US Deputy Marshall shoots 20yr old driver in the back in self defense

RBM

RBM

CAGiversary!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10479-2004Oct29.html

The synopsis: two drivers get into an argument, it carries into a parking lot, and a fistfight breaks out. We've all seen this sort of thing in the news. What makes this instance unusual: one of them pulls out a gun and tells the other that he's just struck a federal officer (and broke his thumb, incidentally.) The 20 year old, now back sitting in the driver's seat of his own car, shouts out that he needs some photo identification before he'll believe that the guy he was just in a fistfight with (who is now brandishing a gun) is, in fact, a federal officer.

Deputy officer responds that the 20 year old has gotten all the ID he's going to get, and that if he doesn't get out of the car he's going to get shot. The 20 year old tries to drive off (this took place in a crowded parking lot with plenty of witnesses,) and the officer opens fire repeatedly into the rear windshield. The car rolls into the wall with its driver dead. The 20yr old's Camaro passed close enough to the officer in passing so that an obvious question becomes: was he trying to run him over. Two witnesses describe the Camaro as trying to get around the officer in order to flee.

Why was this worth mentioning? "Authorities said no decision had been made on whether charges would be filed against Arthur L. Lloyd, 53, a 28-year veteran of the U.S. Marshals Service assigned to U.S. District Court in Washington." We've seen highly publicized cases in the news where they will make arrests based on circumstantial evidence (typically paired with a lack of other suspects) yet this seems like a easy case, given the multiple witnesses. The deputy's family was in his car and the 20 year old was alone in his car.

How people expect this case to turn out should show a lot about how we view the way things work here. You've been given an ultimatum by the guy you just punched to get out of your car or he's going to shoot you. What would you have done? (would you have suffered the same fate?) He obviously was not in uniform. Would you have believed him? Do you expect the officer to face a heavy price for his actions or not?
 
I don't think there's any way to justify the use of lethal force here. It doesn't sound like the officer was in any danger when he opened fire, so I just don't see how his actions were even remotely reasonable. Beyond that, a broken thumb shouldn't warrant murder. Ever.

I hope that he'll get in some major trouble for this, but I don't know what will happen...
 
He's going to get off, but will face some small punishment. Were his actions right, no. But there will be some justification for the shooting.
 
what an idiot, i mean the person he was in the fight with was most likley unarmed, not only that, but why would he not shoot his tires out rather than open fire the way he did?

this just dosent sound good, and i hope this guy gets life, because cops kill all to often, and this one wasnt even a real threat! if he would have let the guy drive off, he prolly just would have gone home...i doubt he would have gone to another parking lot and picked more fights..
 
So the lesson to be learned here is: if you're in a fight with a federal officer and they pull a gun on you and you make it to your car, run them over with your car or you'll get shot.
 
[quote name='jmcc']So the lesson to be learned here is: if you're in a fight with a federal officer and they pull a gun on you and you make it to your car, run them over with your car or you'll get shot.[/quote]

i actully think that if he would have hit and killed the officer with his car, it would have been more justifyable, since the officer showed him no credentials and was pointing a gun at him...
 
This is nothing short of murder.
"Officers found nine shell casings at the scene"

"She said the deputy marshal shouted, "Get out of the car, or I'm going to shoot you again." He also said, "that's all the ID you're going to see," she added."

"Then I watched the Camaro move around" the deputy, she said, and "I heard pop, pop, pop." She said the car jumped the sidewalk and crashed into the building.
Click to expand...
The eyewitness account basically says that the driver tried to drive around him and leave, not run him over. If he was trying to run him over, he would not have had time to shoot 9 times. He must have kept shooting as the car went past him. This is murder. I hope he goes to Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass prison, where I'm sure the local population would love to get their hands on a former law enforcement officer.

I feel bad for the kid and his family, whether he was a punk or not. 20 years is not nearly long enough to live.
 
Uh, when a man bradishes a gun at you and you're unarmed, you do what he says.

