US marshall kills sailor in road rage incident


PDA






RangerHAAF
May 30, 2005, 08:12 AM
This is an unfortunate story but I'm sure that they happen fairly often when some federal agents presume that their badges absolve them from criticism and grants them certain protections and presumptions under the law.

I was wondering also, under Florida's new affirmative self defense law where this situation would fall into?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29112-2004Nov5.html?sub=AR

If you enjoyed reading about "US marshall kills sailor in road rage incident" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
HighVelocity
May 30, 2005, 08:20 AM
They said the shot that killed him struck him in the upper back after he had returned to his car and was driving away.

This dude is going to fry.

BryanP
May 30, 2005, 08:38 AM
If the article is accurate he's guilty as hell. There's no excuse for what he did.

RangerHAAF
May 30, 2005, 09:07 AM
After reading the story and doing some further research, I'm not in favor of giving Mr. Lloyd the benefit of the doubt in this case. The sailor that he shot and killed was retreating away from him when he was shot in the back. He was not on duty and if he perceived that there was a threat from Mr. Stowers he should have called the cops like everyone else does, especially after he had shot him in the leg and Stowers was trying to get away from him to avoid being shot further.

As I understand the law and I'm sure that Lloyd does also, he knows that the only LEO's that are authorized to proactively shoot people in the back as a matter of law and policy are prison guards.

Greg L
May 30, 2005, 09:14 AM
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 6, 2004

I'm pretty sure that there was a big thread back in Nov. about this. Let me do some digging later (I'm heading out the door right now).

Byron Quick
May 30, 2005, 09:15 AM
You can mess up bad enough to be suspended for an entire year and still be a Federal LEO? :what:

cane
May 30, 2005, 10:29 AM
This incident happened 6 montha ago, is there any update?

308win
May 30, 2005, 10:58 AM
The US Marshals I have met tend to act as though they ARE THE LAW, especialy after Waco, Oklahoma City - legends in their own minds pretty much sums it up.

El Tejon
May 30, 2005, 12:24 PM
Don't mess with U.S. Marshals--they ARE the law, untouchable.

Surely we remember Ruby Ridge. Ruby Ridges happen everywhere.

jonathon
May 30, 2005, 12:30 PM
Bet ya he gets off, 10 to 1. Why? From the statements of the defense, they are going to try every decietful way to derail the prosecution..

Spreadfire Arms
May 30, 2005, 12:36 PM
Ranger HAAF wrote:

"As I understand the law and I'm sure that Lloyd does also, he knows that the only LEO's that are authorized to proactively shoot people in the back as a matter of law and policy are prison guards."

where is this written? what law?

"He was not on duty and if he perceived that there was a threat from Mr. Stowers he should have called the cops like everyone else does..."
he is a federal law enforcement officer, even if off duty. he is an LE officer 24/7. we do not know if he had access to a cellular phone or police radio. we do know he got into an altercation that turned into a gunfight. it does not say if the sailor had a weapon (firearm or otherwise). this news report also does not state how the two ended up in a parking lot, or if the entire altercation started and began in the parking lot. it leaves alot of information out. the report implies the sailor was unarmed but it does not specifically state it.

the report states that the sailor was killed with a bullet as he got into his car to drive away from the scene. it does not give the officers mindset, i.e. that he was possibly retreating to his vehicle to get a weapon? that would be the most common defense.

also as far as shooting someone in the back, i'd also like to see a law that states shooting someone in the back is illegal. i'd also like to hear how you would defend yourself if a man had his back to you and was shooting at you with his right hand holding a .357 under his left armpit pointed at you and firing upon you. would you not be able to shoot him in the back still? i think not. shooting someone in the back has negative connotations sometimes but it can be justified.

2nd Amendment
May 30, 2005, 12:45 PM
There's always certain ones we can count on to present "the other side"...

Vernal45
May 30, 2005, 12:53 PM
Jury Selection Begins in Trial of Marshal Shooting
Updated: Monday, May. 23, 2005 - 7:33 PM
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?sid=522675&nid=25
By BRETT ZONGKER
Associated Press Writer

ROCKVILLE, Md. - Dozens of potential jurors were interviewed Monday for the murder trial of a former deputy U.S. marshal accused of shooting a 20-year old man in a traffic dispute.

Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge Ann S. Harrington brought in 125 people to consider for the 15-member jury. The trial for Arthur L. Lloyd is expected to take 10 days over three weeks, she said.

Lloyd, 54, is charged with first-degree murder, use of a handgun in a crime of violence and reckless endangerment in the Oct. 28 slaying of U.S. Navy seaman Ryan T. Stowers, 20, of Redding, Calif.

Defense attorneys have argued that Lloyd was acting in self-defense after Stowers threatened him.

"Arthur Lloyd never wanted to kill this young man," said lead defense attorney Barry Helfand. "It is road rage, but only on the part of Mr. Stowers."

When Harrington asked potential jurors if they'd heard of the case, nearly half of those in the room stood. A few said they could not decide the case fairly because of their own biases for or against someone with the title of U.S. marshal.

Harrington asked a series of 50 questions before she took small groups of jurors behind closed doors for more questioning.

Todd and Tricia Stowers, the victim's parents, traveled from their home in California for the trial.

"We're here for the duration," Tricia Stowers said. But prosecutors asked them not to comment on the case.

Jury selection is expected to continue Tuesday with opening statements to follow.

According to charging documents, Lloyd was off duty and driving with his family in an SUV when he allegedly got into an argument with Stowers. The two men pulled into a Rockville shopping center, and the documents show Lloyd's wife got out of the car and tried to restrain her husband. The two men got into a fist fight, and Lloyd pulled out a gun and shot Stowers in the leg, the documents state.

Lloyd identified himself as a marshal and showed his police badge. Stowers demanded to see photo identification and got back into his car, the documents stated. Then Lloyd allegedly yelled, "Get out of the car, or I'm going to shoot you."

Stowers drove away, and Lloyd allegedly fired three shots through the rear of the red Camaro. Stowers was struck in the back and died a short time later at Suburban Hospital.

Lloyd has been held without bond, and if convicted could face the possibility of a life sentence plus 25 years in prison. He is a 28-year veteran of the U.S. Marshal's Service, most recently assigned to the District of Columbia District Court.

(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)


For what it is worth, all the articles I have read on this, the race card is in full play, and it seems that this Marshal was a problem child.

para.2
May 30, 2005, 01:47 PM
Lloyd should be sharing a cell with Lon Horiuchi, et al I'll be surpised if he isn't promoted. :banghead:

2nd Amendment
May 30, 2005, 02:12 PM
i'd also like to hear how you would defend yourself if a man had his back to you and was shooting at you with his right hand holding a .357 under his left armpit pointed at you and firing upon you. would you not be able to shoot him in the back still?

Ya know, I admit I don't read much of your stuff, other than the first few lines to confirm it's the usual routine, but I just picked up on this and it is funny on so many levels I just had to quote it, for all the others who didn't read it the first time through. I mean it's hysterical. It's hysterical in how wildly it does not apply to this subject and how wildly improbable it is(though i'm sure it's happened at some time or another) and how wildly you miss the fact that if it did happen you'd still be under assault and thus justified in returning fire, again utterly unlike this case...

Wagon circling is expected in every instance but realism is still appreciated.

HighVelocity
May 30, 2005, 02:35 PM
Dozens of potential jurors were interviewed Monday for the murder trial of a former deputy U.S. marshal accused of shooting a 20-year old man in a traffic dispute.

So now he's a "former" marshal.

Waitone
May 30, 2005, 02:37 PM
Imagine the quality of life of a US Marshall in prison !!!!!!!

Bacon
May 30, 2005, 03:01 PM
Good point Waitone. And if he is guilty, he deserves every minute of it. There is nothing worse than a rotten cop.

The reason many people don't trust cops is because the ones like him aren't weeded out. We all know most are good people but the few like this guy make them all look bad. LEA's need to get a clue and rid themselves of these bad cops.

