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

The BBQ Pit
481

:dubious:
[QUOTE=Rick]
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.

  1. 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]

You see people leaving one by one or small groups, think to yourself …hmmm maybe this is a dine and dash and DON’T busy yourself getting over to the table before the last one leaves? :dubious:

Some money was left (according to the report)

Reading the report again…

  1. There are two people on the right hand side, could Smith have been giving them a wide (er) berth by moving to the left? (towards Stowe)

  2. Even after being shot at the Jeep still moves towards Stowe, but misses him, could it be that it was never going to hit him in the first place?

  3. The total time between the top of the carpark, and where Stowe was standing at the speed of 25 mph was at most 3.8 seconds - enough time to signal for Smith to react and for the Jeep to come to a controlled stop? Under normal circumstances, at normal speeds maybe, under stress?

  4. Have you ever tried to avoid a pedestrian…picture this…
    Stowe comes running from the IHOP, you see him moving out between the cars…you drive to the right to go round him, he keeps moving out into the lane / driveway, you think, maybe he’s crossing into my lane…I’ll go left to avoid him, he moves back left at the same time…ooops - you’re now driving “at” Stowe…(and get shot)

Yes I know, is not exactly how it was described (many of these actions are instinctive), but remember all this happened , from start to finish in less than 4 seconds.
Following an accident can you gurantee that you can accurately describe your entire (largely instinctive) thought process

Between the time of Smith first seeing Stowe, and Stowe making the decision to fire - maybe between two and three seconds, in a BEST case scenario, if Smith didn’t see Stowe until he was only 90’ away? YES this is a hypothetical, BUT, would you place yourself in a situation where MAYBE the driver can stop? Where MAYBE you are safe?

I believe Stowe acted irresponsibly. (This of course doesn’t excuse the actions or driving of Smith, but at the end of the day, Stowe shot someone, Smith didn’t run anyone over) It wasn’t that he was just happily standing in the drive when Smith entered it, he had to run across the carpark to reach a position in the drive, only entering it as a speeding Jeep came around the corner, its not that Smith saw him from 300 or 400 feet away, and had time to carefully bring everything to a controlled stop.

I think that given Stowe’s state of mind the shooting is justified, where the questions lie and where he should be called to account are in the contributing factors - that Stowe largely created by his actions

482

[QUOTE=adopted]

  1. Even after being shot at the Jeep still moves towards Stowe, but misses him, could it be that it was never going to hit him in the first place?
    [/quote]
    Jesus you are a fucking idiot aren’t you? since the Jeep hit a car on the left side of the lane, and had to cross an entire lane of traffic to do so, I think it is fair to say that the driver intended to hit Stowe.

Of course there is plenty of time, unless you are aiming at Officer Stowe and trying to hit him… Hmmm? Could it be the kid was trying to run the officer over? Nah. No teenage kid under the influence of pot would ever try that. Yup you are right there was plenty of time. :wally

A little spacially mis-orentied are we? Stowe was coming in from the driver’s left. If the driver swerved left, he is trying to hit Officer Stowe, not avoid him. Maybe you should go back look at the pictures and learn the difference between right and left.

…

Only by shear luck and the fact that Office Stowe moved rather quickly.

300 or 400 Hundred feet away? Just which part of your ass did you pull that one out of you fucking idiot? The longest distance listed in the entire report is when the driver in the second interview claimed (lying through his teeth the entire time) that Officer Stowe was at the exit of the car park and fired as the Jeep was turning at the other end, a distance of 120 feet. Read the report fuck lips and come back with facts.

Well by your twisted logic anything Officer Stowe did would contribute to escalating the situation. However on this planet we use common sense and your argument makes no sense. Go climb back under you rock you troll.

483

Uhmmmm …Rick,

that is the point, Smith WASN’T 3-400 feet away, he ws AT MOST 120 when he saw Stowe, that isn’t long.

REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE (not sure how valid)

I am driving on two wide surface street, in RIGHT lane (speeding), I see a car moving towards my lane, I move left to go up the inside, he then sees me coming and moves back left … any similiarities to IHOP situation so far??? So you’re saying that if I hit him, I was AIMING for him :dubious:

The FACT of the matter is RICK, that this is a carpark, the “driveway” is not very wide to begin with, and it doesn’t take much to make Stowe believe a car is coming towards him.

I am not trying to say that Smith was not trying to hit Stowe (I am still undecided on that, given the timeline), but rather that Stowes actions were irresponsible, that yes someone CAN stop in that time, but that **expecting ** that they will is dangerous. i.e - Stowe should have hoped for the best, but prepared for the worst, and if he was prepared for the worst, he never would have needed to pull out a gun. Is that so difficult to concede?

Or are you suggesting that because he is a POLICE OFFICER with omniscient skills and perfect judgement of Smith’s intentions we shouldn’t be looking at his actions that may have contributed to the entire cluster fuck?

Stowes actions left the whole thing open to misinterpretation

BTW - nice way to show how classy and intelligent you are - resorting to personal insults, while this is certainly the forum for it, calling me names doesn’t make your arguement any stronger or any more valid.

484

whoops…“two lane wide” …

485

“A little spacially mis-orentied are we? Stowe was coming in from the driver’s left. If the driver swerved left, he is trying to hit Officer Stowe, not avoid him. Maybe you should go back look at the pictures and learn the difference between right and left.”

hmmm…coming in…as in MOVING…as in heading towards my right? If you see an object moving towards your right, which way would YOU turn to avoid it …( I would turn left, but hey, I only have 16 accident free years driving to back that up)

…not neccessarily, when driving, if I see an obstacle moving left to right, I mostly assume (while preparing to brake) it will continue moving right, and move LEFT to clear it faster (i.e moving in the opposite direction to its travel, on a diverging course) Wasn’t Stowe coming from left to right? (initially)

Of course, if the object (person) stops, or changes direction, I would then be TRYING HIT IT (by your logic anyway)

486

[QUOTE=adopted]
If you see an object moving towards your right, which way would YOU turn to avoid it …( I would turn left, but hey, I only have 16 accident free years driving to back that up)
[/QUOTE]
You’re an idiot. You can’t answer that question based solely on the direction something is moving. It’s possible (seemingly likely, given Stowe’s account) that Stowe was on the left side of the driveway, moving toward the right, but not fast enough that he was actually going to get in front of the vehicle (he stated that his intention was to allow the vehicle to pass in order to get its tag number). In this situation, swerving to the left looks a lot like an attempt to hit him, no matter which direction he’s traveling.

487

Something still doesn’t “compute” to me. I can’t put my finger on it, but something still stinks.

488

[QUOTE=galt]
You’re an idiot. You can’t answer that question based solely on the direction something is moving. It’s possible (seemingly likely, given Stowe’s account) that Stowe was on the left side of the driveway, moving toward the right, but not fast enough that he was actually going to get in front of the vehicle (he stated that his intention was to allow the vehicle to pass in order to get its tag number). In this situation, swerving to the left looks a lot like an attempt to hit him, no matter which direction he’s traveling.
[/QUOTE]

Stowe was asked his intentions, and believed but Smith wasn’t.

In any case, as Steve notes, something about this just stinks, I have been trying to construct a logical arguement as to why, but the whole thing just stinks.

What stinks most is that a private establishment can hire a cop working in uniform and then shoot someone trying to skip out on a bill - yes, we have all heard ad infinitum that Smith was trying to “murder” Stowe - but I still don’t feel comfortable with this (it wasn’t addressed at all anywhere, other than Stowe beleiveing this to be the case, and of course he has no vested interest does he?), or the fact that Stowe didn’t need to in any way need to confront the Jeep. or go anywhere near its path to get the tags - and would any “normal” security guard have acted in the same manner and been carrying a weapon?

No need for me to say any more - I’ve said all I can…if certain members of this board want to give the police a free pass to work as private security and shoot people skipping out on bills (whether he believed life at stake or not) when they are trying to flee (if Stowe hadn’t tried to stop Smith, Smith COULDN’T have driven at him) which of course doesn’t excuse criminality, its just a matter of degree…

Cheers

489

Stowe was believed because his story matched the FORENSIC EVIDENCE. Smith’s story DID NOT MATCH THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE.