I can't fault the officer. He identified himself, gave a warning, his assailent entered a vehicle which could be used as a deadly weapon, he was trying to flee the scene.

The kid was just stupid. Not being there but on the surface of the description the officer didn't do anything wrong.
 
I can't fault the officer. He identified himself, gave a warning, his assailent entered a vehicle which could be used as a deadly weapon, he was trying to flee the scene.
Click to expand...
Fleeing the scene is justification for shooting someone nine times?

Have you even read the article?
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']
The kid was just stupid. Not being there but on the surface of the description the officer didn't do anything wrong.[/quote]

so cops can just go around killing anyone that does something stupid?
 
If I were on the defense team for the deputy, I would consider this case a fairly easy one to argue. The driver of the red Camaro drove "in the direction of the officer" (who wouldn't have been standing well out of the way, naturally) and the deputy felt threatened, not only for himself, but for his wife and children, who were sitting in his car. The Camaro must have passed closely enough to the officer to make the claim of self-defense not too ridiculous (we've all been in parking decks and know that the driving space is relatively narrow.)

The reason why I felt like this was worth posting is because the precedent it sets could easily effect any one of us. If a man in civilian clothes without ID points a gun at me while I'm in my car and tells me to get out...what do I do? Driving off could be interpreted as an attempt to kill him with my car, unless I move directly away from him (and he'd obviously be standing in my way.) I wouldn't want to get out and hope to God he was telling the truth. ...but if they do find the cop guilty of inappropriate actions, then how could they not pair that with a penalty for manslaughter? Saying that his actions were unlawful would necessitate a heavy punishment, in other words...and I--like those few who have already registered their predications of the outcome--don't think they will give him a heavy punishment. But, then, where does that leave us in terms of legal precedent?
 
When a law enforcement official feels threatened with deadly force, and you refuse to follow his commands, what do you expect him to do?

"Shoot out his tires"

You watch too many cop shows on TV.
 
[quote name='punqsux'][quote name='jmcc']So the lesson to be learned here is: if you're in a fight with a federal officer and they pull a gun on you and you make it to your car, run them over with your car or you'll get shot.[/quote]

i actully think that if he would have hit and killed the officer with his car, it would have been more justifyable, since the officer showed him no credentials and was pointing a gun at him...[/quote]

Agreed. The choice is perfectly logical. Someone pulls a weapon after engaging in a duel (fistfight). Weapons are never drawn unless there is intent to use it whether it's by a criminal or an officer. You have to assume you are going to be shot in either case when a weapon is drawn, so fleeing or defence is really the only option. I think this guy should have identified himself as a federal orificer BEFORE engaging in a fistfight. It would have probably avoided the tragic result. I hope this "cop" gets nailed to the wall for being an idiot, and a murderer.
 
This kid was shot NINE TIMES. NINE. The witnesses say that the car went around the deputy. The kid may have already been shot once, as the deputy threatened to shoot him "again". The deputy refused to present ID. How does the kid know he's not being carjacked?

There is absolutely no justification in this, at all. Nine shots. Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang. Would you have time to squeeze the trigger nine times if you're about to be run over?

When a law enforcement official feels threatened with deadly force, and you refuse to follow his commands, what do you expect him to do?
Click to expand...
He was not threatened with deadly force. You said it yourself, he was trying to flee. The deputy would not show ID. Is he supposed to take his word for it that he's a cop? That someone you were just in a fistfight with earlier, now all of a sudden pulls a gun on you and says he's a cop, and won't show a badge?
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']When a law enforcement official feels threatened with deadly force, and you refuse to follow his commands, what do you expect him to do?