Phantom Warrior
May 30, 2005, 03:04 PM
also as far as shooting someone in the back, i'd also like to see a law that states shooting someone in the back is illegal. i'd also like to hear how you would defend yourself if a man had his back to you and was shooting at you with his right hand holding a .357 under his left armpit pointed at you and firing upon you. would you not be able to shoot him in the back still? i think not. shooting someone in the back has negative connotations sometimes but it can be justified.


I'm going to agree with 2nd Amendment that your scenario is...improbable, to say the least. However, it's any easy one, so I'll take it.

In general, for a shoot to be justified you must be have "reasonable fear of immediate death or serious bodily injury." "Reasonable", you can't shoot blondes because you are scared of them; "immediate", you can't shoot someone waving his fist at you 150 yards down the street; and "death or serious bodily", you can't shoot someone for calling you names.

Someone shooting a gun at you, even in your "secnario", would be considered a reasonable threat. Therefore, a shoot would be justified. Whether the guy was facing you or standing on his head.


You made the good point that we don't have all the details. However, after reading the newspaper article posted right after your post, it looks like the Marshal shot the guy through his back window while he was driving away from the scene. It's pretty hard to justify a shoot if the bad guy is driving away.

RevDisk
May 30, 2005, 03:24 PM
"As I understand the law and I'm sure that Lloyd does also, he knows that the only LEO's that are authorized to proactively shoot people in the back as a matter of law and policy are prison guards."

where is this written? what law?

It varies on a state level. In PA, force is authorized to stop escaping convicts trying to get out of prison. Up to and including lethal force, depending. Though, usually they just use rubber rounds out of a shotgun. Said projectiles are "less lethal", and do cause serious injury or possible death on occassion.

Prison guards are also authorized to break up rioting by force, up to and including lethal force. Again, CS gas, sting grenades and rubber rounds are more likely to be used.

Contact your local prison and ask them where to look up authorized force rules. Again, it varies on a state level, but yes prison guards are sometimes authorized to use force on convicts when they have their backs turned. They do not have a carte blanche, however. They are restricted by state law and prison policy.



he is a federal law enforcement officer, even if off duty. he is an LE officer 24/7. we do not know if he had access to a cellular phone or police radio. we do know he got into an altercation that turned into a gunfight. it does not say if the sailor had a weapon (firearm or otherwise). this news report also does not state how the two ended up in a parking lot, or if the entire altercation started and began in the parking lot. it leaves alot of information out. the report implies the sailor was unarmed but it does not specifically state it.

I think it would have stated so if the sailor was waving around a firearm or firing at the Marshall. Call me silly, but I think the reporters would have included it in order to make the story sound even more sensational.


the report states that the sailor was killed with a bullet as he got into his car to drive away from the scene. it does not give the officers mindset, i.e. that he was possibly retreating to his vehicle to get a weapon? that would be the most common defense.

"They said the shot that killed him struck him in the upper back after he had returned to his car and was driving away."

If the car was moving away from the scene, that's called 'retreating'. If the car had made a U turn and tried to ram Lloyd, it would have been attacking. That did not occur. Lloyd shot the man AS he was driving away, with no indications that the sailor was doing anything except retreating.


also as far as shooting someone in the back, i'd also like to see a law that states shooting someone in the back is illegal. i'd also like to hear how you would defend yourself if a man had his back to you and was shooting at you with his right hand holding a .357 under his left armpit pointed at you and firing upon you. would you not be able to shoot him in the back still? i think not. shooting someone in the back has negative connotations sometimes but it can be justified.

Perhaps you should try shooting a .357 underneath your left armpit. To save on medical bills, wear a nomex garment while doing so. If some guy was shooting at me with a .357 under his armpit, I'd seek cover and hysterically laugh at him.

Do you know how they remove gunpower burns? Debriding. Looks like a cheese grater, which the docs sometimes use to remove burned flesh and foreign objects embedded in burns. A buddy of mine told me the debriding hurt worse than being shot. I fully intend to take his word for it and never find out myself.

You are correct. Sometimes it can be justified under various circumstances. The scenerio you described would be a reasonable justification. Lloyd shooting the retreating sailor is not one of those.

DMF
May 30, 2005, 03:36 PM
Agreed things look pretty bad for this DUSM. If the story is accurate he is likely going to face criminal charges.

However, with regard to shooting a fleeing person I suggest you read Tennessee v. Garner. A Supreme Court case dealing with deadly force, but the specific circumstance of that case was a fleeing felon.

Also, PW you need to get your facts straight on justified use of force. There needs to be an IMMINENT (not immediate) threat of death or serious bodily injury. A guy 3 feet away baseball bat above his head starting to move it down to strike you is an immediate threat. A guy with a knife 30 feet away screaming he is going to kill you, and refusing to put the knife down is an imminent threat. Subtle yet very important difference. Again, read Tennesse v. Garner, and Graham v. Conner for some enlightenment.

Useful info on the topic of decision making: http://www.patrolandbeyond.com/tactical_notes/ooda_cycle.htm

As for other times a shot in the back may still be a justified shoot there are many. You may find this information useful:
http://www.ultimateperformancetraining.com/articles/shotinback.pdf

Again, IF this media reports are accurate the DUSM is in serious trouble.

However, you will note that in the past related to a shooting by a civilian where the suspect ended up shot in the back, I argued it may have been a good shoot: http://sigforum.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/320601935/m/280104251/p/1 I thought we discussed it here on THR too, but I can't find the thread.

nico
May 30, 2005, 04:03 PM
There was a thread when this happened, and it seemed pretty clear from the multiple stories available that it was a bad shoot and the Marshal should have been fired years ago.
It's pretty hard to justify a shoot if the bad guy is driving away.
it's also pretty hard to justify a shoot when YOU pulled over to have a fist fight with the guy then shot him and claimed you were a LEO when you started to lose. IMO, instigating an altercation like this should be grounds for immediate dismissal from any LE agency, even if everybody walks away.

Selfdfenz
May 30, 2005, 05:31 PM
If the DV violence stuff is true this man could not have legally purchased a firearm any place I know of, yet his employer continued to allow him to act as an armed LEO. We would have to assume there is a 50/50 chance he killed the victim with his duty weapon.

What's with the $10K settlement to the person under arrest. Yet he had continued employment??

Seems to me there may be some liability to his employer.

S-

Jeff White
May 30, 2005, 06:02 PM
2nd Amendment said;

There's always certain ones we can count on to present "the other side"...

My comment is aimed only at the above comment by 2nd Amendment and has no bearing on the case that is the subject of this thread!

My friend I certainly hope that you are never involved in a questionable act. Because I'm sure you wouldn't want everyone to judge you based totally on a report in the media.

Everyone is entitled to a hearing on the facts, which given the noted accuracy of new organizations, there are usually precious few of in these threads. I'm sorry that Spreadfire Arms interrupted the electronic lynching that the thread was turning into by presenting an alternate viewpoint and spoiled everyone's fun.

We're supposed to be above that kind of thing here at THR. I don't know why we can't discuss the facts (as they are presented in the articles) and alternate theories of what may have transpired, whenever a peace officer is involved like we do when a CCW holder is involved in a questionable act.

Legal and Political isn't my venue so I can't force people to be reasonable here..I'm just expressing my opinion. I think these threads would be so much more educational if we could be a little less vindictive and a little more rational.

Jeff - going back to Strategies and Tactics where we try to keep things rational now

DMF
May 30, 2005, 06:19 PM
If the DV violence stuff is true this man could not have legally purchased a firearm any place I know of, yet his employer continued to allow him to act as an armed LEO. We would have to assume there is a 50/50 chance he killed the victim with his duty weapon.A person subject to a restraining order for DV is NOT restricted from possessing a firearm in the performance of their official duties: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b6 There are specific criteria on what types of restraining orders make someone a prohibited person, not all ROs, meet the criteria.

