update on kid shot at ihop

Status
Not open for further replies.
free meals there

might constitute cruel and unusual
living knowing he killed an eagle scout will be tough enough. i hope i remember this one never let any of my kids dead beat friends move in and set up a tragedy like this one. my read was that one of the 2 brothers was the fagin in this scene the others were either too trusting or in case of the driver too stupid
 
sworn police officers are legally on duty 24/7. The fact that he was working extra duty does not alter the fact that he is a sworn police officer.
Click to expand...

The scope of an off-duty LEO's powers are a matter of state and local law. If he's moonlighting with approval and in his police uniform then I agree he'd be in his legal rights to kill. But was he in his department uniform under department orders?

In the larger scheme of things, the policy allowing such moonlighting is grotesque and makes it even more apparent that most police departments have degenerated into little more than dressed up gangsters, hiring their muscle out to those who can pay. This whole thing sticks in the craw, and for good reason. We need to get a much tighter grip on the cops.
 
Technically legal, but only because of a deeply warped policy. Cops engaged in moonlighting for hire while in uniform are nothing but gang muscle. It's a bad business. Rotten to the core. I don't "sign off" on any of it. It's the sort of thing that makes be view the police as untrustworthy thugs. The guy was using the awesome and sweeping powers granted to LEO's in this country to PROTECT PANCAKES in order to LINE HIS OWN POCKETS. That's disgusting, and I hope there's a special place in hell waiting for him.
 
I think some people are in the dark about Aaron Brown. He was a passenger in the vehicle and was not driving. He was struck by bullets intended for the driver. I think many are assuming the driver had intent to kill to police officer with the car or was trying to run him down. So far the driver has not been charged with attempted murder of a police officer. Also one account has the Officer Stowe firing from the side of the vehicle then the front, and there were bullet holes in the side of the jeep. Again this incident was over $26 worth of food.

As has been said before, would anyone be cutting slack for the shooter if it had been a non-LEO private security guard or the IHOP manager?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/03/AR2006030301917_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010200975.html
 
and as was answered before

the cop got more investigation than a regular guy woulda. he hada be cleared twice then be busted for a rule they made after the shooting


and as to being in the dark do the research final ballistics plus testimony is what cleared the cop
 
There was no danger until the officer put himself into danger. From a CCW point of view as a citizen, the response from the legal eagles would be that you went looking for a fight... a big no no. Granted, cops are supposed to be on duty 24/7, but come on, it was a pancake platter, not an armored truck!!

Getting shot for pancakes????? I'm just guessing here, but do we all think the cop had a bit of a bravado issue or is it just me? We'd all be doing hard time, he loses 3 to 30 days of pay. Us common folk, we'd probably gauge that sentence in years, not days. And the .gov types wonder why we get so fed up with this cr@p.

Poor kid. Dumb move sure, but he was 18. I can barely recall doing anything smart at that age except for making the decision to go to college and wear condoms. :D

jeepmor
 
here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301550.html


from the girl in jeep
"Paulitzky, who was seated in the backseat, said she saw Stowe standing before them and shouted, "Oh my God, you are going to kill this cop, stop!"

Later, she told investigators, "I was thinking it, I don't know if I said it out loud"


from driver
"When asked why he thought Stowe fired the shots, Smith told police, "If he heard the engine or saw how fast I was coming . . . he might have thought his life was threatened"


priceless
 
Well Smith later recanted those statements according to the report.

I really don't get how Stowe decided his life was in danger, drew from his level 2 holster fired 2 shots at the front of the vehicle and as the vehicle passed close enough for him to reach out and touch it (his words) fired 3-4 more rounds very perpendicular to the direction of travel. This includes the shot that killed Aaron Brown sitting in the rear passenger seat, 2 more that impacted behind the passenger in the rear panel of the jeep, and one complete miss out of the 6 fired that is unaccounted for if I read correctly. You might say Stowe was investigated more than the average guy or one could also say this report was massaged to help exonerate him.
 
smith

"Well Smith later recanted those statements according to the report." yea they all changed stories after lawyers. you ever see smith? i almost felt sorry for him. he was a lil less than bright

i found it once before there is a link out there somewhere to the real ballistics report. heck stowe had a guy he had cuffed verify his story. and the virginia state police don't go for massaging reports. even the crooks don't claim that
 
longwatch:

I think some people are in the dark about Aaron Brown. He was a passenger in the vehicle and was not driving. He was struck by bullets intended for the driver. I think many are assuming the driver had intent to kill to police officer with the car or was trying to run him down. So far the driver has not been charged with attempted murder of a police officer.
Click to expand...

My understanding, from reading messages in the forum, is that if you haven't done anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about. So I have to ask if you're sure that the information you've given is correct.

If the driver hasn't been charged with attempted murder and if the dead boy was not the driver, maybe there is something to worry about even if you haven't done anything wrong.