"Shoot out his tires"

You watch too many cop shows on TV.[/quote]

I was going to say the same thing.. in real life they don't go for the tires, they go for the driver. A car driving at you attempting to run you over.. first, hitting the tires is an extremely hard shot.. secondly, he's likely to still skid into you on flat tires. Shoot for the head, he's less likely to hit you.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I think this guy should have identified himself as a federal orificer BEFORE engaging in a fistfight. It would have probably avoided the tragic result. I hope this "cop" gets nailed to the wall for being an idiot, and a murderer.[/quote]

If I had to field that accusation on behalf of the deputy, I would say that he had been trying to cool the young man down--you know how hot-headed a 20 year old can be, while the deputy was a mature family man in his fifties with a record of competent service--and had thought he could reason with the other driver. The deputy was caught off-guard by the young man's sudden escalation of anger and had no opportunity to make his occupation as a US deputy known before a physical altercation suddenly began.

Also, I would add (in my mock role on the defense attorney's team) that the deputy believed the young man was going for a weapon stashed in the Camaro. After all, he'd run back into his car immediately after a fistfight...possibly to equip himself with a weapon. The deputy could not assume that the young man was still unarmed, which is why he asked that he come out of the vehicle, where he would be clearly visible.
 
You get into an argument with an idiot in a parking lot. He pulls out his federal marshall ID. You say " Sorry, have a nice day officer."

Argument over. If this guy just did that then no one would have gotten his thumb broken and no one would have gotten shot. This guy must just be a moron with a big ego and a badge.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']When a law enforcement official feels threatened with deadly force, and you refuse to follow his commands, what do you expect him to do?

"Shoot out his tires"

You watch too many cop shows on TV.[/quote]

i dont watch much tv at all, and outside of dragnet w/jack webb, i dont watch cop shows.
this officer handeled every single thing he did wrong. had he shown id, i doubt he would have fled.
 
[quote name='punqsux'][quote name='Admiral Ackbar']When a law enforcement official feels threatened with deadly force, and you refuse to follow his commands, what do you expect him to do?

"Shoot out his tires"

You watch too many cop shows on TV.[/quote]

i dont watch much tv at all, and outside of dragnet w/jack webb, i dont watch cop shows.
this officer handeled every single thing he did wrong. had he shown id, i doubt he would have fled.[/quote]

Cop movies then?
 
Well, in any case, I think it's a given that this guy won't see any serious punishment.
 
Another question for me is, what is the deputy trying to accomplish here? The deputy's family is in his car. The deputy gets into a fistfight with the kid, and after he gets in his car to leave, the deputy pulls his gun. To do what? Arrest him?

Would any of you people defending the cop like to explain to me why he fired at least 9 times?
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb'][quote name='punqsux'][quote name='Admiral Ackbar']When a law enforcement official feels threatened with deadly force, and you refuse to follow his commands, what do you expect him to do?

"Shoot out his tires"

You watch too many cop shows on TV.[/quote]

i dont watch much tv at all, and outside of dragnet w/jack webb, i dont watch cop shows.
this officer handeled every single thing he did wrong. had he shown id, i doubt he would have fled.[/quote]

Cop movies then?[/quote]

i cant even name any cop movies...wait...is diehard a cop movie? or just a normal explosion movie?
 
and when i said "shoot out his tires", i didnt mean from in front, i ment from behind after the driver went around the officer, which it says he was doing.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']The deputy gets into a fistfight with the kid, and after he gets in his car to leave, the deputy pulls his gun. To do what? Arrest him?

Would any of you people defending the cop like to explain to me why he fired at least 9 times?[/quote]

One could argue that the officer resorted to his sidearm when the young man got back into his Camaro because he might have had a weapon hidden within the car. At that point, the deputy ordered him out of the car because his own safety (and that of his family) was at stake, if the 20 year old came out with a gun in his hand.

As for the number of shots fired, if an officer is threatened with vehicular homicide, one could not reasonably expect him to fire two shots at an oncoming car and hope they were sufficient (keep in mind that I would argue that the Camaro passed close enough to the officer to warrant his "genuine belief" that he was under direct assault.)
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Another question for me is, what is the deputy trying to accomplish here? The deputy's family is in his car. The deputy gets into a fistfight with the kid, and after he gets in his car to leave, the deputy pulls his gun. To do what? Arrest him?