However, if the person is CONVICTED of a DV offense there is NO exception for LE or military duty: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#q15

DMF
May 30, 2005, 06:22 PM
There's always certain ones we can count on to present "the other side"... Maybe you misunderstand what this forum is all about:Legal and Political

Get informed on issues affecting the right to keep and bear arms and other civil rights. Coordinate activism, debate with allies and opponents. Discuss laws concerning firearm ownership, concealed carry and self-defense. (emphasis added)

Selfdfenz
May 30, 2005, 06:33 PM
Perhaps but the comment was:

"legally purchased a firearm any place I know of"

I got the impression from the last 4473 I filled out.

If I had been his employer it seems like due-diligence on my part to evaluate his fitness to continue his possession of an issued weapon when the orders filed/accusations were made. Ditto for the $10K settlement against someone under arrest and under his control. Not saying I would have pulled his weapon but I would have investigated.

If I was the prosecutor I'd like all the records of what was and wasn't done by his employer regarding these matters. Ditto for the next of kin for the decedent.

S-

Elmer
May 30, 2005, 07:00 PM
A retraining order is by no means a conviction. They are extremely easy to get in most jurisdictions. Especially in a DV case. Judges have to take the "better to be safe than sorry" tact.

They are a legal tool that are misused frequently.

2nd Amendment
May 30, 2005, 07:04 PM
Maybe you misunderstand what this forum is all about:

No, I was referring to the absurd, a whole "other side".

DMF
May 30, 2005, 07:20 PM
. . . I was referring to the absurd, a whole "other side". Well that's a matter of opinion whether something is absurd or not. I assure I have seen plenty of anti-LE comments on THR that are quite absurd. Some of them even come from you.

"Paging Mr. 2nd Amendment . . . Paging Mr. 2nd Amendmet, you have a call from the Kettle on the white courtesy phone."

Selfdfenz
May 30, 2005, 07:36 PM
A retraining order is by no means a conviction. They are extremely easy to get in most jurisdictions. Especially in a DV case. Judges have to take the "better to be safe than sorry" tact.

They are a legal tool that are misused frequently.

I'm very well aware of how TROs and ROs are issued, used and misused.
If you go to the BATF web site you will see on the 4473 that if RO is issued you cannot purchase a firearm or have one transferred to your possession. It's just as plain as can be, and pretty well explained on the 4473.
Has nothing to do with conviction. Where did I say it did?

IF a TRO becomes the permanent version, the issues can be very negative for the gun owner but in this case it sounds like the agent did not have that outcome. Anyway, I still think his boss had a responsibility to look at his "issues" given his behavior on a number of occassions.

It's speculation on my part but if the service had been engaged this sailor might still be alive. That's all I'm saying.

Risasi
May 30, 2005, 08:01 PM
Bah, I'm sick of these threads.

Can't you guys ever get along?

As for this particular incident, if the story is true why can't the LEO's here just say "Yeah, bad cop, no excuse"...

Instead you simply turn to ad hominems, and trying to type over the other guy.
And this goes for both sides.

(Although I concur, Spreadfire your analogy made no sense in the context of this thread. )

P95Carry
May 30, 2005, 08:20 PM
Sadly - almost predictably these days - ''discussion'' - even actual ''argument'' - transmogrifies into ''bickering''. :mad:

Phantom Warrior
May 30, 2005, 08:39 PM
Also, PW you need to get your facts straight on justified use of force. There needs to be an IMMINENT (not immediate) threat of death or serious bodily injury. A guy 3 feet away baseball bat above his head starting to move it down to strike you is an immediate threat. A guy with a knife 30 feet away screaming he is going to kill you, and refusing to put the knife down is an imminent threat. Subtle yet very important difference. Again, read Tennesse v. Garner, and Graham v. Conner for some enlightenment.


I'm reasonably content w/ my facts just the way they are, thank you. I wrote my post off the top of my head and didn't check to see exactly which I-word the law used. Considering the fact that I used a guy ONE HUNDRED FIFTY YARDS away as an example of what is NOT a threat, I don't feel too bad for mixing up immediate and imminent. Especially since I got the intent, if not the exact wording, correct.

DMF
May 30, 2005, 09:14 PM
If you go to the BATF web site you will see on the 4473 that if RO is issued you cannot purchase a firearm or have one transferred to your possession. It's just as plain as can be, and pretty well explained on the 4473. Actually it's not all that plain. Since you recommend checking the ATF website, something I frequently recommend too, including in this thread, I suggest you read the information ATF has posted about restraining orders. Not all TROs/ROs will make someone a prohibited person. I thought I made that clear earlier, but apparently I should have quoted the text rather than just providing a link: To be disabling, the restraining order must:

1. specifically restrain the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an "intimate partner" of the person (e. g., spouse);
2. be issued after a hearing of which notice was given to the person and at which the person had an opportunity to participate; and
3. include a finding that the person subject to the order represents a credible threat to the "intimate partner" or child of the "intimate partner" OR explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force against the partner. Not all restraining orders meet one of those three criteria, even ROs involving domestic relationships. Also, you will note there is an exception for duty use of firearms for ROs that do meet the criteria.

However, the GCA has an exception for the receipt and possession of firearms and ammunition on behalf of a Federal or state agency. Therefore, the GCA does not prohibit a law enforcement officer under a restraining order from receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition for use in performing official duties. Possession of the firearm off duty would be lawful if such possession is authorized by the officer's department. An officer subject to a disabling restraining order would violate the law if the officer received or possessed a firearm or ammunition for other than official use. (See Question Q15 on officers' receipt and possession of firearms and ammunition after a conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.) [18 U. S. C. 922( g)( 8), 925( a)( 1)]There are many factors at play here. The TROs may no longer be in affect, and when they were may have occurred PRIOR to the Lautenberg Amendment to the GCA, or may not have met one of the three criteria.

There is simply not enough info available to say this DUSM was a prohibited person.

Also, a prosecutor will get to see all the info about the previous issues, including the lawsuit, and the ROs. However, it is unlikely a jury would ever see that information as those incidents are not likely to be considered relevant to this case. There are lots of things the government would love for juries to hear about defendants that never make it to open court, and this case is unlikely to be much different.

rock jock
May 30, 2005, 09:32 PM
While I agree it is possible this was a justified shoot, it doesn't sound likely. We'll find out in a month or two.

jnojr
May 31, 2005, 01:15 PM
You can mess up bad enough to be suspended for an entire year and still be a Federal LEO?

Remember Mr. I'm-the-only-one-in-this-room-professional-enough-to-carry-the-Glock-Forty... BLAM!? I was discussing that with a friend who's a Federal LE agent. He said that guy would probably get some kind of a lump sum payment for his injury, and be suspended for a few days. It's extremely difficult to fire someone from a Federal government job, and there are all sorts of protections in place to keep people employed.

If Lloyd is acquitted, he probably has a very, very good chance of getting a full pension for all of his years of service. I have a feeling that this was the pile of bricks that broke the camels back, and he'll never be on active duty again... but you never know!

earl_simmons
May 31, 2005, 07:09 PM
If Lloyd is acquitted, he probably has a very, very good chance of getting a full pension for all of his years of service. I have a feeling that this was the pile of bricks that broke the camels back, and he'll never be on active duty again... but you never know!

The thug retired after the shooting.

goalie
May 31, 2005, 07:42 PM
I know this: where I live, if I pulled over to have a road-rage fist-fight with someone, ANY shoot immediately after the fist fight is going to land me in jail. Period.

The same should go for the marshall. Period.

I don't care about any specifics past "they were in a road-rage argument, followed each other to a parking lot, got out and started a fist fight with each other...."

You can afford to carry a gun or you can afford to have a temper, you CANNOT afford both.

Elmer
May 31, 2005, 07:48 PM
You can afford to carry a gun or you can afford to have a temper, you CANNOT afford both.

Best advice I've seen all day.......

308win
May 31, 2005, 07:53 PM
You can afford to carry a gun or you can afford to have a temper, you CANNOT afford both.

+1

pbhome71
May 31, 2005, 08:03 PM
The discussion made me curious and searched for more information. Someone wrote this article, probably last month. I think the article gives another angle of the story...

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/042905Conroy/042905conroy.html

and one from last year...

http://www.govexec.com/daileyfed/1104/110504lb.htm

and another one today...

http://www.gazette.net/200521/montgomerycty/updates/277447-1.html

In court, how do you defense from my words against his words, especially when one party is already gone.

