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

[adopted]

[QUOTE=Monty]
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.QUOTE]

Enough time to pull a gun and fire 5 shots, but not enough time to read a number plate :dubious:

[Garfield226]

@adopted

Enough time to pull a gun and fire 5 shots, but not enough time to read a number plate :dubious:

You really didn’t read the report, did you?

Keep digging.

[adopted]

@Garfield226

You really didn’t read the report, did you?

Keep digging.

Yep read report yesterday - although I can’t access now for another look - but 5 shots fired (or have I remembered wrongly and it is 6?), and then he could have looked at the rear plate as the truck departed as well…

[Garfield226]

@adopted

Yep read report yesterday - although I can’t access now for another look - but 5 shots fired (or have I remembered wrongly and it is 6?), and then he could have looked at the rear plate as the truck departed as well…

It wasn’t a truck, and it didn’t depart anywhere, it crashed into a bunch of parked cars several feet away from the cop. But keep digging.

And…

The accident reconstruction data suggests a conservatively calculated speed of 25 miles per hour at point of impact. At 25 miles per hour, a vehicle is traveling at 36.6 feet per second. At 20 miles per hour, a vehicle is traveling at 29.3 feet per second. Even at the slower speed, the jeep would have covered the distance between Kocur’s location and its point of impact in less than 3 seconds. If, as both common sense and shooting studies indicate, it took Stowe some portion of that time to to react and draw and fire his first shot, then the firing sequence of the remaining five rounds, including the round that killed Brown, is compressed into 1.5 seconds or less.

Could you memorize a license plate as a Jeep was being driven recklessly toward you at somewhere between 30 and 40 feet per second, in whatever available light there was in an IHOP parking lot, with headlights glaring in your eyes?

Didn’t think so.

[adopted]

@Garfield226

It wasn’t a truck, and it didn’t depart anywhere, it crashed into a bunch of parked cars several feet away from the cop. But keep digging.

And…Could you memorize a license plate as a Jeep was being driven recklessly toward you at somewhere between 30 and 40 feet per second, in whatever available light there was in an IHOP parking lot, with headlights glaring in your eyes?

Didn’t think so.

Sorry - don’t want to get into arguement over language semantics, here I would call such a vehicle a truck, although if you want to stick to SUV, 4x4, Jeep or any other description I don’t mind - and yes, I could determine the number plate of any vehicle moving at that speed - if I did so from a SAFE OBSERVATION POINT - which is what I suggest should have been done in the first place.

I don’t doubt that Stowe felt his life threatened, or that given that threat he behaved reasonably.

ONCE AGAIN, I contend that he never should have put himself in that situation in the first place, and part of the reason (I contend, although cannot be proven) that he did put himself in that situation was the confidence he felt because of his position as a police officer and that he was carrying a gun. I also contend that had I been the guard, I would have made damn sure that I had a very good method of getting out of the way and to safety, before putting myself between the vehicle and the exit - and he did do this (even if later he moved to one side).

What part of that is so difficult to understand? I am not saying that when he felt his life at stake he behaved “wrongly” - I AM saying that he is responsible for creating the situation where he was at risk - which has not been addressed.

[Monty]

@adopted

Sorry - don’t want to get into arguement over language semantics,

Being a linguist, I’ve no problem with discussing semantics.

here I would call such a vehicle a truck, although if you want to stick to SUV, 4x4, Jeep or any other description I don’t mind - and yes, I could determine the number plate of any vehicle moving at that speed - if I did so from a SAFE OBSERVATION POINT - which is what I suggest should have been done in the first place.

The safe observation point vanished when the DRIVER accelerated the vehicle at the officer. After all, not all establishments have the money to shell out for comprehensive video coverage of every square inch, nor do they have the money to hire enough security officers to watch every square inch.

I don’t doubt that Stowe felt his life threatened, or that given that threat he behaved reasonably.

Then what are you on about?

ONCE AGAIN, I contend that he never should have put himself in that situation in the first place,

So, you’re saying he should’ve expected to have someone try to murder him for going into the parking lot?

and part of the reason (I contend, although cannot be proven) that he did put himself in that situation was the confidence he felt because of his position as a police officer and that he was carrying a gun.