Would any of you people defending the cop like to explain to me why he fired at least 9 times?[/quote]

There's a reason I haven't commented on the actual case. We don't know who started the fight, how it went, how the 20 year old acted, whether he was actually trying to hit the marshall, etc. However, 9 shots is not completely untoward. Often officers will unload full clips (16-24 rounds typically) without completely realizing they have. When you feel your life is in danger, you keep pulling that trigger until you are positive the assailant is down.
 
Sigh.


This cop has huge fucking anger issues. I hate guys like that. It's this 5% of cops that ruin the good name of all police officers. They don't become a cop to protect and serve, but to show how huge of a man they are. He did not show identification. He got into a fight without first mentioning that he was an officer of the law. He proceeded to pull out a gun and refused to show identification when directly asked for it. He then proceeded to shoot a man nine times and kill him in front of his own family and children.

In retrospect, if I was that young man, I would have obeyed if a gun was pointed at me. I would have had the cop's job the next day, but I would have not struggled with a man who not only seemed to get humilated infront of his family but was also looking to get revenge for it.

But that still doesn't give the cop the right to shoot me dead.

I hope they put him away from life.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Would any of you people defending the cop like to explain to me why he fired at least 9 times?[/quote]

small penis? teaching the kids how to commit an unjustifyable murder?
 
Read the god damn article. I know most of you are too lazy to register, so here it is. Inform yourself.

Road Rage Victim Was Shot From Behind
U.S. Deputy Argued With Driver Before Rockville Killing

By Fredrick Kunkle and Elizabeth Williamson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 30, 2004; Page A01

An off-duty deputy U.S. marshal embroiled in an apparent road rage confrontation along Rockville Pike on Thursday night fired repeatedly into the rear window of his adversary's car, killing the man as he sat behind the wheel, according to police and witnesses.

Numerous witnesses to the death of Ryan T. Stowers, 20, at the Mid-Pike Plaza in Rockville shortly before 8:30 p.m. were being interviewed by Montgomery County police yesterday. Authorities said no decision had been made on whether charges would be filed against Arthur L. Lloyd, 53, a 28-year veteran of the U.S. Marshals Service assigned to U.S. District Court in Washington.

"The rear window was shattered out," said Capt. John Fitzgerald, a police spokesman, who said investigators had begun to talk with at least 40 witnesses. "With that many witnesses, there ought to be a very clear picture of what went down."

Although Fitzgerald said Stowers may have driven toward the federal agent in the plaza parking lot, three people who said they witnessed the shooting told The Washington Post that Lloyd was standing with his gun drawn and opened fire after Stowers drove past him.

David Sacks, a spokesman for the U.S. Marshals Service, said the federal agency will decide Monday whether Lloyd, who was not at work yesterday, would be placed on leave during the investigation by Montgomery police.

"We will wait with everyone else for the facts of the case to become known," Sacks said. "Regarding what happened, we cannot comment until the investigation is complete."

Lloyd could not be located to comment.

Stowers, of Redding, Calif., enlisted in the Navy and had moved to the area on Navy business. A Navy spokesman yesterday would not provide any information about him.

The confrontation began in the thick evening traffic on Rockville Pike, a four-lane artery known for its routine congestion, and played out in the large, well-lighted Mid-Pike Plaza parking lot, about six miles north of the District line.

The following account of the incident was drawn from preliminary police reports, law enforcement sources and interviews with witnesses.

The altercation was sparked by a traffic incident on Rockville Pike and continued after Stowers and Lloyd turned into the shopping center lot. It is unclear whether the vehicles collided or the two drivers merely had a traffic argument.

Stowers pulled his red Chevrolet Camaro into the lot, not far from the A.C. Moore craft store, behind the dark-colored sport-utility vehicle that Lloyd was driving, with his wife and several children as passengers.

A shouting match turned into a fistfight, and Lloyd suffered a broken thumb, according to one source familiar with the investigation who declined to be identified because the investigation is not complete.

