Cop shoot, kills teen after he skips out on check at IHOP

The BBQ Pit
401

Garfield…

that’s the whole point of my arguement, the Jeep squealed its tyres at the top end of the carpark, and the cop / guard didn’t plan for the possibility that maybe, it wasn’t gonna stop? The cop still allowed himself to get into a position where he had nowhere to go? That just seems foolish. BTW - fwiw, if, as the report states, the driver was trying to run down the guard / cop he should be charged with attempted murder.

I agree, cops do and should have the rights of a cop all the time when they are off duty (i.e …sitting in their front yard, out shopping) BUT I have issues when they are hired as guards, and still retain these rights - it simply doesn’t feel proper, it feels too much like hiring private justice. What if I hire a cop for a business that has “socially questionable” practises (eg - must speak english to order?), if the area is really dangerous enough to need police protection - then the city / police force should provide that, if not, it should be a private guard in private uniform. There is just too much conflict of interest.

402

I read it as he WAS planning for the possibility. If he hadn’t planned for the possibility, he would have been run over. I can’t claim I’ve ever been in a situation remotely resembling the one in this story, but I don’t imagine it would be terribly difficult to misjudge your position by a few feet and slam into a parked car’s trunk when you’re trying to run away, instead of between two cars. Especially if your focus is on a Jeep moving at or over 25 mph swerving at you within an arm’s reach. Especially if, as the reconstruction for the report shows, the Jeep took four seconds or less from the time it took the turn until it hit the parked cars (meaning even less time between the turn and the officer’s reaction).

He says once he thought it wasn’t going to stop, he moved away, but then the driver aimed it at him. Three of the five people in the van said it looked like the driver was going to hit the cop. One of them said, “It looked like he was almost steering straight into him.” One of them screamed, “Oh my God, you are going to kill this cop!” In his first interview, the DRIVER said it was reasonable that the officer felt that his life was threatened.

403

For the last time: UNIFORMED SECURITY OFFICER DOES NOT DOES NOT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN POLICE UNIFORM!

404

Go back and read the full report.

405

::: sigh (again):::
Go back and look at the pictures in the report. The lane between the parked cars was way over 1 car wide. The office tried his best to get the fuck out of dodge, but the Jeep was aimed at him.
As far as your issues with a cop working in his off hours. If you don’t like it, work to get the rules changed. Until it is aginst the rules, you have nothing to complain about.

406

I HAVE…and since moderated my position somewhat…I still think the cop did wrong, but more in a needless escalation sort of way than in a acting like a cowboy sort of way

Cheers!

407

I don’t see the problem in having off-duty police work security. They’ve got better training and more clearly defined powers of arrest. It’s certainly not a step towards vigilantism. In fact it’s the opposite.

408

hmmm…another sigh…yes the lane did have plenty of space for the cop to stand there and have the car go to one side…but you are assuming that the driver is going to act rationally, and be in total control of the car, for me, I would be making damn sure I COULDN’T get hit, and planning on that basis, not working from “if he can drive well he won’t hit me”

My complaint is, if the cop hadn’t been armed, would the situation have ended differently? Would the cop have been so confrontational if he didn’t have the security of a 13 or 14 shot weapon backing him up? (assuming private guards aren’t typically armed) Also, if as a private citizen I try to stop a moving vehicle, then start to fear for my life am I allowed to happily start shooting at it? I think this cop got special treatment because he was a cop - if he had been a “simple” security guard he would have been in deep shit for his actions. That is wrong, when he tried to stop the car he was acting in his capacity as a guard, not as a cop.

409

According to the report, prepared by the commonwealth’s attorney, you would have been. Which you probably would have known if you’d read it.

(bolding mine)

410

adopted: How, in your reading, did you come to the conclusion that the police officer escalated the situation? I’m really anxious to know how you think the man managed to drive a vehicle at himself while he was on foot.

411

Beat me to it and :smiley:
Read the fucking report people or you wind up looking like an idiot, just like adopted.

412

The evidence in this case clearly establishes that Stowe fired after the jeep changed course and headed at him and he was under reasonable apprehension that his life was in danger. Under such circumstances, he, as any citizen would be, was legally entitled to defend himself

Bolding Mine - this is the crux of what I am arguing - I believe the situation could have been handled differently on two levels

  1. A cop should have the experience / foresight to better plan for an escape route when things don’t happen as expected
  2. The fact that he was armed, I think was in part the reason for the escalation - the occpants of the car were seen, he had the tags, there was no need to stand in front of a moving car in such a confrontational manner, and if he were doing so as an “ordinary” guard or private citizen he actions would have been viewed very differently (even confrontational or an attempt at wrongful detention) - he is being given a lot of leeway for his actions because he is a cop when he was behaving in a capacity as a hired guard.

Please don’t get me wrong, when an officer’s life is in imminent danger, he (she) has every right to use lethal force, and I would defend this right. I feel that in this case though the cops actions directly contributed to the danger.

Perhaps an analogy…
I am (hypothetically) an experienced and adept street brawler - I taunt you until you react, and then use your reaction as an excuse to beat your arse. I think Stowe’s actions in this case could be considered a taunt, and this isn’t being considered because he is a cop, in other words, even though he was acting as a private citizen, he is being given “extra” rights because of his job. This gives the restaurant “extra” rights because they were able to hire a cop - which very much is the start of vigilantism.