I would like to see court document and may be police report on this....

Harry Tuttle
May 31, 2005, 09:46 PM
olde thread

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=108497

DSRUPTV
June 1, 2005, 12:58 AM
You can afford to carry a gun or you can afford to have a temper, you CANNOT afford both.

+2.

With the facts presented this certainly looks like a bad shooting, and the offender should be dealt with accordingly, just like anyone else.

c_yeager
June 1, 2005, 04:00 AM
You can mess up bad enough to be suspended for an entire year and still be a Federal LEO?

No kidding, I cannot imagine how an employer could justify suspending a person for a year, but couldnt quite justify a termination. Can we say 'old boy's club'?

RangerHAAF
June 1, 2005, 02:58 PM
Here's the latest news and testimony about this case that's going on now.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20050531-102844-5693r.htm

Risasi
June 1, 2005, 06:11 PM
That sure sheds some light on the subject.

So from the article it looks like:

1. A hostile road incursion occurs.
2. Two blocks away they pull over and get into a fight.
3. Lloyd shoots Stowers
3. Stowers get's into his vehicle
4. Lloyd tells him to get out, fires three more shots. One of the bullets we can conclude hits the Camaro.

Those are the facts of the case so far. (Proof read, make sure that looks right)

Old Dog
June 1, 2005, 10:58 PM
This is an interesting case, but to me, it seems like mutual stupidity.

Stowers had been drinking, the bartender at the restaurant/lounge he'd just left testified to that. His BAC was .21. Stowers was first shot in the foot, then got in his vehicle, called the cops, then Lloyd shot through his car window... I saw a transcript of the 911 tape -- Stowers saying, "Why did you just shoot me? Oh my God?"

Lloyd had a gun. Stowers did not. Another interesting fact, not widely reported, not that it should make a bit of difference: Stowers was a relatively tall (6'2") fit young white male, Lloyd a middle-aged black male.

Bad, bad, bad shooting.

c_yeager
June 2, 2005, 03:16 AM
I think this crosses the line from "bad shoot" to outright murder. There doesnt seem to be any room at all to establish a justification, even a crappy justification.

Risasi
June 2, 2005, 07:54 AM
I still agree Yeager,

But this is a VERY interesting case that some of the other members here should take note of.

Especially the "us vs. them, circle the wagons" crowd. :rolleyes:

Why do I say that? Because from the sounds of it the first shot the ex Marshall may have been justified in taking. It may have been an justifiable escalation of of violence. It was all the other shots at a fleeing target that are the problem.

Likely though Loyd was getting his butt whupped and changed to dirty tactics.
Now I really wish I knew the events leading up to situation. Who was the initial antagonist? What happened on the road the caused them to pull over?

Frankly Lloyd, who is not a cop could have tried citizen's arrest (perhaps that is what he was thinking). But let's be honest. That wouldn't be smart. He should have just called the cops about a reckless driver and driven away.

Hmm, maybe the days of dueling are coming back into vogue.

Sean Smith
June 2, 2005, 08:36 AM
Barring a really colossal distortion on the part of the media, this one is a straightforward murder, unless the guy who got shot in the back in his car was trying to back over the guy who shot him.

DMF
June 2, 2005, 10:06 AM
Frankly Lloyd, who is not a cop . . . Maybe you don't know what a Deputy US Marshal is, but he most certainly was a cop.

IF the media has the story right, it appears he was not justified in shooting, but that doesn't change the fact that he was a cop. It will be interesting to see what the outcome of the trial is.

Here is a point to ponder though:Because from the sounds of it the first shot the ex Marshall may have been justified in taking. It may have been an justifiable escalation of of violence. It was all the other shots at a fleeing target that are the problem. If you believe the first shot was justified, then Loyd may have been justified in the other shots, because Stowers was at that point a fleeing felon, and Loyd MAY have been justified in shooting him even while fleeing. That is IF you believe the use of deadly force was justified at all.

Then on the issue of whether Stowers was even fleeing, it appears from the Washington Times article that RangerHAAF linked to, that the ME testimony may call that into question too:Dr. King was the prosecution's last witness in its case against Arthur Lloyd, who is charged with fatally shooting the sailor after the two men fought outside Mid-Pike Plaza on the night of Oct. 28. . . .

. . . Defense attorney Barry Helfand focused his questions on a bullet's path through the sailor's upper body. The downward, left-to-right path described by the witness was contrary to prosecution testimony that indicated the last three bullets had been fired from behind the sailor's Camaro as he drove away.As I said IF the media has it right, I think Loyd is looking at jail time, but if you think the first shot may have been justified, then it's possible to claim the Stowers was a continuing threat as a fleeing felon. Also, it appears the defense is raising questions about whether Stowers was actually shot while fleeing.

This is why juries see evidence and hear testimony, because we are all here basing opinions on a fraction of what is known about this incident, and even then the information we have may not be accurate.

Risasi
June 2, 2005, 10:27 AM
Good Grief DMF,

No, re-read. Lloyd is NOT a cop. He WAS a cop. Therefore he IS NOT a cop.
He is one of the citizenry.

So anyway, the rest of your post is a moot point. Unless you care to argue for citizen's arrest.

Don't turn this into a "us vs. them" thing again. You just entrench everybody into their emotional prejudice by doing that.

Please stick to logical discussion on this one. As for the alleged justifiable first bullet, my point is it MAY have been justifiable if it was self defense. To me it doesn't matter cop or non-cop. Unfortunately we don't know, we don't know why they pulled over. We don't know what lead up to the fight. Not enough details.

nico
June 2, 2005, 01:14 PM
unless the guy who got shot in the back in his car was trying to back over the guy who shot him.
That's unlikely since the car moved forward until it ran into a storefront after the shooting. The marshall was also quoted by several witnesses on the scene as identifying himself as a marshall after shooting the sailor for the first time and saying "get out or I'll shoot you again."

Old Guy
June 2, 2005, 01:58 PM
In a case of a large discrepancy in age, or physical size, a shot to the leg might be justified, but you would first have to be convinced that you were in "Fear for your life" that would then negate shooting at all, in the case of a fist fight going to firearms.

One of the factors would be who started this physical confrontation, whose feet hit the deck first? The gun carriers Wife was trying to restrain him? One would believe she had assessed the situation, and was trying to stop it?

In the good old American way, a jury will hear from witnesses, and experts, and decide, and that will probably be that, if I was a betting man (which I am not) forwarding mail seems to be a good bet, for a substantial amount of time.

Elmer
June 2, 2005, 02:11 PM
As I said IF the media has it right, I think Loyd is looking at jail time,

Only in cases of complaints against law enforcement, is the media considered accurate and reliable on this forum.

nico
June 2, 2005, 02:31 PM
Only in cases of complaints against law enforcement, is the media considered accurate and reliable on this forum.
noone said that. But, when there are this many stories that pretty much all say the same thing you can generally get a reasonable idea of what happened. Noone's saying to drag the guy out of the jail and lynch him. It just appears that he'll be found guilty.

Hawkmoon
June 2, 2005, 04:08 PM
No, re-read. Lloyd is NOT a cop. He WAS a cop. Therefore he IS NOT a cop. He is one of the citizenry.

So anyway, the rest of your post is a moot point. Unless you care to argue for citizen's arrest.
??????

Citizen's arrest? Lloyd is not a cop today because he retired from the Marshals Service ... after the shooting. He was an LEO at the time of the incident.

buzz_knox
June 2, 2005, 04:36 PM
He was a federal LEO. Generally, they don't have authority to enforce state laws.

buzz_knox
June 2, 2005, 04:46 PM
Something interesting from one of the earlier stories.

The long-standing policy of Montgomery State's Attorney Douglas F. Gansler is to refer all cases involving the use of deadly force by police officers to a grand jury before filing any criminal charges. If the grand jury ruled that the shooting was unjustified, criminal charges could then be filed. If the grand jury ruled that the officer was justified, criminal charges generally would not be filed.

