Monty said: "Did you read the part where he admitted to the cop that he’d been drinking and driving? Non-alcoholic beer isn’t non-alcoholic. It has alcohol in it.”
Nice try.
After the cop realized he had pulled me over for waving a cigarette, he then said “I smell alcohol”. This seems to be standard procedure. Not beer or wine or liquor. It wouldn’t look good if he had said that he smelled beer when it was booze. Why don’t you drink a six pack or 6 shots of bourbon and let me smell your breath to see if I call tell which.
My point is that anything that could be spun as probable cause was in my case.
My T-shirt not being tucked into my shorts is probable cause? The cop said this was the reason I looked “disheveled”.
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about: The cop wrote in his report that “when I asked for his registration, [my name] handed me his insurance card instead”.
This is technically true.
But what happened was that as I was reaching for my wallet for my license, I asked my friend to get my registration from the glove compartment. The registration card and the insurance card were both identically sized dot-matrixed printed perforated pieces of paper. I took it from my friend and handed it to the cop without looking at it and he was shining his flashlight in my face.
When the cop pointed this out, I asked my friend to get the registration card. My friend was drunk and couldn’t find it (I have the owner’s manual and maps and whatnot in there).
I then asked the cop shine his light on the glove compartment and it took me less than 5 seconds to find it and hand it to him.
But what he wrote in his report makes me look like I might be drunk.
This is an example of how the “facts” can be spun.
My friend testified to this in court, but when my lawyer asked the cop about it, the cop said “he couldn’t remember”.
So maybe the cop:
[ul][li]wasn’t “on this big power trip” [/li][li]didn’t have to kill someone to “satisfy [his] macho ego”[/li][li]wasn’t “way out of line”[/li][li]wasn’t a “classic ‘hothead’”[/li][li]wasn’t “So unhappy with his life … he was just itching for some real action to take place”[/ul][/li]
All baseless, warrantless, ignorant and completely unjustified accusations which you made earlier in the thread. The single fact that an incident which escalated but ended without shots being fired occured immediately previous to the one in which Aaron Brown died severely damages all your accusations. The report and newspaper articles completely obliterate them.
The police’s behavior toward people like iamamoocher is disgusting.
The cop in the Aaron Brown case was the authority figure in the situation. The one who was supposed to have the wisdom and knowledge about what to do in a situation like this. I think it was stupid and downright **reckless **for him to give chase into a parking lot, after a moving car, with a weapon drawn, all over a dine-and-dash. A young man should not have died over this. I still take the stance that it was unnecessary force.
Now I acknowledge that (1) the driver was also extremely reckless and (2) there is not enough evidence for a criminal case against the cop. But I do feel a lawsuit by Brown’s family is completely justified.
Sure it is. I never said otherwise. If the story is as iamamoocher presented it, and facts aren’t being spun here to help make his point (as he’s alleging the police did to him), then I might agree with you.
But in this case (you know, the subject of this thread?) your attitude is unwarranted, disgusting and has no basis in reality.
Are you a police officer? Do you know what training this police officer has been given? Do you know the policy on “giving chase”? Do you know how many other confrontations in the parking lot this police officer has been involved in, how many he handled in this way, and how many other times he has discharged his weapon?
I don’t know those things, and so I defer to people who do: The people quoted in the report, and the person who wrote it. People interviewed in the newspaper. People who know more than me about the situation.
You don’t know any of those things, and you still persist in your ignorant opinions that the officer was unjustified in his actions. You persist in your ignorant opinions that the cop was macho, reckless, egotistical, hotheaded and so on in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Disgusting.
You’re assuming facts not in evidence here (unless I’ve missed them, in which case please point me to the correct point in the linked stories where they are recounted). Everything I saw said the cop chased the teens into the parking lot where they hopped into a car and gunned it towards him, whereupon, justifiably fearing for his life, he drew his weapon and fired. That’s a whole different kettle of fish from chasing a moving car into the parking lot with his weapon already drawn. Which is it?
Does it really matter what police policy over “giving chase” is? This guy was off-duty, moonlighting at an IHOP. He was not officially on duty as a cop. Do police policies still apply?
Garfield, you think my opnions are ignorant. Well that’s your opinion and you are as justified to have it as I am to have mine.
Chocolate raises a good point. This was a security guard. I think it is reckless for any security guard to give chase after 6 people, into a parking lot in the middle of the night with a loaded weapon, all over a pancake meal. It’s reckless when you consider the threat to the security guard’s safety and the danger to the public (the passengers and anyone else who could have been in the parking lot.
I think retailers who have policies against giving chase have a good reason for those policies. It’s too dangerous and risky. These types of policies have been discussed on the boards before.
Like I said before, it is justified that the cop could be held civilly liable for this. Afterall he is the one who pursued them, and drew a loaded weapon. Likewise, I think a case could be made against the driver too. There was recklessness all around - the kids who skipped the check, the driver who spend through the parking lot trying to get away, and the officer who gave chase and put himself and others in danger over something that was simply not worth it.
Happens all the time - civil suits are a different thing than criminal - you don’t need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, just have 50.01% of the evidence on your side.
Most police departments have pretty well laid out rules that police have to follow while doing police-type work as a second job. In most cases, they are required to follow the same standards and procedures that they would be required to follow when on regular duty.
:dubious: Didn’t read the report did you?
Here is the link again so you don’t even have to scroll up thread to find it. 54 page PDF report . You just might want to read it for detail before you dig yourself in any deeper here.
