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

The BBQ Pit
501

[QUOTE=Monty]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Actually Monty - we don’t KNOW that, we KNOW that this is what Stowe believed, we also know that if Smith had been standing where Stowe was, seeing what Stowe was seeing, then he would have though his life was in danger. NO WHERE is Smith asked - were you driving at Stowe deliberately?

A quite relevant and pertinent question I would have thought? (even if we don’t get an honest answer)

Smith is also not asked what his intentions were in the driveway. We only know “I couldn’t leave me friends stranded”

Direct quote from report “Stowe fired from a position in which **it appeared to him ** he was in danger” which is all the report verifies - that this was a “genuine belief”

Smith states, in his original interview - Stowe appeared to be moving to the right, so I steered left, then Stowe moved back left and was “dead centre” in front of me…how is this also not a reasonable belief on Smith’s part? It certainly gels with my experience of avoiding pedestrians, the physical evidence and Stowes accounts ( he does say that he came from IHOP, moved towards car then moved back towards IHOP to let it pass). Is it not possible that there is some form of “timelag” or reaction time built into what everyone is believing / stating?

Monty and Garfield - you are determined to label Smith as an attempted murderer, and on this basis say Stowe was justified, what I am contending is that Stowe acted somewhat irrationally, which directly contributed to his belief his life was in danger. Again the report does not address this, and it should. ALL of Stowe’s actions should be examined, not just the final few seconds when he believed he was going to get shot. No where in the report any finding that Smith was **trying ** to run Smith down, or even that he was probably trying to run Stowe down, only that Stowe BELIEVED, Smith was trying to run him down.

WHAT IF (yes a big what if) this was not the case? WHAT IF Smith was quite genuine in trying to get away ONLY? Should this not be examined?

502

[QUOTE=adopted]
Monty and Garfield - you are determined to label Smith as an attempted murderer, and on this basis say Stowe was justified, what I am contending is that Stowe acted somewhat irrationally, which directly contributed to his belief his life was in danger. Again the report does not address this, and it should. ALL of Stowe’s actions should be examined, not just the final few seconds when he believed he was going to get shot. No where in the report any finding that Smith was **trying ** to run Smith down, or even that he was probably trying to run Stowe down, only that Stowe BELIEVED, Smith was trying to run him down.

WHAT IF (yes a big what if) this was not the case? WHAT IF Smith was quite genuine in trying to get away ONLY? Should this not be examined?
[/QUOTE]

I’m not labeling him an attempted murderer, only restating what the witnesses have already said. I don’t particularly care if he was trying to run Stowe down or not. The conclusion the report came to (and the one I agree with) is that Stowe (and any other person who would have happened to be in his position, by the way, so your “he was a policeman so people are giving him a pass” argument is out) was justified in thinking his life was in danger and therefore was justified in using force. WHAT IF? I don’t care. His intentions don’t enter into it.

If I walk into the police station and point a gun at an officer, his is justified in shooting me. Doesn’t matter if it’s a fake gun (if it looks realistic to a reasonable person), doesn’t matter if I’m playing a prank or just wanted to scare him or what. In cases like this, intent doesn’t matter.

503

[QUOTE=adopted]
WHAT IF (yes a big what if) this was not the case? WHAT IF Smith was quite genuine in trying to get away ONLY? Should this not be examined?
[/QUOTE]

Why does this matter? As long as Stowe had reason to believe that his life was in danger from Smith, and you seem to accept that, his actions are justified. Portraying Smith as an attempted murdered doesn’t matter, but the statements by the passangers seems to imply that the driver was at least aware of the impression he was making.

It should and probably has been examined. It may be why the prosecutor didn’t file charges, but it doesn’t directly relate to the shooting since it was the perceived threat that is important to the decision to fire or not fire.

Smith’s actions, not his intent, are at question here. His actions put Officer Stowe and all the other passengers at risk, regardless of what he was thinking. If he was just panicy or confused, it certainly is a tragedy, but that doesn’t really have an impact on the later actions.

Most people agree (not you apparently) that Stowe’s actions did not threaten Smith, nor were they unreasonable. He went out to stop folks from walking out on a bill, not to stop a fleeing car. He would have been content to just write down the license plate if it came to that, but he never got the chance.

504

The officer’s actions in going into the parking lot are not unreasonable either.

505

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

Where the fuck did you “find” this? Your marigold garden? I’m just curious. Because I really believe if anyone knows anything persuasive (and true) regarding this issue they would advance any convincing evidence they possessed. “I find” is hardly convincing.

506

I posted a point about the accuracy of police reports many pages back on this thread.

It’s become mind-numbing since.

One thing I’ve noticed time and again are the statements to the effect of: “read the report, or you don’t even know what you’re talking about” or “did you even read the report”.

I’m not taking sides here in this case, but I’m curious why some posters consider the “report” the golden truth handed down from on high, and why if you question the facts in the report and don’t come to a pre-expected conclusion, that you just must be obtuse.