So now you’re admitting that you’re just pulling this stuff out of thin air. And once again, he did not put himself into the situation. The guy trying to murder him did that.

I also contend that had I been the guard, I would have made damn sure that I had a very good method of getting out of the way and to safety, before putting myself between the vehicle and the exit - and he did do this (even if later he moved to one side).

Must be Monday. :rolleyes:

What part of that is so difficult to understand? I am not saying that when he felt his life at stake he behaved “wrongly” - I AM saying that he is responsible for creating the situation where he was at risk - which has not been addressed.

What’s so difficult to understand? Why, simply the fact that you’re ignoring every fact presented to you. Do you have any reason for that peccadillo?

[Shodan]

@adopted

What part of that is so difficult to understand? I am not saying that when he felt his life at stake he behaved “wrongly” - I AM saying that he is responsible for creating the situation where he was at risk - which has not been addressed.

This has been addressed, several times. The police officer did not create the situation in any way.

@Officer Stowe's account

As Stowe went into the driving lane on the east side of the lot, he said he heard the engine of the jeep speed up and the tires spin or squeal as if losing traction. Stowe said as the vehicle headed south toward his location, it was in the correct lane of travel (to his left), but that it was increasing its speed and probably was not going to stop. At that point Stowe said he began to move back to his right (east), and was just going to let the car pass him and leave. As Stowe moved to his right, he said the vehicle suddenly “squared up” with him, without slowing, and that the vehicle kept coming towards him.

In other words, Stowe did exactly what everyone agrees would be best for such a petty crime - let the thieves leave, because to try to stop their vehicle would create more danger to the public than it was worth. Then the driver of the Jeep tried to run him over.

Get it yet? The “escalation” came from the driver.

So the situation went from “fuck it, let 'em go and I’ll call in the plates” to the driver gunning it and heading towards the officer. One of the passengers screams “You’re gonna kill that cop!” and Stowe is confronted with the choice of trying to outrun an accelerating Jeep, or shooting.

@adopted

he could have looked at the rear plate as the truck departed as well…

After being run over by a Jeep?

@adopted

Did Stowe have to stand in front of the Jeep?

He did not stand in front of the Jeep. He stood to the side of the Jeep, and the driver changed course and headed at him.

@adopted

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.

So, the more drugged-out the suspects appear, the more reluctant the cops should be to shoot at a vehicle which has swerved and is heading at them?

If you are suggesting that the cops should never attempt an arrest if there is any chance the suspects will react violently, then you are suggesting that the police have no power of arrest. If some assholes are willing to try to run down a cop over a few pancakes, then any arrest is unjustifiable. There’s always assholes who are willing to attack police. Some of them eat at IHOP.

Some post on messageboards.

Regards,
Shodan

[Monty]

@adopted

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

Oh, so you do have some powers of observation. That’s slightly refreshing.

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.

Nobody’s disagreeing with that. The issue is that it was the driver of the vehicle who had it end out of proportion. You obviously noticed that it’s two problems, so that’s slightly refreshing too.

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”

Are you not aware that there’s a difference in job between gas station attendant and security officer?

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.

Given your use of the term petrol, I’ll venture to say that you’re not residing in the US. In that country, there is a concept known as Citizen’s Arrest. Merchants, and even security officers, may detain someone who’s committing a crime (such as shoplifting or “dine and dash”) in their presence.

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)

Go back. Read the report yet again. Read the other posts in this thread addressed to you. Notice this time that the authorities already stated that ANY CITIZEN would be justified in what he did.

Ok - I admit, I am not constructing my arguement well,

Got that right. Your attempt to blame the man is very much like a beginner chess player who keeps making the same opening even though he loses every time with that opening. You have become addicted to a nonsensical “argument.”

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?

What part of the fact that Stowe is a police officer already has escaped your notice? What part of the simple fact that another person–NOT STOWE–was committing the crime of attempted murder has escaped your notice.

How can he be completely exonerated? BECAUSE HE WAS PROTECTING HIMSELF LIKE ANY OTHER CITIZEN WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN DOING SO! And the part I just “shouted” is what the authorities said.

