not an adult.
She said the death of Michael Ellerbe is an "adult consequence" but, at 12 years old, Michael Ellerbe could not have been, according to our law, subjected to an "adult consequence" even if he had driven a stolen motor vehicle.

In response to JF's message:

RE: The AFTERNOON of December 24
Christmas EVE is the day before Christmas, so yes, he was out Christmas EVE. His "caregivers" were negligent, because the boy had a history of violence and criminal activity. Fights, weapons (the police were at his house several times confiscating weapons, so the troopers had a good reason to think that he had a gun) drugs, you name it and he has been involved, but the courts wouldn't let that evidence be presented. Why? He was a criminal. Whether a criminal is 12 or 112, sometimes, very rarely, but sometimes, they get what they deserve.

A newspaper quoted Becky Evans, who lives in the neighborhood, as saying 12 year old Michael Ellerbe was on the honor roll and was a good kid.
Actually, you can tell just by looking at a picture of him with a huge smile and by watching the video of him at a Christmas pageant that Michael Ellerbe was not a hard-core criminal out to shoot a police officer.
I found a newspaper article which Michael's father told reporters that his son had cried because he was afraid he was in trouble for being a few minutes late arriving home.

In response to JF's message:

RE: The AFTERNOON of December 24
Christmas EVE is the day before Christmas, so yes, he was out Christmas EVE. His "caregivers" were negligent, because the boy had a history of violence and criminal activity. Fights, weapons (the police were at his house several times confiscating weapons, so the troopers had a good reason to think that he had a gun) drugs, you name it and he has been involved, but the courts wouldn't let that evidence be presented. Why? He was a criminal. Whether a criminal is 12 or 112, sometimes, very rarely, but sometimes, they get what they deserve.

12:01 AM until 12:00 NOON is MORNING.
12:01 PM until 6:00 PM is AFTERNOON.
6:01 PM until 12:00 MIDNITE is EVENING.
You should know that!

In response to JF's message:

RE: The AFTERNOON of December 24
Shot and killed while committing a felony. A crime. With a history of carrying illegal deadly weapons. Maybe he was raised to think that shopping and stealing is the same thing. Maybe he was stealing the truck for one of his caregivers. Maybe his spermdonor father should have been given 10 years in prison instead of all that money. Maybe, he should be sterilized too.

. . . his father WAS involved in his life. Maybe his parents were the best in many ways.
You don't have FACTS to prove otherwise, do you?
Nancy Vernon should have stated that if Michael Ellerbe had not been shot at 2:30 PM on December 24, he may have spent Christmas Eve with his family.

In response to JF's message:

RE: The AFTERNOON of December 24
Shot and killed while committing a felony. A crime. With a history of carrying illegal deadly weapons. Maybe he was raised to think that shopping and stealing is the same thing. Maybe he was stealing the truck for one of his caregivers. Maybe his spermdonor father should have been given 10 years in prison instead of all that money. Maybe, he should be sterilized too.

Young children, especially boys, it seems, have an interest in motor vehicles.
They play with miniature cars, construction equipment, etc., from the time they're toddlers.
I've read accounts of children as young as 5 taking off in motor vehicles.
Most young children who take off in a motor vehicle do so for the "play" value, not because they have criminal intentions.

In response to Bev's message:

RE: The AFTERNOON of December 24
Michael Ellerbe was out and about on the AFTERNOON of December 24, as were hundreds of other children in Uniontown.
Michael Ellerbe wasn't out and about after curfew on December 24 - he was out and about during DAYLIGHT HOURS - technically, he was NOT shot and killed on Christmas "EVE".
In addition, what's CHRISTMAS EVE got to do with Michael Ellerbe's death?
There isn't any law that requires children to be at home on Christmas Eve or on the afternoon of December 24.
Nancy Vernon is WRONG to insinuate that Michael Ellerbe's care-givers were negligent because they permitted him to be out on Christmas Eve.
If that were true, every child shopping the afternoon of December 24 had negligent parents or care-givers.

If Michael Ellerbe was wearing baggy pants, the two state troopers should have considered that a reason for his hand being held near his pants pocket was because he had to hold the pants up while he ran.
Anyone whose ever seen children try to run while wearing baggy pants knows that they have to hold them up to do so.
Surely the troopers were trained to consider that a person they're pursuing on foot might have their hand in or near a pocket in order to hold their pants up.
If they WEREN'T trained to consider this, they SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

In response to Bev's message:

RE: The AFTERNOON of December 24
Michael Ellerbe was out and about on the AFTERNOON of December 24, as were hundreds of other children in Uniontown.
Michael Ellerbe wasn't out and about after curfew on December 24 - he was out and about during DAYLIGHT HOURS - technically, he was NOT shot and killed on Christmas "EVE".
In addition, what's CHRISTMAS EVE got to do with Michael Ellerbe's death?
There isn't any law that requires children to be at home on Christmas Eve or on the afternoon of December 24.
Nancy Vernon is WRONG to insinuate that Michael Ellerbe's care-givers were negligent because they permitted him to be out on Christmas Eve.
If that were true, every child shopping the afternoon of December 24 had negligent parents or care-givers.

If Michael Ellerbe was wearing baggy pants, the two state troopers should have considered that a reason for his hand being held near his pants pocket was because he had to hold the pants up while he ran.
Anyone whose ever seen children try to run while wearing baggy pants knows that they have to hold them up to do so.
Surely the troopers were trained to consider that a person they're pursuing on foot might have their hand in or near a pocket in order to hold their pants up.
If they WEREN'T trained to consider this, they SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

In response to Bev's message:

RE: The AFTERNOON of December 24
Nancy Vernon's SPIN: Christmas EVE, instead of the afternoon of December 24.
Why?
To convey the impression he would not have been shot and killed if only his parents or care-givers had provided him with Christmas Eve activities at home, you know - a tree to decorate, gifts to wrap, carols to sing, blah de blah.
Think is, his parents or care-givers MAY HAVE actually provided those things and perhaps Michael Ellerbe WAS looking forward to Christmas "EVE" at home.
Unfortunately, he was shot and killed the AFTERNOON of December 24.

Shot and killed while committing a felony. A crime. With a history of carrying illegal deadly weapons. Maybe he was raised to think that shopping and stealing is the same thing. Maybe he was stealing the truck for one of his caregivers. Maybe his spermdonor father should have been given 10 years in prison instead of all that money. Maybe, he should be sterilized too.

In response to Bev's message:

RE: The AFTERNOON of December 24
Michael Ellerbe was out and about on the AFTERNOON of December 24, as were hundreds of other children in Uniontown.
Michael Ellerbe wasn't out and about after curfew on December 24 - he was out and about during DAYLIGHT HOURS - technically, he was NOT shot and killed on Christmas "EVE".
In addition, what's CHRISTMAS EVE got to do with Michael Ellerbe's death?
There isn't any law that requires children to be at home on Christmas Eve or on the afternoon of December 24.
Nancy Vernon is WRONG to insinuate that Michael Ellerbe's care-givers were negligent because they permitted him to be out on Christmas Eve.
If that were true, every child shopping the afternoon of December 24 had negligent parents or care-givers.

Christmas EVE is the day before Christmas, so yes, he was out Christmas EVE. His "caregivers" were negligent, because the boy had a history of violence and criminal activity. Fights, weapons (the police were at his house several times confiscating weapons, so the troopers had a good reason to think that he had a gun) drugs, you name it and he has been involved, but the courts wouldn't let that evidence be presented. Why? He was a criminal. Whether a criminal is 12 or 112, sometimes, very rarely, but sometimes, they get what they deserve.