I do fully agree that it is good to see cops working security because of the knowledge and training they have, we just need to very specifically demarcate that when they are hired by a private citizen, then they ONLY have the rights associated with the “class” of citizen.

413

If somebody jumps in front of my car I sure as hell take that as a challenge and an insult, if a guard tries to stop me, my first reaction is an angry “what the hell for” this is what I am trying (not very successfully) to argue, NOT that, given the fact that the officer believed he was in danger he shot - that is justified I think that Stowe could / should have handled the situation such that his life was never placed in danger in the first place

414

Even if you just skipped out on a check at a restaurant? With the smell of marijuana and rolling papers in the car? And were a teenager with a full 12-pack of beer, half of another case of beer and less than half of a 12-pack of “mixed drinks” in the cargo area of the jeep?

My reaction, in that case, probably wouldn’t be “what the hell for?”

415

How do you know this? Cite?

Ahh, he wasn’t standing in front of the car, it swerved toward him. The entire fault lies with the driver of the Jeep.

[quote]
Please don’t get me wrong, when an officer’s life is in imminent danger, he (she) has every right to use lethal force, and I would defend this right. I feel that in this case though the cops actions directly contributed to the danger. [/qhote]How So?

Nope, sorry just more straw. There is a huge difference between what occured and your senario.

Guess you missed the part in the report where the state’ attorney said his being a police office actually caused a higher level of scrunity. :rolleyes:

416

Wrong word, try police officer. He was in uniform.

417

Actually RIGHT word, and this is why I have a problem with this case, he was hired as a GUARD. The fact that he was in uniform, I think directly contributed to this needless death. It should never be the case that private establishments can HIRE the POLICE, get police help for special events sure, but not hire.

If Stowe couldn’t get the tags of a car that was abt to drive within a few feet of him, what sort of officer would he be?

The question I need to ask, and that still hasn’t been answered, why couldn’t Stowe simply have stood amongst the parked cars, and taken down the tags then reported the case to ON DUTY police? How long would it take them to converge and find this vehicle? If he had never had a gun in the first place, would Stowe have placed himself in such a (potentially) dangerous situation.

As a follow on to this, how much power would a guard, who was not a police officer, have to stop the vehicle?

If I (as a private citizen) tried to stop somebody from leaving the scene of a crime, placed myself in a dangerous situation I would be called to account for creating the danger in the first place - which is not happening here.

And initially Stowe was standing in front of the Jeep (cite: he moved to one side to let it pass).

Having read the report, I beleive that in the closing seconds, when the Jeep was coming for him, Stowe acted reasonably, it is in the buildup that I think things went wrong, and that Stowe’s action culminated in him having to shoot - and use I do see Stowe’s actions as being a bigger contributor than the illegal, stupid and downright dangerous actions of the driver. Stowe is a trained police officer, the driver is just a young and inexperienced teenager, who should be able to act more rationally to defuse the situation?

BTW - at the time the shooting started, how could Stowe have known abt the smell of weed, and the other stuff in the car? Throwing this in is just a strawman. To suggest that perhaps the driver was not acting rationally because of other factors actually strengthens my case, Stowe should not have been attempting a stop by himself under those circumstances.

Also, just to complicate matters, I think IHOP has some responsibility to bear - if dine and dash is enough of a problem that it happens more than once a night (as explained in the report) then they need to change their procedures to avoid repeats.

418

Detaining an individual who’s shoplifting or skipping out on a check is not wrongful detention, last I heard.

419

Well, maybe by next time, the dude will have finished his speed reading course and be able to get the license plate numbers before he’s run down, adopted.

You might not think this next question is related to the topic at hand, but it really is. Are you familiar with the first rule of holes?

420

Hahahah Monty …Yep, as in I’m digging myself a deep one and not getting out of it…

The whole point is, that I think this ended out of all proportion to the initial problem. And it needn’t have happened that way.

Previously I was employed at a petrol station, we were specifically trained by the police (no less) to avoid confrontation in the case of robbery, to note down all details and be observant. If we had “resisted” and then got somebody injured - we would have been held responsible (at least morally, if not legally) for that “escalation”

Did Stowe have to stand in front of the Jeep? - NO, if he had avoided this then the situation where he had to shoot to save himself would never have arisen. When I was growing up, guards specifically DID NOT have the power right to forcefully restrain anybody - they could request but could not force.

To allow Stowe to work as a GUARD and then give him the full rights of a POLICE OFFICER just doesn’t sit well, it is too much like hiring the police to meet your own needs - and I would question again, if a GUARD acted in this manner (forcefully trying to stop a car from leaving, and then pulling a gun) would the authorities be so understanding? (and yes I do know what the report says that he was being held to a higher standard, but that is very easy to say and is just nice language)

Ok - I admit, I am not constructing my arguement well, but that does not make the point any less valid - if Stowe had simply taken down the numberplate and called the ON DUTY police, a basically good teenager would still be alive today - how can he not bear any responsibility for that death? How can he be completley exonerated without even a note in the report that Stowe could have behaved differently, and defused the situation without any danger to others?