[QUOTE=adopted]
Yeah - but the point is Rick, he RAN across a carpark and infront of a fast moving vehicle, seemingly giving it little time to stop (one would assume that with plenty of time to stop also equals plenty of time for Stowe to see it wouldn’t and get out of way) Stopping somebody on foot, or stopping them before they leave the restaurant - not life threatening for Stowe, so no need to pull out gun.
IF they had been stopped in the restaurant, one takes a swing at Stowe, Stowe pulls gun I do not have problem.
Where I do have problem is when he stands in middle of road in game of chicken ( and this is how it started) and then uses this as justification to pull gun - I don’t doubt he feared for his life, but he never should have put himself into that position in the first place.
Now did he do something criminal? - PROBABLY not, could he have handled the situation much much better - I think so.
Also could the driver have behaved better - CERTAINLY. It’s just that choosing between a trained police officer and a teenager, who is better able to assess the situation and act rationally - I would go with the police officer - I don’t beleive it happened in this case
[/QUOTE]
For fuck’s sake will you drop the ran in front of a fast moving vehicle strawman. Go back and read page 25 of the report and then look at the pictures at the end.
The parking lot is two lanes wide. The officer was at or near the center of the entire driveway, NOT in middle of the exit lane.
The only people who said he was in front of the car are the teenagers that the report proved have been lying their asses off trying to cover them.
About Officer Stowe getting out of the way, yes he had plenty of time until the driver made him a target, and swerved toward him. :wally
About your comment about why didn’t he go between cars. You know that when you are running for your life trying to keep your eyes on the car that is about to kill you, you might not hit that gap between cars just right.
Stowe didn’t give himself time enough to get out of the way - or he would never have needed to pull a gun
RUNNING across a car park, and in front of a Jeep, driven by an inexperienced driver
If indeed the driver was deliberatly aiming for Stowe - has he been charged with attempted murder, or anything else? (I haven’t seen, but doesn’t mean it didn’t happen)
Stowe jumped / ran in front of a moving vehicle when it was no more than 120 ft away - this is not “plenty of time”, at least one of the witnesses says the jeep was fishtailing - which is consistent with other evidence, which makes it harder for Stowe to determine where it was going
SECURITY GUARDS IN IHOPS SHOULDN’T BE CARRYING GUNS. And if they are they shouldn’t use them on fleeing cars. And I don’t buy into the arguement abt the driver putting Stowe in danger, Stowe never NEEDED to stand in front of the Jeep in the first place, if he wasn’t standing in front of the Jeep, the driver never would have “driven at him” so the gun never needed to leave holster.
Garfield & galt: I think he’s both stupid and illiterate.
Look, adopted, try to understand the basics of what’s been presented to you factually. Stowe wasn’t standing in front of the thing until the driver SWERVED TO AIM AT HIM. Got it? Or do you actually think the real world operates like it does in a cartoon?
Waiter says the cheque not paid while people are still at the table??? (quote from report) - chance for early intervention, how the hell could he know the cheque wasn’t paid before everyone left? What sort of procedures do they have
Quote from Stowe - “went to the middle of the drive area” …that would have to be infront of the Jeep, would it not? Remember this is a carpark, not a four lane highway…
Hmm, the driver was trying to kill him, he’s a dangerous criminal who attempted murder. There’s a duty to society to retard(?) this criminal at all costs. There’s more than enough evidence to charge the driver with attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon.
Surely this evil man will be indicted, tried and convicted?
Why look, we even have witnesses and a confession,
[
](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301550_2.html)[RIGHT]{DarkRed}=CMC[/RIGHT]
If it’s so clear that Smith was trying to kill Stowe, why no charges?
They don’t just let you walk away from attempted murder charges, especially when it’s a cop you tried to kill, do they?
[WAG]Unless it’s clear to the prosecutor that there’s no case, and trying Smith would make Stowe’s defense for the shooting unsupportable?[/WAG]
Waiter says the cheque not paid while people are still at the table??? (quote from report) - chance for early intervention, how the hell could he know the cheque wasn’t paid before everyone left? What sort of procedures do they have
Quote from Stowe - “went to the middle of the drive area” …that would have to be infront of the Jeep, would it not? Remember this is a carpark, not a four lane highway…
[/QUOTE]
In reverse order:
I will type this slowly so just maybe you will understand.
2)Take for example the street in front of my house. Two lanes each way, with a double yellow line between the two center lanes. If I stand on the double yellow line, I am not directly in front of any of the cars. While I am in danger of being hit by a mirror, I am not (or should not) be in fear of a car hitting me head on since they would have to leave their lane to do so.
Now if a driver swerves to their left, my life is now in serious danger.
So standing in the middle of the road != directly in front of an oncomming car.
I am guessing that from experience when they see a table full of teenagers start drifting out the door one or two at a time, there is a possibility of a dine and dash. Again I am guessing that the waitress saw most of the party leave, and the bill still on the table.