Some involved in the discussions are arguing that the evidence shows that Lloyd did not identify himself as a law enforcement officer until long after the altercation began. Therefore, their argument goes, Lloyd should be charged as any other citizen would.


So cops get a grand jury and "citizens" get an indictment. Nice.

Elmer
June 2, 2005, 06:25 PM
He was a federal LEO. Generally, they don't have authority to enforce state laws.

With the exception of the Marshal's service. They have the power of the Sheriff in any county they are in.

No comment on the shooting, just adding a detail.

DMF
June 2, 2005, 07:26 PM
Good Grief DMF,

No, re-read. Lloyd is NOT a cop. He WAS a cop. Therefore he IS NOT a cop.
He is one of the citizenry.

So anyway, the rest of your post is a moot point. Unless you care to argue for citizen's arrest. Good grief indeed Risasi! My point was at the time of the shooting he was a cop, and therefore the citizen's arrest statement is not relevant to the case. Don't turn this into a "us vs. them" thing again. You just entrench everybody into their emotional prejudice by doing that.I'm definitely not turning this into an "us v. them" issue. I know you don't like me, but take your blinders off. I was saying he's a cop, and I think if the media has the story right he was NOT justified in shooting. If I was trying to play "us v. them," I'd be taking a different attitude. However I'm not, instead I'm saying it's likely this cop was wrong, but we don't have all the facts and the jury will need to sort it out. Please stick to logical discussion on this one. Anyone who reads my post objectively will see I was being quite logical. As for the alleged justifiable first bullet, my point is it MAY have been justifiable if it was self defense. To me it doesn't matter cop or non-cop.The difference is cops are authorized to use deadly force to stop a violent fleeing felon, who is still an imminent threat to others. Reference Tennessee v. Garner (1986). If you make the argument that the first shot was justified, then it could also be argued Stowers was a violent fleeing felon, and that opens the door to arguing whether or not he was a continuing imminent threat to others. Not the case I'm making, but the logical defense for his actions, if the argument that the initial use of deadly force was justified through self defense.

You see I am sticking to logical discussions. Please don't let your dislike for me blind you to that. Unfortunately we don't know, we don't know why they pulled over. We don't know what lead up to the fight. Not enough details. Which is the same point I made in my post, "This is why juries see evidence and hear testimony, because we are all here basing opinions on a fraction of what is known about this incident, and even then the information we have may not be accurate."

peacefuljeffrey
June 2, 2005, 07:52 PM
From the article: Lloyd had been locked in a legal battle with his bosses at the Office of the U.S. Marshal in federal court in Washington for more than a decade, court records show.

He filed two equal employment opportunity complaints against his bosses in the early 1990s, and he filed a racial discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in 1997 when he was not promoted. He won a $36,000 award from a jury in 2001. Lloyd claimed that his bosses denied him job promotions and overtime as retaliation for earlier complaints.

Hmmm...
"Black Rage"? :rolleyes: :barf:

-Jeffrey

peacefuljeffrey
June 2, 2005, 07:59 PM
the report states that the sailor was killed with a bullet as he got into his car to drive away from the scene. it does not give the officers mindset, i.e. that he was possibly retreating to his vehicle to get a weapon? that would be the most common defense.

It would be a failed defense. What judge/jury would not expect the defensive shooter to have SEEN A WEAPON before shooting to end a "threat."

I'm sorry, you are cutting this guy too much slack. And your slack is specious. You offer as a "defense" the notion that the decedent may have been returning to his vehicle for a weapon, but no allegation was made that the marshal saw a weapon presented for use. Until there is a weapon seen, there IS NO weapon. Otherwise we could shoot people all over the place, for very little cause, and claim, "Well, I thought he was going for a weapon."

-Jeffrey

RangerHAAF
June 2, 2005, 09:23 PM
"With the exception of the Marshal's service. They have the power of the Sheriff in any county they are in."


Yes, that is probably true but isn't that standard limited to their acting while they are doing their official duties? Not in an off duty and personal capacity.

Risasi
June 2, 2005, 11:47 PM
Oh good grief Risasi indeed. Boy am I an Ass... :o :shoots foot, inserts back in mouth:

Thanks Hawkmoon. And I am truly sorry DMF. I thought he was retired at the time of the incident. You are correct in your previous post. Thanks for clarifying. I'm totally all wet on this one.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with your original post now. And yes, we have gained all the facts we can, we'll just have to wait until the jury decides who is right and who is wrong

P.S. I don't dislike you. I'm not sure where you get that from. Due to my own inexcusable misread of the facts I misunderstood what you were saying.

Elmer
June 3, 2005, 12:26 AM
Yes, that is probably true but isn't that standard limited to their acting while they are doing their official duties? Not in an off duty and personal capacity.

Not sure about the Marshal's. Many departments have 24 hour status. I would guess they would.

buzz_knox
June 3, 2005, 08:18 AM
His status is irrelevant, given that he told his wife "I'm going to show him" before putting the fatal round in the sailor's back.

Double Naught Spy
June 3, 2005, 08:53 AM
A lot of you are making quite a bit about the location where the sailor was shot, in the back. This has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the shooter. There are no laws that stipulate that you can't shoot a person in the back, as opposed to any other portion of the body. Bad guys often do get shot in the back, justifiably so, because they were a threat.

Either you have the right to use lethal force or you do not. If you do have the right, then the location of the bullet impacts don't matter. In this case, there does not appear to be justification for the use of lethal force. As such, no matter where the sailor was shot and died of his woulnds, the charge is murder.

buzz_knox
June 3, 2005, 09:03 AM
A lot of you are making quite a bit about the location where the sailor was shot, in the back. This has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the shooter. There are no laws that stipulate that you can't shoot a person in the back, as opposed to any other portion of the body. Bad guys often do get shot in the back, justifiably so, because they were a threat.

It's a piece of evidence that goes into the mix.

The Real Hawkeye
June 3, 2005, 09:42 AM
Lloyd should be sharing a cell with Lon Horiuchi, et al I'll be surpised if he isn't promoted.Absolutely! He got out of the car when challenged to a fist fight during a traffic dispute. He was a bad actor in this, i.e., doesn't have "clean hands," and therefore cannot claim to have been in the act of official police duty at the time, and cannot claim self-defense. At most, as to the first shot, he could claim the "imperfect right of self-defense," which merely reduces the conviction from first degree murder to man slaughter, but as to the second and subsequent shots, he doesn't even have that. You cannot transform yourself, legally speaking, in the context of a criminal act, from a bad actor into a "police officer acting in the line of duty" by merely flashing a badge.

P.S. Last I heard Lon Horiuchi got away scott free with murder.

Elmer
June 3, 2005, 11:33 AM
It's a piece of evidence that goes into the mix.

I don't like the sound of this story, and I'm not defending any actions here.

But the same media that misrepresents, or outright lies about, everything most of us here believe in, is being given Gospel status here.

Don't you find that a little hypocritical?

Remember, this is the same media that attacks citizens for justifiably using deadly force all the time.

buzz_knox
June 3, 2005, 11:36 AM
Remember, this is the same media that attacks citizens for justifiably using deadly force all the time.

That's why you cross check the various news reports on it, compare them with the pattern of behavior demonstrated by this person, and the statements attributed to eye-witnesses.

The totality of the circumstances leads one to believe these articles (separated in time yet with a consistent story and acknowledgement of where the story is fuzzy) are accurate.

Elmer
June 3, 2005, 11:44 AM
That's why you cross check the various news reports on it, compare them with the pattern of behavior demonstrated by this person, and the statements attributed to eye-witnesses.

The totality of the circumstances leads one to believe these articles (separated in time yet with a consistent story and acknowledgement of where the story is fuzzy) are accurate.

Applying that logic to some other stories in recent years, would yield answers that I don't think you and I would agree with.

But perhaps my personal experiences have jaded me to the media more than most.

riverdog
June 3, 2005, 06:56 PM
Washington Times Article, June 03, 2005 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20050602-111202-2339r.htm)

I'll make no judgement because I don't know all the facts, but this article makes it appear that the victim may have given the jury enough to acquit. IF the article is correct, there may be enough for reasonable doubt.