Cindy Nachman-Senders of Potomac said she heard shouting in the crowded parking lot as she strapped her 5-year-old son into his booster seat. She turned to see two men in a confrontation beside their stopped vehicles.

She said Stowers got into his car and was on his cell phone. She said Lloyd started yelling: "Give me the cell phone! I'm going to call 911!"

A witness who said he was driving in the opposite direction in his Toyota Corolla at that point said he saw a man who was wearing street clothes holding a semiautomatic handgun and a badge standing by the Camaro's right front fender. The driver's window was down, he said.

Montgomery County investigators survey the scene of the shooting in a shopping center parking lot along Rockville Pike. (Dudley M. Brooks -- The Washington Post)

"I noticed that the officer was standing in front of the Camaro, pointing his gun and saying, 'Get out of the car, or I'm going to shoot you!' He was yelling it very loudly," said the Toyota driver. He spoke on the condition that his name not be used because he was afraid of getting in trouble with the police. He said the man with the gun "just kept yelling. He was saying, 'You just hit a federal officer. Watch what's going to happen to you in the morning if you leave.' "

Stowers refused to get out of the car, the Toyota driver said. "The young man in the car was yelling: 'I need a picture ID. Show me a picture ID. I don't believe you,' " he said.

Another person who said she witnessed the incident, Eugenia Hull of Silver Spring, also said she heard Lloyd order Stowers to "get out of the car." She said Lloyd responded to the request for additional identification by saying, "That's all the ID you're going to get."

Witnesses agree that Stowers attempted to drive away, although there is not agreement on whether he moved in reverse or tried to swerve around Lloyd.

Fitzgerald, the police spokesman, said preliminary interviews indicated that Stowers "drove away in the direction of the deputy marshal . . . but we'll accept any fact pattern that changes this." He said investigators "would have to determine where [Lloyd] was and how far away from the car he was" when the shots were fired.

As Nachman-Senders saw it, Stowers reversed the Camaro, gunned the engine and then went around the SUV, not at it. "He was trying to leave the scene, not hit the officer," she said.

Hull described Stowers as trying to "move around" Lloyd when she heard the shots.

The Toyota driver said he had just eased his own car by the confrontation when the Camaro backed up and then lurched forward. He said he was about eight feet away when he heard the first of three shots, and he said that Lloyd fired into the Camaro from the rear.

"He shot the back of the car," the driver said. "He shot the guy in the back, pretty much."

Nachman-Senders said she turned back to Lloyd, who stood with the gun at his side. Then she heard a loud crash. She turned toward the noise and saw that the Camaro had hit a wall.

"I'm just in shock and disbelief. I can't believe there's a kid who was here one minute and then not the next," she said. "I can't believe that an argument could escalate this way so quickly. . . . How responsible was it for him to shoot like that in the middle of a busy parking lot?"
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Pezdro']Sigh.


This cop has huge shaq-fuing anger issues. I hate guys like that. It's this 5% of cops that ruin the good name of all police officers. They don't become a cop to protect and serve, but to show how huge of a man they are. He did not show identification. He got into a fight without first mentioning that he was an officer of the law. He proceeded to pull out a gun and refused to show identification when directly asked for it. He then proceeded to shoot a man nine times and kill him in front of his own family and children.

In retrospect, if I was that young man, I would have obeyed if a gun was pointed at me. I would have had the cop's job the next day, but I would have not struggled with a man who not only seemed to get humilated infront of his family but was also looking to get revenge for it.

But that still doesn't give the cop the right to shoot me dead.

I hope they put him away from life.[/quote]

Do you realize the number of assumptions you are making? First, the marshall could have been very calm, you have no idea he has anger issues. Second, if the 20 year old attacked the marshall.. when is he going to announce he's a federal officer? Third, an officer holding a gun at a suspect will not show id until the suspect is secure. Holding a gun with one hand makes his shots much less accurate, he's going to make sure he's safe before he pulls out a badge. And lastly, you're assuming the 20 year old was not trying to attack the cop with a deadly weapon (his vehicle).
 