[QUOTE=crowmanyclouds]
Hmm, the driver was trying to kill him, he’s a dangerous criminal who attempted murder. There’s a duty to society to retard(?) this criminal at all costs. There’s more than enough evidence to charge the driver with attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon.
Surely this evil man will be indicted, tried and convicted?
Why look, we even have witnesses and a confession,
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301550_2.html][RIGHT]{DarkRed}=CMC[/RIGHT]
If it’s so clear that Smith was trying to kill Stowe, why no charges?
They don’t just let you walk away from attempted murder charges, especially when it’s a cop you tried to kill, do they?
[WAG]Unless it’s clear to the prosecutor that there’s no case, and trying Smith would make Stowe’s defense for the shooting unsupportable?[/WAG]
CMC fnord!
[/QUOTE]
It will be interesting to see if your questions will be intelligently answered. I won’t hold my breath.
[QUOTE=Rick]
C) All of the above
(which is exactly what the officer did)
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I suppose. I guess he must have already had his gun drawn, which seems to be a little over the top.
I’m not the prosecutor, so I can’t say for sure, but couldn’t it just be prosecutorial disgression? Maybe they just want this to go away. Reading the Wa. Post the other day, it was evident that many Post readers don’t lurk on the SDMB as about three fourths of the letters on this repeated the “kids killed over pancakes” theme. The driver will have to deal with his actions causing the death of his friend. Maybe they thought they could leave it at that, especially since attempted murder would be hard to prove.
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
I’m not the prosecutor, so I can’t say for sure, but couldn’t it just be prosecutorial disgression? Maybe they just want this to go away. Maybe they thought they could leave it at that, especially since attempted murder would be hard to prove.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a big “if”. But if that’s the case the prosecutor should lose his job. I can’t see how the cop was justified in using lethal force if the action of the driver wasn’t prosecutable.
[QUOTE=CBEscapee]
That’s a big “if”. But if that’s the case the prosecutor should lose his job. I can’t see how the cop was justified in using lethal force if the action of the driver wasn’t prosecutable.
[/QUOTE]
Because it assumes the prosecutor has such discretionary powers. Can a prosecutor that easily decide to not prosecute a crime of that nature because he “just wants it to go away”? Doesn’t he have an obligation to the public to prosecute if there is enough evidence a crime was commited? Attempted murder or asault with a deadly weapon etc. are pretty serious crimes to not prosecute.
Or would it more likely be that there was not enough proof of attempted murder to be able to prosecute? Or a public trial could possibly negatively impact the investigation’s conclusions?
[QUOTE=CBEscapee]
Because it assumes the prosecutor has such discretionary powers. Can a prosecutor that easily decide to not prosecute a crime of that nature because he “just wants it to go away”? Doesn’t he have an obligation to the public to prosecute if there is enough evidence a crime was commited? Attempted murder or asault with a deadly weapon etc. are pretty serious crimes to not prosecute.
Or would it more likely be that there was not enough proof of attempted murder to be able to prosecute? Or a public trial could possibly negatively impact the investigation’s conclusions?
[/QUOTE]
There’s a huge difference between what the prosecutor would have to prove to get an attempted murder conviction and what Officer Stowe had to show to justify using deadly force in his own defence. Intent, for one thing.
Also–and IANAL or P so board lawyers correct me if I’m wrong–but I believe prosecutors can decline to prosecute in the interests of justice. The officer wasn’t harmed; one of the driver’s friends was killed; The driver was a panicky teen, not a hardened criminal. What would be served by prosecuting this case?
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
There’s a huge difference between what the prosecutor would have to prove to get an attempted murder conviction and what Officer Stowe had to show to justify using deadly force in his own defence. Intent, for one thing.
Also–and IANAL or P so board lawyers correct me if I’m wrong–but I believe prosecutors can decline to prosecute in the interests of justice. The officer wasn’t harmed; one of the driver’s friends was killed; The driver was a panicky teen, not a hardened criminal. What would be served by prosecuting this case?
[/QUOTE]
I am merely a (to be) law student with a paralegal education. However, I feel confident in my belief that, as you indicated, intent was the key factor. I’m sure it was determined by pertinent legal authorities that Smith was attempting to flee, not commit homocide.
My guess (although I think you raise an excellent point) is that the burden is different. The cop didn’t have to be correct that he was in mortal peril, he had to have a reasonable belief that he or someone else could die if he didn’t shoot. For the sake of argument, if you accept that he truly believed, and it was not absurd, that the guy was trying to kill him, but at the same time, you see there’s no possible way you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that’s what was actually in the driver’s mind, then the prosecutor would be wasting tax dollars pursuing it.
In other words, it’s one of those frustrating, “I don’t know what the fuck happened” situations. You side on the presumption of cop’s innocence, and on the side of the driver’s.
FWIW, I think the cop was poorly trained and/or full of shit to fire, and keep firing as the van passed.