Ky Larry
June 3, 2005, 07:19 PM
IIRC, Randy Weaver's wife was killed while holding a baby by an FBI sniper. He was never charged with anything.Don't Federal LEO's have carte blanche to shoot anyone they want? :confused:

DMF
June 3, 2005, 07:41 PM
Ah the lies about Horiuchi get trotted out once again. :rolleyes:

There is considerable controversy about the rules of engagement at Ruby Ridge, however Horiuchi was shooting at armed men outside the cabin. When shooting at Kevin Harris as he ran toward the cabin door, Horiuchi missed and the bullet went through a solid door that Weaver's wife was standing behind. Horiuchi could not even see her at the time of the shot. So to try and claim that he intentionally targeted her is false.

BTW, the state of Idaho brought criminal charges against Horiuchi. The trial was stopped when a federal court ruled Horiuchi was acting within the scope of his employment, and therefore entitled to Qualified Immunity from criminal prosecution.

Regardless, there is absolutely nothing similar about the circumstances of these two cases.

peacefuljeffrey
June 3, 2005, 08:13 PM
There is considerable controversy about the rules of engagement at Ruby Ridge, however Horiuchi was shooting at armed men outside the cabin. When shooting at Kevin Harris as he ran toward the cabin door, Horiuchi missed and the bullet went through a solid door that Weaver's wife was standing behind. Horiuchi could not even see her at the time of the shot. So to try and claim that he intentionally targeted her is false.

"4. Always be sure of your target and what is behind it."





'Nuff said.


-Jeffrey

ebd10
June 3, 2005, 09:06 PM
Ah the lies about Horiuchi get trotted out once again.

What lie? Horiuchi fired the shot that killed Vicki Weaver. Just because he missed his intended target doesn't exclude him from guilt.

BTW, the state of Idaho brought criminal charges against Horiuchi. The trial was stopped when a federal court ruled Horiuchi was acting within the scope of his employment, and therefore entitled to Qualified Immunity from criminal prosecution.

Sovereign Immunity from the Reno Justice Department doesn't do anything for his case. The DoJ under Janet Reno was not exactly a bastion of integrity. Sort of like the rest of the Clinton Administration. Besides, by this time, the Fed covering Horiuchi's butt looked exactly like that: a coverup. They insured that even if the shoot was righteous, it would never be believed. He should have answered the State of Idaho and let the investigators do their worst to prove guilt.

autospike
June 3, 2005, 09:24 PM
"4. Always be sure of your target and what is behind it."

+1

hammer4nc
June 3, 2005, 09:33 PM
Dnf dliberately posted:

Horiuchi could not even see her at the time of the shot. So to try and claim that he intentionally targeted her is false.

Sorry, dnf, who's lying?

http://www.ruby-ridge.com/horiuchi.gif


And, of course, we remember that Lon Horiuchi, who had taken the stand, had testified that, indeed, he had intended to kill Kevin Harris, who was running for his life, his back to the sniper. Yet the prosecution claimed that the sniper, who admittedly could see and hit a fly at two hundred yards with his ten-power scope, could not see the head of Vicki Weaver through the glass window of the open door. Instead, the prosecution attempted to make the jury believe that the curtains were closed. But from my own discussion with Randy that fact seemed in question, especially after the government failed to produce a crucial Horiuchi drawing of what the sniper had seen when fired.

From the drawing made by Horiuchi during an interview with the FBI at a hotel, on hotel stationery, he draws in no closed curtains at all. In the lower right-hand corner of the window we see two partial heads

Horiuchi's drawing shows us that he must have known that human beings were behind the flimsy door. He had to know that someone, presumably Vicki or ten-year-old Rachel, was likely standing behind the door to hold it open. Moreover, the drawing proves he knew exactly where it did strike -- at the cross, as he shows it in the drawing. Vicki Weaver's head was behind the cross, that apocalyptic symbol, which served also as the point of aim for the killer.

ebd10
June 3, 2005, 09:56 PM
From the drawing made by Horiuchi during an interview with the FBI at a hotel, on hotel stationery, he draws in no closed curtains at all. In the lower right-hand corner of the window we see two partial heads

Ummmm, look, I don't think that there is anyone who views the FBI actions there and at Waco with more contempt than I do, but this is REALLY thin. You're drawing these conclusions based on a sketch made on a bar napkin? ANY drawing is subjective. Maybe that's how the curtain laid on the window, maybe he drew two wrinkles instead of three, maybe he was just too
s--tfaced to make an accurate drawing.

I mean, the whole operation, from the attempted entrapment of Weaver to the debacle involving the US Marshals to the terror tactics of Reno's Rangers stunk to high heaven, but this is venturing into tinfoil hat territory. :confused:

Carlos
June 3, 2005, 10:03 PM
There's always certain ones we can count on to present "the other side"...

Ainít that the truth, 2A

You can afford to carry a gun or you can afford to have a temper, you CANNOT afford both.

You are a very wise man.

No kidding, I cannot imagine how an employer could justify suspending a person for a year, but couldnt quite justify a termination. Can we say 'old boy's club'?

Yes. Heads should roll at the management level, too.

I think this crosses the line from "bad shoot" to outright murder. There doesnt seem to be any room at all to establish a justification, even a crappy justification.

Yes, the guy was in his car, calling 911, and the shooter just couldnít stand being ignored, or disrespected as a God. His temper, again, got the best of him, as his very clear history details. This guy should fry. When that car door shut, sure there might have been a concern (absolutely!!!) that our victim could have pulled a gun. He, instead, attempted to drive away (retreat). Three more shots were fired, in anger, again because he was disobeyed. I have a feeling the moron Marshall started the road rage incident in the first place. Somebody just pissed off ďMarshall GodmanĒ. I feel sorry for his family.

If you believe the first shot was justified, then Loyd may have been justified in the other shots, because Stowers was at that point a fleeing felon, and Loyd MAY have been justified in shooting him even while fleeing. That is IF you believe the use of deadly force was justified at all.

Felon? I must have missed that. Are you saying that the shootee was a felon for defending himself, most likely against somebody who started the whole thing? I donít think the Sailor believed his attacker was a cop.

So cops get a grand jury and "citizens" get an indictment. Nice.

No, generally, they both get grand juries and the end result is either an indictment or not.

His status is irrelevant, given that he told his wife "I'm going to show him" before putting the fatal round in the sailor's back.

Surely a phrase heíll regret for the rest of his angry life, while he ponders it in prison as a defrocked God.

I'll make no judgement because I don't know all the facts, but this article makes it appear that the victim may have given the jury enough to acquit. IF the article is correct, there may be enough for reasonable doubt.

Wow, that article dated June 3, 2005 sure changed my perception of our sailor. Remember, though, the angry violent history of Mr. Lloyd, LEO.RET. They were made for each other. J You know, Iíve always had this negative perception about people who drive Camaros. Same thing goes for LEOs who think they are Gods (my biggest pet peeve). .

Mr. Lloyd should go to prison for this murder. The thing that sticks in my mind most is the 911 call by the victim saying he couldnít believe the dude shot him. I hope that sticks in the mind of the jury.



Well, thatís all I got to say about that.

Carlos
June 3, 2005, 10:11 PM
Oh, a note:

I have LEO in the family. I know and truly like and respect many LEOs.

I've seen too many cops in Portland in the downtown area setting truly abusing people way beyond what is necessary. I won't even go into the shootings here by LEO. There's where the peeve comes from, not from a sorted background of negative relations with LEO.

DMF
June 3, 2005, 11:43 PM
Sorry, dnf, who's lying?You are, or Weaver, or both.

You said:Instead, the prosecution attempted to make the jury believe that the curtains were closed. But from my own discussion with Randy that fact seemed in question . . .See the text in blue below.

h4nc, here we see your penchant for distorting the facts yet again. Let's look at the 9th Circuit Court ruling on this issue:
[QUOTE]Horiuchi, armed with a powerful rifle with a telescopic
scope, took a position two to three hundred yards from the
Weaver cabin. He had a direct view of the cabin's side. He
could see the front porch, but he could not see the front door
when it was closed. If the front door opened he could see it,
but he could not see inside the cabin. . . .