490

[QUOTE=adopted]
In any case, as Steve notes, something about this just stinks, I have been trying to construct a logical arguement as to why, but the whole thing just stinks.
[/quote]

You have failed miserably because nothing you’ve posited even remotely approaches a logical argument.

Private establishments in some jurisdictions can, and do, hire off-duty police officers as security officers. Some of those jurisdictions also permit their police officers so employed to be in their police uniform. Some jurisdictions also have armed security officers. Here’s a current example for you: banks in South Korea have armed guards who are most certainly not police officers. If the citizenry in those jurisdictions do not feel comfortable with that, then they have a means of recourse: lawfully agitating for reform of the local laws.

And it’s a complete canard that the officer concerned was shooting at them for skipping out on the bill. Part of his job as security was presumably to prevent patrons from skipping out on the bill. That is not what instigated the shooting. The shooting came as a reasonable response to someone trying to kill the man with a motor vehicle.

Please take a trip back to your high school and demand they apologize to you for failing to teach you reading comprehension. Nobody here is attempting to give the police a free pass.

491

[QUOTE=adopted]
Stowe was asked his intentions, and believed but Smith wasn’t.
[/quote]
Which one is the known criminal?

Go to any traffic court in the country on any given day, and I guarantee you you’ll find instances of police officers’ opinions, beliefs, thoughts and testimony given more weight than the people who disagree with them, and on matters of minuscule importance in relation to this.

“It’s just wrong!” Ok, why? “IT’S JUST WRONG!” Er. Why? “YOU JUST DON’T GET IT…IT’S JUST WRONG!!!”

The title of this thread notwithstanding, for the eight millionth time, Stowe did not shoot because the kids skipped out on a check. Can we all agree on that? If the kids had skipped out on the check and ran around the corner before Stowe saw them, he would not have followed them to gun them down. If they had hopped on bicycles in front of the restaurant and pedaled away, he would not have fired his weapon. Agreed? You keep saying that the position that Smith was trying to murder Stowe “wasn’t addressed at all anywhere” but it was. Are you reading my posts? THREE OF THE FIVE PEOPLE IN THE JEEP THOUGHT STOWE WAS REASONABLE TO THINK HIS LIFE WAS IN DANGER. One of them (at least before he changed the story) was the DRIVER.

Good. Please stop.

You keep saying “if Stowe wouldn’t have gotten in the way. . .” well how about this: If the kids hadn’t skipped out on their check… or if the driver hadn’t pulled around the corner at 25 mph and swerved all over the place making almost everyone present think he was going to hit the officer… or if the kids had decided to go to Denny’s instead… or if, or if, or if, or if. Get my point? You can try to place the blame on the police officer all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was a man doing his job in accordance with the law. It doesn’t change the fact that the criminals in this case were the ones IN the jeep, not the ones being run down. It doesn’t change anything, except opinions of your mental abilities.

492

[QUOTE=Monty]
Stowe was believed because his story matched the FORENSIC EVIDENCE.
[/QUOTE]
That is, so long as you accept the laughable contention that cops are physically incapable of ceasing fire after a car has already passed them by.

493

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
That is, so long as you accept the laughable contention that cops are physically incapable of ceasing fire after a car has already passed them by.
[/QUOTE]

Do you have a cite refuting the ones in the report or are you suffering the same ailment as our pal adopted?

494

[QUOTE=Garfield226]
Do you have a cite refuting the ones in the report or are you suffering the same ailment as our pal adopted?
[/QUOTE]
I find their “research” self-serving, contrived and completely unpersuasive. Next?

495

Yeah, right. The researchers knew well in advance that some people were going to run out of a restaurant without paying, then be confronted by a security officer who also happened to be a police officer, and that one of those same people would then try to run down the police officer and be shot at. All of this was done so that a cop at some future date would’ve “gotten a free pass.” Yeah, right. That’s even more laughable than most of the 9/11 CT I’ve heard.