I know from experience that what may be presented as fact in a police report can be BS. For an example of that, if my arrest report had been posted on the Internet for all to see, I’d bet everbody would has thought: fuck that drunk!"

Where do I post the fact that the prosecutor just threw up his hands at closing arguements at his lack of a case.

But don’t take my word for it.

I’m skeptical of a lot of shit I hear.

Why should I read the “report” and accept it at face value?

507

Why should you dismiss the report of a law-abiding individual in favor of someone who’s committing at least one crime?

508

[QUOTE=Monty]
…someone who’s committing at least one crime?
[/QUOTE]
Which crime(s) would that be?

[QUOTE=Monty]
Why should you dismiss the report of a law-abiding individual…
[/QUOTE]
Who’s trying very hard not to get indicted.

CMC fnord!

509

[QUOTE=crowmanyclouds]
Which crime(s) would that be?
[/quote]
If you’re talking about the driver, he was charged. It’s been posted. Try to keep up.

I don’t think the prosecutor who wrote the report needs to worry about being indicted, do you?

510

[QUOTE=Garfield226]
If you’re talking about the driver, he was charged. It’s been posted. Try to keep up…
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I posted it. Try to keep up.
[QUOTE=Garfield226]
…I don’t think the prosecutor who wrote the report needs to worry about being indicted, do you?
[/QUOTE]
No, but Stowe sure did.

CMC fnord!

511

[QUOTE=crowmanyclouds]
Yeah, I posted it. Try to keep up.
[/quote]
You’re making no sense.

Monty asked why you choose to ignore the report of a law-abiding individual. You suggested that that law-abiding individual was trying to avoid indictment. BZZT. The “law-abiding individual” who made the report was the prosecutor.

Monty asked why you choose to ignore that report and instead believe someone who’s committed at least one crime. You asked what crime was committed. Since you posted it, why’d you ask?

Keep digging.

512

[QUOTE=Garfield226]
Ah, ah, ah…show your work.

Why?
[/QUOTE]
I have to agree with Garfield226’s contention here - can you point out specifically why you find it “laughable”?

The prosecutor in the case believes that it is not reasonable to expect anyone to be able to turn off the terror and adrenaline dump involved in seeing someone try to kill you on a tenth of a second’s notice.

You, on the other hand, from the safety of your PC, find that it is entirely reasonable. Cops should be able to react with icy calm, no matter what the circumstances, and deserve condemnation whenever they can’t.

It seems you disagree with Justice Holmes, who famously remarked

Why is that? Do you have personal experience, research studies, anything of the sort?

Regards,
Shodan

513

monty:" Why should you dismiss the report of a law-abiding individual in favor of someone who’s committing at least one crime?"

I’m not dismissing the report per se, I’m curious as to why it’s the final word, and why I should accept it at face value.

I think there’s something called “argument from authority” that people invoke to prove their points

I remember some Jehovah’s Witnesses at my doorstep claiming the Bible explained creation.

They didn’t get my skepticism either.

514

You’re not being skeptical. You’re being dismissive. You’re dismissing the report and accepting as your authority the driver of the jeep. At least that’s the way it seems to me.

515

[QUOTE=Monty]
You’re not being skeptical. You’re being dismissive. You’re dismissing the report and accepting as your authority the driver of the jeep. At least that’s the way it seems to me.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not accepting anyone’s authority.

Why do YOU think the report is fact as set in stone.

I’ve given reasons as to why I have questions as to accepting it as it is on face value.

Why do you dismiss the possibility that the “report” may be biased?

516

I don’t accept that responsibility because, unlike the hoodlum who tried to run down the cop, the report has cited research, etc., to back it up.

517

Er, replace “possibility” for “responsibility” please in my posting just above.

518

What would it take to convince you of the report’s veracity, Iamamoocher?

519

[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
What would it take to convince you of the report’s veracity, Iamamoocher?
[/QUOTE]

I’m not contesting the report’s veracity, per se. I’m asking why it should be accepted as the truth without any skepticism.

It’s the factual account because some governmental employee wrote it?

I know from personal experience that a police report can be BS. In my case (see above posts and link), my jaw dropped when I saw the probable cause that was written down.

To highlight: I was charged with crossing a white line that did not exist (and photos produced in court confirm this) and the one roadside test I supposedly failed was follow the flashlight, which was conducted in front of the cop’s car. The cop, on the stand, testified his emergency lights weren’t on and so that wasn’t a reason to fail. Raise your hand if you’ve ever seen a person pulled over by a cop without his lights flashing. There was no account of the roadside sobriety tests I did pass in the report.

Even with the cop caught lying on the stand, nothing happened.

All I‘m trying to say is the “report” may be biased.

Can that be possible?

520

Anything’s possible. Do you have any evidence that the report is biased in favor of the Officer’s account? Is there anything specific in the report that you are objecting to?