. . . Horiuchi assumed that this man was moving back to the
cabin to get to a more protected position. He knew that if the
man reached the house he could shoot Horiuchi, other agents
or the helicopter, but the agents could not shoot back because
of the children in the house.

The man approached the door of the cabin very quickly,
then slowed down, paused and went through the door. Hori-
uchi had aimed his rifle ahead of the man at the door to
account for the distance that he would move while the bullet
traveled the intervening 200 yards. Unbeknownst to Horiuchi,
Vicki Weaver was on the other side of the door, holding it
open, out of Horiuchi's view. She was shot and killed. The
bullet then struck Harris in the shoulder.

The door to the cabin opened out. The bullet went through
a pane of glass in the cabin door. There were curtains that
could be pulled across the window. It was disputed whether
the curtains were drawn when Horiuchi took his shot, but the
bullet hole in the curtains lined up with the hole in the glass
only if the curtain was pulled across the glass.

The witnesses' testimony about where Vicki was standing
at the time Horiuchi fired was inconsistent. . . .

. . . The record supported the findings that Horiuchi's sub-
jective belief that his intentional shooting of Harris was nec-
essary and proper was honestly held, and that [5] his belief
was objectively reasonable. The period of time between Hori-
uchi's first shot at Randall Weaver and the second shot at
Harris lasted only a few seconds. During these few seconds,
he saw two men come out of the cabin who he assumed cor-
rectly were Randall Weaver and Kevin Harris. Horiuchi had
been briefed that either Harris or Weaver had killed a federal
agent just the day before. He knew that at least one of them
was armed. He had been briefed that the residents of the cabin
always were armed. While carrying the rifle in a position that
looked like he was getting ready to fire it, the armed man
scanned the sky looking toward the helicopter. Horiuchi had
fired once, so the men were aware that he was nearby. Hori-
uchi saw all three individuals running back to the cabin.

[6] Horiuchi knew it would be difficult, if not impossible,
to apprehend the man once he re-entered the cabin, due to the
presence of the children. Had he hesitated for even a few sec-
onds or called out a warning, Harris could have fled into the
cabin, taking up a defensive, armed position. . .

. . . Horiuchi reasonably believed that shooting Harris was
necessary and proper under the circumstances. Given the cir-
cumstances at the time, Horiuchi made an objectively reason-
able decision.

[9] Horiuchi's testimony that he never saw Vicki Weaver
and did not know she was behind the door was not disputed. . .


You can read the whole thing here: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/0/0a3eecf263a1d0c788256927007a742b?OpenDocument

The court issued it's decision in June 1999.

DMF
June 3, 2005, 11:56 PM
Felon? I must have missed that. Are you saying that the shootee was a felon for defending himself, most likely against somebody who started the whole thing? I donít think the Sailor believed his attacker was a cop. You aren't following along too well. Please reread what I posted. I responded to someone who said the first shot MAY have been justified as self-defense. Maybe I assumed too much by thinking everyone here understood what is required to justify self-defense, specifically a reasonable belief that a threat of death or serious bodily injury exists. Cop or not if the threat exists you are justified in using deadly force to stop that threat.

Ergo, if someone is attacking a person in such a manner as to create a threat of then they are committing a felony. Therefore as they flee they are in fact a fleeing felon. If while fleeing they still present an imminent threat to others then a LEO is justified in using deadly force to stop the flight. Reference the Supreme Court decision in Tennesse v. Garner.

However, please read what I said. It is not my opinion that this is the circumstance here, but rather I was following a logical defense that could be raised if there is a successful claim that the initial shot was justified as self-defense.

As I stated earlier, IF the majority of the media accounts are correct, then it does not look like Loyd will be successful in raising reasonable doubt on the charges he faces. However, we don't know if those accounts are accurate, we can be sure they aren't complete, and only a jury will get to decide based on all the evidence and testimony at trial.

2nd Amendment
June 4, 2005, 01:32 AM
There is no defense of Horiuchi or any actions of the government at Ruby Ridge(and very few defenses for the actions at Waco). You do absolutely nothing for your credibility, even with fellow Wagon Circlers, in defending/justifying the outright murder of Vicki Weaver. You need to learn, DMF, that not every LEO actions needs, nor deserves, a defense.

peacefuljeffrey
June 4, 2005, 01:44 AM
Oh h4nc, we see your penchant for distorting the facts yet again. Let's look at the 9th Circuit Court ruling on this issue:

Oh, by any chance, that wouldn't be the same 9th Circuit that is the most overturned court in the nation, would it? :rolleyes:

'Cause it's funny, when they find against the second amendment, I'll bet you call them all sorts of names and impugn their integrity and such and cite how their decisions don't tend to hold up on appeal.


-Jeffrey

DMF
June 4, 2005, 01:53 AM
You're right 2A, there is physical proof that the curtain was pulled across the window, showing what h4nc, and others, claim about Horiuchi, is false, yet I'm the one who lacks credibility. :rolleyes:

No defense for Horiuchi? Well I suggest you read the link I posted. It seems the District and Circuit court listened to the arguments, and found Horiuchi did have a defense.

BTW, you will note I have not defended Loyd on this thread. In fact, I have said it appears he was NOT justified in shooting, IF the media reports are correct. However, as I've also said in discussions of civilian shootings, the media reports are rarely accurate, never complete, and a jury will have to decide after reviewing all the facts of the case.

However, I did present a logical legal defense strategy, based on the hypothesis of another person who stated the first shot may have been justified as self-defense by Loyd. Please note, I was careful to point out I was just giving a logical strategy based on the law, and the other poster's hypothesis about the initial shot, NOT that I believed the scenario was true.

2nd Amendment
June 4, 2005, 02:02 AM
I was not discussing Loyd, I was commenting on your defense of Horiouchi. There is no credible defense because the situation in which his actions occurred should never have existed. The existence of the scenerio is indefensible, thus any resulting events are likewise.

DMF
June 4, 2005, 02:15 AM
'Cause it's funny, when they find against the second amendment, I'll bet you call them all sorts of names and impugn their integrity and such and cite how their decisions don't tend to hold up on appeal.Well you would be WRONG. Check the link below, which is a search for my username and the word circuit.

http://thehighroad.org/search.php?searchid=465754

I gave a "rolleyes" concerning an editorial written by a lawyer who practices in the 9th Circuit, and that is the closest thing you can get to a negative post on THR about the 9th Circuit, and I wasn't even commenting on the court itself, but rather that lawyer.

I've commented very little on anything regarding 9th Circuit rulings on the 2nd Amendment. In fact the only one I'm aware of is the Stewart Case coming before the Supreme Court soon. My only comments regarding it are here: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=1056253&highlight=circuit#post1056253

Actually in that case the 9th made a ruling on the 2A which is very pro-2A, and limits the authority of the federal government. I'm curious to see what the Supreme Court will do with this case.

So really I haven't offered an opinion of the 9th Circuit on much of any case, let alone the 2A cases. So you were basically just guessing, about what I have to say regarding that Circuit Court, and you guessed wrong.

DMF
June 4, 2005, 02:25 AM
The existence of the scenerio is indefensible, thus any resulting events are likewise. Yeah, but that situation existed because Weaver refused to show up for court.

Now, before someone says, "but they gave him the wrong court date." That's a bogus argument. Weaver's court date was, February 20, 1991, and it's true the original letter he received said the court date was March 20, 1991. However, not only was Weaver not in court in February, he didn't show up in March either. Weaver simply refused to show in court and participate in his Constitutionally guaranteed due process.

Now you might have a good argument if the Deputy Marshals had gone out to Weaver's house in February or March of 91. However, it was August 1992 when DUSM Degan and the others went out to Weaver's property to do surveillance in preparation for the arrest of Weaver, that the initial shooting occurred, in which Degan and Sam Weaver were shot and killed.

That's right, it all occurred 16 months after the court date on Randy Weaver's initial letter from the court. Weaver never made an effort to go to court, or participate in his Constitutional right to due process. Weaver never intended to go to court, and therefore Weaver set those events in motion.