[adopted]

Simple yes or no would suffice here -

1. Did Stowe have to stand in the traffic lane to see the Jeep’s tags?
2. If Stowe had stayed, for example, between the parked cars, would any attempt have been made to run him over?
3. Do you see that standing in front of the jeep / to one side could be seen as an agressive act when standing to one side amongst parked cars would not?
4. If Stowe had not made an attempt to stop a Jeep that was fleeing (squealing of tyres coming round corner) would he have needed to pull his gun at all?
5. If Stowe had moved out of the way when the Jeep initially accelerated out of the turn at the top of carpark would he have had time to easily make it to “safety”? - I believe so.
6. Are you comfortable with fast food security guards being armed, and willing to use those weapons? (yes yes he was a police officer - but this does not necessarily make it right, he was hired as a guard, you should view him as a guard)
7. If Stowe had not been a police officer, would you view this situation any differently?

[Monty]

@Shodan

@adopted

he could have looked at the rear plate as the truck departed as well…

After being run over by a Jeep?

Apparently adopted thinks “ghost of a chance” is a literal thing.

[adopted]

@Monty

Apparently adopted thinks “ghost of a chance” is a literal thing.

Standing amongst parked cars, out of harms way, and looking at the plate as the SUV left is not possible?

[Ensign_Edison]

@adopted

Standing amongst parked cars, out of harms way, and looking at the plate as the SUV left is not possible?

He WAS out of harm’s way. The driver put him in harm’s way.

[adopted]

@Ensign Edison

He WAS out of harm’s way. The driver put him in harm’s way.

Standing in the middle of a lane, is not out of harms way - he could get hit, that’s why he pulled his weapon, if he had not been armed, would Stowe have behaved differently?

If he had not been an officer would he have been more circumspect?

What is standard practise for guards that are not police?

[adopted]

Is it possible that the driver was not in control at the timeof the incident - one witness describes the jeep as fishtailing, which would be consistent with Stowes view of it moving one way then the other…

also, how can “running across a carpark, and out from between parked cars” not be confrontational? I think this is a needless escalation, that Stowe should have taken greater care and that if he thought the driver had reasonable time to stop, Stowe should also have had reasonable time to move out of the way…

Just my opinion, I think that given the circumstances, Stowe was justified, so the shooting itself was ok, but I also believe that it should never have reached the stage where he needed to pull his gun, that it was Stowe’s actions that took it to that level (or at least, as a trained police officer, he bears more culpability than the driver)

[Monty]

@adopted

Is it possible that the driver was not in control at the timeof the incident - one witness describes the jeep as fishtailing, which would be consistent with Stowes view of it moving one way then the other…

Man, you’re really reaching now.

also, how can “running across a carpark, and out from between parked cars” not be confrontational? I think this is a needless escalation, that Stowe should have taken greater care and that if he thought the driver had reasonable time to stop, Stowe should also have had reasonable time to move out of the way…

Let’s check the WWF Line-up for tonight’s show. Why, yes, it’s A Human Being versus An Actual Vehicle (But Not a Yugo)! Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Match of the Century! The Actual Vehicle is afraid of being confronted by something 1/20th its weight and Not Made of Metal!

Just my opinion, I think that given the circumstances, Stowe was justified, so the shooting itself was ok,

Then why are you going on with the blather?

but I also believe that it should never have reached the stage where he needed to pull his gun,

That’s right. It didn’t need to reach that stage. Talk to the guy who tried to murder Stowe.

that it was Stowe’s actions that took it to that level (or at least, as a trained police officer, he bears more culpability than the driver)

Are you really that stupid or is this the evidence of trolling?

[CBEscapee]

It seems like police departments in several US cities don’t consider vehicles as deadly weapons and their policies are for their officers to not confront suspects vehicles in the manner Stowe used.