[quote name='RBM'] The 20 year old tries to drive off (this took place in a crowded parking lot with plenty of witnesses,) and the officer opens fire repeatedly into the rear windshield. The car rolls into the wall with its driver dead. The 20yr old's Camaro passed close enough to the officer in passing so that an obvious question becomes: was he trying to run him over. Two witnesses describe the Camaro as trying to get around the officer in order to flee.
[/quote]

So you're saying the cop's rational is "The guy missed trying to kill me, so I'm going to shoot him as he's getting away and I am no longer in danger" Hell fucking no.
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb']And lastly, you're assuming the 20 year old was not trying to attack the cop with a deadly weapon (his vehicle).[/quote]

if he assumed that, why wouldnt he shoot him in the face instead of the back after he passed?
 
The cop shot the driver in the back, through the rear windshield, as the car was moving foreward, away from the cop.

Justify that. This is murder and nothing less. The cop fired nine shots into the back of the car as it was moving away from him.
 
Sadly, I bet the officer gets a 30 day suspension. With pay. The punishment for police officers doing stupid things never seems to amount to much, in the few cases I have heard about.
 
[quote name='punqsux'][quote name='Cornfedwb']And lastly, you're assuming the 20 year old was not trying to attack the cop with a deadly weapon (his vehicle).[/quote]

if he assumed that, why wouldnt he shoot him in the face instead of the back after he passed?[/quote]

There's nothing in the article about whether he did shoot while the vehicle was coming towards him. He could have squeezed off a few shots at the front of the car.. the car barely misses him.. fearing a continued attack, he continues to fire at the suspect, this time as he passes and through the back glass of the vehicle, thereby hitting the suspect and ending the assault on his life.

I don't know what happened, none of us do.. there is not enough information in the article to tell us. But there are two sides to everything, instead of seeing "Shot in the Back" and automatically assuming the cop is guilty, someone needs to point out the possibilities.
 
[quote name='bankson']Sadly, I bet the officer gets a 30 day suspension. With pay. The punishment for police officers doing stupid things never seems to amount to much, in the few cases I have heard about.[/quote]

If an officer is found to have fired his weapon in anger or without justifiable cause.. they get hit just as bad as a civilian. We had a local case here a couple years ago.. a cop was trying to get back to the station to end his shift, he ran lights and sirens full speed through an intersection and hit an elderly woman in her car. The woman died and the cop was found guilty of vehicular homicide. They aren't always let off with a slap on the wrist.
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb']I don't know what happened, none of us do.. there is not enough information in the article to tell us. But there are two sides to everything, instead of seeing "Shot in the Back" and automatically assuming the cop is guilty, someone needs to point out the possibilities.[/quote]

Like a wizard. There could have been one involved somewhere in this. Or a Leprechaun. Also very devious.
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb']There's nothing in the article about whether he did shoot while the vehicle was coming towards him. He could have squeezed off a few shots at the front of the car.. the car barely misses him.. fearing a continued attack, he continues to fire at the suspect, this time as he passes and through the back glass of the vehicle, thereby hitting the suspect and ending the assault on his life. [/quote]
You have not read the article. Scroll up and read, and get back to me when you're done. Or, I can do it for you, since you probably won't.
Although Fitzgerald said Stowers may have driven toward the federal agent in the plaza parking lot, three people who said they witnessed the shooting told The Washington Post that Lloyd was standing with his gun drawn and opened fire after Stowers drove past him.

As Nachman-Senders saw it, Stowers reversed the Camaro, gunned the engine and then went around the SUV, not at it. "He was trying to leave the scene, not hit the officer," she said.

Hull described Stowers as trying to "move around" Lloyd when she heard the shots.

The Toyota driver said he had just eased his own car by the confrontation when the Camaro backed up and then lurched forward. He said he was about eight feet away when he heard the first of three shots, and he said that Lloyd fired into the Camaro from the rear.
Click to expand...