496

Then laugh, clown, laugh. Some of us have a higher standard of credulity than you.

497

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
I find their “research” self-serving, contrived and completely unpersuasive. Next?
[/QUOTE]

Ah, ah, ah…show your work.

Why?

498

What prompted you to call me clown? The simple fact that I mentioned that the forensic evidence supported the officer’s story and discounted the driver’s story? Or was it the simple fact that I pointed out the “logical” stance one would have to dismiss out-of-hand the research cited in the report? Or perhaps you thought you were talking to yourself?

499

Yeah, that was it Monty; I thought I was talking to myself. Good one. :rolleyes:

500

[QUOTE=Monty]
Stowe was believed because his story matched the FORENSIC EVIDENCE. Smith’s story DID NOT MATCH THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE.
[/QUOTE]

Actually no - the report only addressed what Stowe BELIEVED (which was a reasonable belief) there is NO forensic evidence that Smith was **deliberatly ** trying to hit Stowe. And this question is not even asked (of Smith)…read the report carefully

The report does not address how in control of the car Smith was, whether he was trying to hit Stowe (again, it addresses what Stowe perceived, not what Smith was attempting), the report also does not address alternative courses of action open to Stowe, and whether it was REASONABLE for him to even be in the driveway in the first place. The report starts its analysis at

  1. Teenagers have skipped without paying
  2. Stowe is in driveway with Jeep coming towards him

Now it may well be that Smith was trying to murder Stowe, it may also be that Smith was just trying to get away and going about it stupidly, it **may ** be that Smith was not in control of the Jeep (Stowe says he was, but again, its only his perception, and he had all of what - three seconds to make the judgement under a high stress situation?)…it may be a number of different situations, NONE of which have been addressed.

Monty you have based your whole arguement on

  1. Stowe believed his life to be in danger, given which, it is reasonable to shoot - which I do agree with. If an officer, whether on duty or off, in uniform or not, genuinely believes his life to be in danger he has EVERY right to pull a gun and shoot,

Can you also consider the possibility (not even the probablility) that there were contributing factors to Stowe’s belief that have not been examined such as

  1. Should he be attempting to stop a fleeing car over a dine and dash (and read the report, this was Stowe’s original intention)
  2. Even if it is reasonable to stop a fleeing car, is there a “safer way” that Stowe could have done this, that would not have opened him up to risk - no matter what the actions of the driver?
  3. Would / Should a SECURITY GUARD be trying to stop a fleeing car
  4. Is it reasonable to assign the rights of a POLICE OFFICER to Stowe when he is hired as a private security guard? (to me this smacks of Vigilantism and buying the police)
  5. Was Smith in fact TRYING to kill Stowe (Smith was never asked this, he was asked “is it reasonable that Stowe believed his life in danger”, which is a very different question)

Monty, I would just like to examine the incident in its entirety, right from IHOPs procedures in protecting against a dine and dash, through to the need to try and stop a fleeing vehicle and see if there were any other contributory factors, I don’t think it is fair to start at the final three seconds and declare that because of this Stowe is fully justified.

Another what if…

I am a licensed gun owner, I hear someone breaking into my house violently - grab my gun, run downstairs - see somone in a face mask that is armed, shoot and kill him. Totally justified right? Self defense right?

Now what if

  1. That person turns out to be a police officer, acting on accurate information that I was a murderer, would that change whatever charges I faced?
  2. What if, the officer had seen my gun, rightly assumed his life to be in danger and killed me?
  3. What if he had killed me, believing his life in danger, but had been acting on wrong information to be in my house in the first place?
  4. What if I had been killed, but only been carrying a metal pipe? Yes the officer “reasonably believed” I was carrying a gun, but was wrong in his assumption.

Would not the outcome, and level of liability be different in each case? Would not the entire chain of events be examined, rather than simply the “end game”

Can we look at the entire chain of events in this case and see if everything that happened was justified, rather than merely saying
“it looked like the car was coming towards me, my life was in danger, shooting was justified” - Which is all the report actually addresses.