The officer did not chase the car with his gun drawn. If you don’t read the entire report at least read the first 4 pages of the PDF.
He did not shoot in response to a dine and dash. Could we stop with that strawman? He fired because he believed his life was in danger. The law allows anyone who believes their life to be in danger to defend themselves using any reasonable force up to and including deadly force. Read the report. All the relevant cites for case law about use of deadly force are there.
If you take the time to read the report you will also find that out about Officer Stowe’s wisdom and experience. He has 13 years on the force and has dealt with other dine and dash incidents at this restaurant. You may find it of interest that he dealt with a dine and dash just prior to this incident. That one started to get mouthy, and on duty police were called. It was all straightened out and no arrests were made. However the people involved with that incident were still in the parking lot when the shooting occurred. The very interesting thing is the people from the first incident (who it could be argued don’t have any reason to think kindly of Officer Stowe) gave statements that support Officer Stowe’s statement, and the physical evidence at the scene.
We should just give it up. As evidenced already in this thread, certain posters will say that the police report is just a cover-up. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Their mantra is “cops are wrong cops are wrong cops are wrong cops are wrong.”
Yeah, you are probably right, but I do try to fight ignorance when I can.
But with some people it seems to go past ignorance, and onto willfull stupidity. :smack:
At that point we either give up or start making fun of them.
Don’t I know it. This morning, I ended up talking with one of those conspiracy theorists. He said we scientists are closed minded because we don’t believe their trash about the WTC.
Without reading the full PDF report, something seems way off on the time line here - 6 people walk out of restaurant, have time to walk to car, climb into said car, drive out of lot, at which time security guard has to jump in fromt of car to get it to stop - this just feels wrong.
If he had to jump in front of fast moving vehicle to get it to stop, how did he even know he had the right car? (I don’t believe he could have seen them climb in, otherwise he could have been “at” the car before it moved)
What would the law be on this - if he was off duty is he regarded as a “security guard” or a “police officer”?, it is very different to be told to stop by security than by police
Having made police reports and acted as a witness I know it is very easy for the police to “massage” your story - good or bad I won’t / can’t say in relation to this case, I just know I have experienced it. (I also know it is very easy for witnesses to deliberately massage story to shed themselves in better light)
If he was far enough away to reasonably expect the car to stop when he stood / jumped in front of it, wouldn’t he also have enough time to “get out of the way”?
If a passenger had time to scream “oh my god you’re going to run him over” wouldn’t “he” have time to move? (once again I would ask the question about a security guard versues a police officer - I may “ignore” a gurad if I reasonably expect him to have time to move, I would’t dare do this to an officer)
Could this be a case that escalated because a teenager called a GUARD’S Bluff? - if so, wouldn’t the officer, be the one to blame for the escalation? We train the police to be able to act rationally under pressure and in such circumstances, so we should hold them to a higher standard than “the general public”
I just managed to fully read the PDF, the shooting still doesn’t feel right, I think he had time to move out of the way, or he shouldn’t have been where he was in the first place - it just doesn’t quite seem to gel - if I see a car accelerating out of a corner I am going to take cover as fast as possible, not stand anywhere near where it might go.
But most of all, I am really not comfortable with a uniformed and armed police officer undertaking private guard detail. THis just feels plain wrong. Either he there as a police officer, on police time, or he is a guard. Hiring him in uniform feels inappropriate (I do however realise that a police officer is never "off duty, and that if he sees a crime, it is incumbent upon him to do something)
Its not that “cops are wrong”. Its that a lot of people are assholes, cops are people, ergo some cops are assholes. When cop is an assholes we all lose. The price of freedom is eternal vigilence.
::: Sigh:::
go back and read it again. Pay particular attention to the statements by the officer (page 25) and the picture on page 46 showing the overview of the lot.
First off the lane between the parked cars is way over 1 car width wide. According to testimony he was not in front of the Jeep, until the Jeep swerved to it’s left and headed toward the officer. He was moving to try and get out of the way. Look at the statement of Mr. Hamm on page 23
(#5 in the diagram on page 52)
Does this sound like the officer jumped in front of a moving car? Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, the officer was trying like hell to get out from in front of an asshole that was trying his best to run him down in an SUV going at least 25 MPH. This is supported by the statements of the driver and passengers given on the night in question. Later on, the driver and passengers gave a much different account. Their latter statements do not jibe with the physical evidence or with other witness’ statements. Ergo they are lying their asses off the second time around. Also how do we know the Jeep swerved to its left? Duh, it hit 3 cars on the left side of the parking lot. It sure as hell was not driving straight ahead.
As far as your second paragraph goes, if you fell uncomfortable about a police officer working security in his spare time in uniform (Yes the officer was in uniform, read the flippin report) then pass a law saying that this is not allowed. Until then you can’t say the cop is guilty of something just because he choose to augment his income.
I will completly agree with this. However since I am not planing to marry Officer Stowe his personality is not (or should not be) the question.
What should be the question is did Officer Stowe act legally or not. He could be the largest asshole ever to wear a uniform, but if the driver was trying to kill him, he would be justified in shooting.
yes the price of freedom is eternal vigilence, but posts like
Refusal to eximine the evidence and just making making snarky comments shows either a mind that is set like 2 week old concrete, or just general assholishness.
Look at some of the other posts in this thread and elsewhere on this board. A fair number of people don’t bother with some and just say or imply all cops are.