Also, I found this interesting, and not professional at all.
"I noticed that the officer was standing in front of the Camaro, pointing his gun and saying, 'Get out of the car, or I'm going to shoot you!' He was yelling it very loudly," said the Toyota driver. He spoke on the condition that his name not be used because he was afraid of getting in trouble with the police. He said the man with the gun "just kept yelling. He was saying, 'You just hit a federal officer. Watch what's going to happen to you in the morning if you leave.' "
Click to expand...

To sum it up: The officer began by standing in front of the car with his gun drawn, fact. The driver moves the car, and the officer shoots him through the rear windshield. There are pictures of the car on the Washington Post website. The front windshield is completely intact. The rear windshield is shot out.

How does the cop begin by standing in front of the car with his gun drawn, and not fire until he is behind the car, with the car moving away?
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb']
Do you realize the number of assumptions you are making? First, the marshall could have been very calm, you have no idea he has anger issues.
[/quote]

"I noticed that the officer was standing in front of the Camaro, pointing his gun and saying, 'Get out of the car, or I'm going to shoot you!' He was yelling it very loudly," said the Toyota driver. He spoke on the condition that his name not be used because he was afraid of getting in trouble with the police. He said the man with the gun "just kept yelling.
Click to expand...

Sounded like the guy was not calm at all. If he was calm, we wouldn't have been here arguing.

[quote name='Cornfedwb']
Second, if the 20 year old attacked the marshall.. when is he going to announce he's a federal officer? [/quote]

I would have done it before pulling out the gun. The two cops I know are very specific in altercations with civlians about mentioning their status. It can easily diffuse a situation. It gives someboy something to think about. An officer of the law is trained to avoid violence and use it sparingly. This guy seem ready to jump the gun. (lord forgive me for this unintentional pun).


[quote name='Cornfedwb']
Third, an officer holding a gun at a suspect will not show id until the suspect is secure. Holding a gun with one hand makes his shots much less accurate, he's going to make sure he's safe before he pulls out a badge.
[/quote]

Look, people faking that they are the officer of the law happens often enough that people are stressed about it. There is a law in place in most states that says if a cop attempts to pull you over, you are in your rights to contiune driving until you reach a place that is safe and secure. If a man comes to the door of your home and says he is an officer, you can ask for an ID. On my Mass Transit system, I been approached by Officers not in uniform, I have asked them to show me ID. They have always obligied. The title of officer of the law comes with alot of powers. We allow these officers these powers to have a safer society. I will not give information about myself to everyone that asks. This is a privlege given to officers of the law. I must confirm this status before I can give it to them.

[quote name='Cornfedwb']
And lastly, you're assuming the 20 year old was not trying to attack the cop with a deadly weapon (his vehicle).
[/quote]

Although Fitzgerald said Stowers may have driven toward the federal agent in the plaza parking lot, three people who said they witnessed the shooting told The Washington Post that Lloyd was standing with his gun drawn and opened fire after Stowers drove past him.

As Nachman-Senders saw it, Stowers reversed the Camaro, gunned the engine and then went around the SUV, not at it. "He was trying to leave the scene, not hit the officer," she said.

Hull described Stowers as trying to "move around" Lloyd when she heard the shots.

The Toyota driver said he had just eased his own car by the confrontation when the Camaro backed up and then lurched forward. He said he was about eight feet away when he heard the first of three shots, and he said that Lloyd fired into the Camaro from the rear.
Click to expand...

I didn't assume shit. I read the article where it was mentioned by several eye witnesses, that the victim made attempts to leave.

This cop didn't do one fucking thing right from the beginning.
 
"The cop shot the driver in the back, through the rear windshield, as the car was moving foreward, away from the cop.

Justify that. This is murder and nothing less. The cop fired nine shots into the back of the car as it was moving away from him. "

I can justify that easily. Cars have reverse.
 
[quote name='Pulsar'] Cars have reverse.[/quote]

and guns have triggers. only one for the two were used in this case...and it wasnt reverse
 
I can justify that easily. Cars have reverse.
Click to expand...
You made zero sense. Think about what you just said, and get back to me.