A synopsis of the whole thing can be found here: http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/1.html?sect=18 (BTW, this article is also critical of the government's actions)

2nd Amendment
June 4, 2005, 02:53 AM
And yet Weaver wound up beating the government for millions. The fact is he was set up, then manipulated, then assaulted. The government committed murder and then couldn't get any meaningful convictions THEN lost the civil suit and paid out the nose.

Sorry, the actions were indefensible, as were all subsequent actions. Arguments to the contrary are empty efforts to justify corruption, negligence and gross stupidity and they don't aid your credibility, as I said. It's unfortunate that you are sufficiently blind to these absolute facts that you continue to foster the same tired claims.

DMF
June 4, 2005, 03:00 AM
It's unfortunate that you are sufficiently blind to these absolute facts that you continue to foster the same tired claims. Actually 2A, on this sidebar debate I'm the only one providing facts, as anyone who has read my posts can plainly see. You on the other hand are only full of opinions.

Sindawe
June 4, 2005, 03:15 AM
Now, before someone says, "but they gave him the wrong court date." That's a bogus argument. Weaver's court date was, February 20, 1991, and it's true the original letter he received said the court date was March 20, 1991. However, not only was Weaver not in court in February,... Why would he appear in court in February? He'd been informed that his court date was in March.On January 22, 1991 Randy received a letter stating that his court date was scheduled for March 20, 1991, however the letter contained one crucial error - the actual date was February 20, 1991. ... he didn't show up in March either. Weaver simply refused to show in court and participate in his Constitutionally guaranteed due process. Would you? After being told that... “Well, you need to understand that…if you're found guilty of this charge, you will probably be required to reimburse the government for the cost,” Ayers said. He then read a pretrial report, which concluded that Randy's only real asset was his land, which had been assessed at $20,500. Following the arraignment Randy was set free on bail. The way Ayers had mistakenly explained the procedure, Randy walked away convinced that no matter what he did, the government was going to take his land from him. The land that your family lived on and supported themselves with. IMHO, if you were to trust the government at that point, after the prior events of that same governent to induce you to break the law, then pressure you into becoming another one of their convenient patsies and informants into a group who's values you disagreeed with, and who's past actions shown them to a violent and dangrous group,...well, I have a fine quality bridge you may be interested in buying.

Never mind the pressuring of Mr. Weaver to cut down a shot gun to a length below the "legal" limit, by a informant for the BATF. Its just fine and dandy for the .gov to induce others to violate the law, then arrest and charge them with a crime.

Never mind that the "U.S. Marshals" shot Sammy Weaver in the back while he was returning to his home and withdrawing from the conflict.

Never mind the falsification of evidence by agents of the .gov after the fact, in an attempt to besmirch the name and reputation of Mr. Weaver and his family.

Lon Horiouchi was only following orders when he fired the shot that killed Vicky Weaver. That make it all kosher...I guess.

Frankly, its just a damn shame that Lon Horiuchi, and his bosses, are still drawing breath. If they be Christian as the majority of this nation is/professes to be, they have a bunk waiting in the "hot place" for 'em

Back on topic: Based solely on the information I've read about the confrontation between Marshal Lloyd and the now dead Sailor, Lloyd frelled up and shot the Sailor in the back while he was attempting to flee an unidentified nut-case who'd shot him. Us non-LEOs get pillared for such in most states.

Houndawg
June 4, 2005, 05:25 AM
It varies on a state level. In PA, force is authorized to stop escaping convicts trying to get out of prison. Up to and including lethal force, depending. Though, usually they just use rubber rounds out of a shotgun. Said projectiles are "less lethal", and do cause serious injury or possible death on occassion.

Rubber rounds? Not here. It's 00 buck in Illinois. If it was an escape in progress, it would most likely be a 55gr .223, and it doesn't matter which way they are facing.

If it's a fight a warming round usually takes care of it. If danger to life is imminent, then lethal force is justified. Again, it doesn't matter which way they are facing.

hammer4nc
June 4, 2005, 08:27 AM
Dnf, please continue to offer detailed and logical arguments defending your goverrment heroes at Ruby ridge. Each of your postings are winning over hearts and minds, without a doubt.

Especially persuasive is your favorite quote "no one hates a bad cop more than a good cop"! Only this time, dnf, don't omit the key part of your mantra that defines the only bad cop as someone who has been convicted of a "Bivens Action"! Using this logic, of course, the agents in Idaho were all without guilt. (Notwithstanding minor reprimands given for show at the time, weren't they all subsequently promoted in their agencies? Further "proof" that their actions were justified.)

Some posters here may not be familiar with your "Bivens Action" standup routine. This would be a perfect segue to reintroduce them to it. You have the floor. Don't let us down.

The Real Hawkeye
June 4, 2005, 11:40 AM
I must say one thing in DFM's favor. He is predictable. :)

DMF
June 4, 2005, 06:12 PM
h4nc, seeing as how you still don't understand what a Bivens Action really is, despite my previous explanations of it, why should I explain it again? You really should try to educate yourself on these issues. :rolleyes:

However, for those that may not have seen the previous exchanges, no one "gets convicted" through a "Bivens Action." "Bivens Actions" are civil torts, not criminal cases. Bad cops, like everyone else who is a bad actor, are subject to both civil and criminal penalties if they hurt others without justification. So yes, just like people who aren't cops, I presume innocence on criminal matters if they have not been proven guily beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court, and I presume the person is not liable for civil damages if they have not been found liable by a preponderance of the evidence (much lower burden of proof) in a civil suit. You see that is how the law works.

However, beyond the possible criminal prosecution, or civil torts, we have another mechanism for punishing bad cops who don't meet either burden in a criminal or civil trial - Fire them. Violations of agency policy that do not result in a criminal conviction, or civil judgement, can result in administrative penalties up to and including being fired.

As for anyone that thinks Randy Weaver was justified in not participating in the due process guaranteed by the Constitution, you are advocating anarchy.

Let's all keep in mind, Weaver wasn't planning on mounting an entrapment defense, he was refusing to present ANY defense, despite the fact the government had properly indicted Weaver, having established probable cause. People indicted for crimes can't simply refuse to show up for court because they are afraid of the penalties.

It's also important to remember that the entrapment defense requires the defendant to admit to committing the crime, and then PROVE that the only reason he committed the crime was that the government gave him unreasonable incentive to commit the crime. The key is unreasonable. The government is allowed to provide a reasonable incentive, and create an opportunity for someone to commit a crime. However, they cannot provide an incentives that would convince an otherwise law abiding citizen to break the law.

AskJeeves turns up a decent brief explanation: "In jurisprudence, entrapment is a procedural defense by which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit said acts. For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime. However, when a person is predisposed to commit a crime, offering opportunities to commit the crime is not entrapment."

It's a gamble for a defendant, because it requires they confess, and then shifts the burden of proof to the defense to show that the government acted improperly.

A practical example is a drug deal in which a person offers to buy drugs at a price much higher than what would normally be expected. For example a UC offers to buy 100 pills of X at $20 per pill, and the local price is $15-$25. If the suspect refuses the deal, but the UC counters with $50 per pill, and the suspect accepts, that case MAY be a good candidate for an entrapment defense, because it was such an unreasonable price that an otherwise innocent person may take that one deal to make quick cash. However, to attempt that defense the person will need to confess, and then prove that the government was unreasonable in their incentive. Big gamble for a defendant.

However, real cases are not that clear cut because LE agents are not looking to create criminals, they are looking to catch real criminals. In addition most half way intelligent criminals ( and most are only half way) won't accept outrageous deals because they will get suspicious.

In the end Ruby Ridge was a tragedy for all involved, but make no mistake about it, the tragedy could have been avoided entirely if Weaver had shown up the federal courthouse on March 20, 1991. His failure to participate in his due process rights set in motion the events that led to the tragedy.

LawDog
June 4, 2005, 06:17 PM
Enough.

Lights out.

LawDog

If you enjoyed reading about "US marshall kills sailor in road rage incident" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!