"A federal law-enforcement officer is allowed to use deadly force if he believes his life, or the life of another person, is in danger. It’s a broad exception compared to policies enacted in the past couple of years by a number of law-enforcement agencies, including the San Diego, Los Angeles, Portland and Cincinnati police departments and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office, among others. Under new standards adopted by these departments, the officers involved in the Gamiz-Bargas shooting did two things wrong: they placed themselves in harm’s way by standing in front of a suspect-occupied vehicle, and two of those officers fired on the vehicle, an action that’s proven not only useless in too many cases, but also dangerous.

The San Diego Police Department’s guide to use-of-force states that “officers shall not position themselves in the path of a vehicle… in order to prevent a suspect from fleeing. Such actions create a dangerous situation that may not justify the use of a firearm.”

The Portland Police Department, which revised its use-of-force policies two years ago after hiring an independent auditor, tells its officers that “a moving vehicle itself shall not presumptively constitute a threat that justifies… use of deadly force.” Officers also “shall not discharge a firearm at a person(s) in a moving vehicle” unless there’s no other option to prevent death or serious injury to another person—but, the policy re-states, the vehicle itself does not constitute a threat. "

Link

[Fear_Itself]

This is the part of the report that I find troubling:

While Stowe commenced firing under reasonable apprehension of death or serious injury, he continued to fire as the car passed him. The shot which killed Aaron Brown passed through the side window. Obviously if Stowe was off to the side of a passing car, he was no longer in the path of the vehicle. Why did he continue to fire? Put another way, if the first two shots fired were fired when Stowe reasonably apprehended that he was about to be hit by the jeep, why shouldn’t he be prosecuted for failing to stop shooting at the instant the jeep passed, since he was not in danger at that instant?

The explanation for this apparent over-reaction is long and technical and boils down to this:

If, under the best of controlled testing circumstances, trained police officers are demonstrably incapable of ceasing to fire immediately upon receiving a signal to do so, it is unrealistic to assume that Stowe could have reacted to the car’s passing within feet of him quickly enough to prevent this shot or even ones that followed.

If we accept the shocking proposition that cops cannot cease firing after the threat has passed, it certainly supports the position that cops are so trigger happy that they just cannot help themselves.

[Shodan]

@adopted

Do you see that standing in front of the jeep / to one side could be seen as an agressive act when standing to one side amongst parked cars would not?

By this standard, I am committing an aggressive act by standing on the sidewalk waiting for the light to change so I can cross the street. After all, someone might swerve out of their way and try to run me down.

@adopted

If Stowe had not made an attempt to stop a Jeep that was fleeing (squealing of tyres coming round corner) would he have needed to pull his gun at all?

For the umpteenth time, you drooling half-wit, Stowe did not try to stop the fucking Jeep! He was standing off to the side, allowing it to pass, when it swerved towards him.

He pulled his gun after the Jeep swerved towards him.

@adopted

5. If Stowe had moved out of the way when the Jeep initially accelerated out of the turn at the top of carpark would he have had time to easily make it to “safety”? - I believe so.

Then you are a fucking idiot - he was not “in the way”. He was out of the way, and the fucking Jeep swerved towards him.

@CBEscapee

The Portland Police Department, which revised its use-of-force policies two years ago after hiring an independent auditor, tells its officers that “a moving vehicle itself shall not presumptively constitute a threat that justifies… use of deadly force.” Officers also “shall not discharge a firearm at a person(s) in a moving vehicle” unless there’s no other option to prevent death or serious injury to another person—but, the policy re-states, the vehicle itself does not constitute a threat. "

Either this is taken out of context, or the Portland Police Department does not consider ‘trying to run somebody over with a vehicle’ to constitute a threat.

I assume, therefore, that “vehicular homicide” does not exist as a legal concept in that state. Or even laws against drunk driving - after all, driving a vehicle does not constitute a threat no matter how drunk you are.

Regards,
Shodan

[Monty]

CBEscapee taking something out of context? Oh, the horror! (Why, yes, that is extreme sarcasm.)

[CBEscapee]

@Monty

CBEscapee taking something out of context? Oh, the horror! (Why, yes, that is extreme sarcasm.)

Monty not knowing what the fuck he’s talking about? Ain’t nothing new there. He doesn’t need to open the link to the article I quoted from, he already has all the facts.