So because he could have possibly stopped going foreward, and thrown the car into reverse, and then gone at the officer, its ok to shoot him 9 times before he does it?
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb'].. when is he going to announce he's a federal officer? [/quote]

How about as soon as he pulls into the parking lot and steps out of his vehicle ? That would have been the smart thing to do. It would have let the kid know he was on shaky gound to begin with AND that the man was carrying a weapon. It would have negated the confrontation completely before it had a chance to escalate.
 
How about as soon as he pulls into the parking lot and steps out of his vehicle ? That would have been the smart thing to do. It would have let the kid know he was on shaky gound to begin with AND that the man was carrying a weapon. It would have negated the confrontation completely before it had a chance to escalate.
Click to expand...
Especially with the cop's family in his car. Why would the cop want to engage in a fistfight with the kid? He could simply identify himself, show his ID, and diffuse the situation. This is what a cop is *supposed* to do. But no. Even with his family in the car, the cop did not identify himself as a cop, and fought the kid. Why? Road rage, probably.

Listen, I know there are people that will blame cops for everything under the sun. I take the cop's side 90% of the time, but the evidence here is just so damning already.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']
How about as soon as he pulls into the parking lot and steps out of his vehicle ? That would have been the smart thing to do. It would have let the kid know he was on shaky gound to begin with AND that the man was carrying a weapon. It would have negated the confrontation completely before it had a chance to escalate.
Click to expand...
Especially with the cop's family in his car. Why would the cop want to engage in a fistfight with the kid? He could simply identify himself, show his ID, and diffuse the situation. This is what a cop is *supposed* to do. But no. Even with his family in the car, the cop did not identify himself as a cop, and fought the kid. Why? Road rage, probably.

Listen, I know there are people that will blame cops for everything under the sun. I take the cop's side 90% of the time, but the evidence here is just so damning already.[/quote]

I agree with you. I believe that 90% to 95% of cops are regular upstanding people. Hell, I have two friends who are that 90%. However, the job still have the world average of 10% assholes. The problem is that an asshole at MacDonalds will just fuck up your order and you'll fries will be too small. An asshole in a federal enforcement will kill a young man in a crowded parking lot infront of the cop's own family.

I wish there was an easier way to spot the assholes in federal law enforcement with out someone dying.
 
I was looking for a different past post of mine and happened across this thread. Out of curiosity, I checked up on the status of this case and a brief update follows if anyone else in interested in how this case has progressed:

Firstly, the 53yr old U.S. marshall is currently in jail and has been denied bail twice. He is awaiting trail on charges of 1st degree murder for having shot the 20yr old driver in the back as he tried to drive away from their altercation in his Camaro. So, for those who were expecting a cursory slap on the wrist for the officer in this incident, those predictions seem not to have been born out (thus far.) The poll choices/results aren't visible right now due to the CAG awards. His wife & kids were in his car at the time of the incident, and she has since come forth with allegations that he has been violent and abusive in the past, including one incident in which he "broke the kitchen door with her head."

Meanwhile, it has been revealed that Ryan Stowers (who was killed at the scene) had a blood alcohol level of 0.20 at the time of the incident. A forensic toxicologist has stated for the defense that Stowers' maniacal behavior during the confrontation was typical of an intoxicated person.

I'd be the first to admit that my knee-jerk response to the article for this case was to expect minor action against the officer, and to wonder--somewhat perversely--if folks in general would share that pessimistic view. I later switched gears and thought this case worth discussing as one to set legal precedent if nothing else (if any of us is ever stopped by an un-uniformed man with a gun while in our cars, who doesn't show ID and demands that we get out.) In any case, I still think this an interesting way of showing how people expect the law to operate for them, as opposed to a member of law enforcement.
 
Woah, I remember this thread. Hey, thanks for the update, RBM. I'm glad to get a followup to the whole thing. Looks like justice was actually served in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top