On the other hand, as you mentioned, the kids in the car did try to get away without paying a $26 bill. I suppose the police officer might have jotted down the license number of their car instead of trying to kill someone in it, but that would have been much less efficient. And $26 here, $26 there ... it could begin to add up to real money after a while.

What that IHOP needs to do now is post photos of the dead kid and clippings of the story as a warning to other kids who try to get away without paying their bill. It should prove a deterrent ("We'll have you killed if you do it." might be a good caption) and it does pay to advertise.

Then again, why make the cop who killed him lose a few days' pay for killing that kid. It's only one kid, after all. And how was the cop supposed to know that he shouldn't shoot into a car filled with kids who were trying to beat a $26 restaurant bill unless he was instructed not to do it. The department didn't have a policy against it. Maybe that department ought to anticipate other potential problems and establish policies against them. You know, something like "Don't shoot into a baby carriage if the baby drops its bottle and breaks the no-littering law." It's not fair to penalize a cop for doing something like that if the department doesn't have a policy. I wouldn't even have thought about such a thing until I read the extensive argument pointing it out in this message thread.
 
Whether or not the kids in the car are choirboys is totally irrelevant. This is about the judgement and actions of the cop. If a moving car is such a threat that use of deadly force is justified, then why get in front of a car? Let's remember the alleged crime here was hardly one that justified extreme measures. If he had time to draw and take an aimed shot, he had time to get out of the way. Instead, a kid who had nothing to do with threatening the officer died.

It's a good idea for all departments to review their policies about officers placing themselves in front of cars and the conditions under which firing at cars is justified.

K
 
Many LE Offices have authority to shoot a moving vehicle if there's no path of escape for the person with the gun, Or if hes about to commit bodily injury to some one else standing in the path. Would I've shot a kid over stealing pancakes probably not. But these things happen in split seconds so i wont judge the officers decision.
 
If what was said about is true, there is a problem with him shooting into the side of the vehicle and not at the driver, though the kid was not exactly an innocent bystander. I haven't read all the links though.


I don't have a lot of sympathy for the kids. It sucks that he is dead, but sometimes petty crime has bad consequences.

However, I don't like the tactic of jumping in front of the vehicle either. It seems to me that he was creating the deadly force situation himself by doing so. IMHO, he should have waved them to stop from the side and then gotten their license plate number as they passed.
 
He didn't shoot "over stealing pancakes." He shot when the vehicle accelerated in his direction.

And the retracted statements bring to mind the old saw about closing the barn door after the horse escapes. IOW, it's too late.

John
 
Some facts that aren't mentioned in some of the other posts:


  • The driver of the car, Stephen Smith, was intoxicated and in possession of Marijuana
    http://www.theppsc.org/News/Fatal.Shooting.Fuels.Debate.On.Police.Policy.htm

    The Driver of the car, Stephen Smith, was legally drunk and had Marijuana in the car. When you try to run a Police Officer down, the vehicle has just become a deadly weapon and deadly force is authorized.

    Officer Stowe followed department procedure and defended himself accordingly. It's tragic that Aaron Brown was killed, but Officer Stowe should not be criminally charged, or disciplined in any way.

    The REAL criminal here is Stephen Smith, who should be charged with attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and manslaughter for Aaron Brown's death. He was the driver of the vehicle, he was the intoxicated one, he needs to face justice.
 
So some dunk, stoned, dine-n-dashers threaten a police officer's life and one of them bites it? The others should be in jail, and the cop deserves a medal for standing his ground in the face of deadly danger.

oh, and Cosmoline:
Technically legal, but only because of a deeply warped policy. Cops engaged in moonlighting for hire while in uniform are nothing but gang muscle. It's a bad business. Rotten to the core. I don't "sign off" on any of it. It's the sort of thing that makes be view the police as untrustworthy thugs. The guy was using the awesome and sweeping powers granted to LEO's in this country to PROTECT PANCAKES in order to LINE HIS OWN POCKETS. That's disgusting, and I hope there's a special place in hell waiting for him.
Click to expand...

That's moronic. If anything it proves that police officers deserve pay raises, because so many of them have to get second jobs in order to put food on the table. Many of those jobs happen to be in the private security industry. You think he works two jobs just because he likes to abuse his authority? Don't you think he would like to go home and rest after a long hard day of protecting an ungrateful public like yourself, whether they appreciate it or not?

Some punks threatened to kill him, and he defended himself accordingly. The idea that you side with the stupid kids that were breaking the law is "disgusting"... and as far as cursing someone to Hell for self-defense, that should have you banned from THR.

That won't happen, b/c you've been here too long and have tenure, I assume.

You are a real SOB, Cosmoline. You deserve anything bad that happens to come your way in life.
 
Technically legal, but only because of a deeply warped policy. Cops engaged in moonlighting for hire while in uniform are nothing but gang muscle. It's a bad business. Rotten to the core. I don't "sign off" on any of it. It's the sort of thing that makes be view the police as untrustworthy thugs. The guy was using the awesome and sweeping powers granted to LEO's in this country to PROTECT PANCAKES in order to LINE HIS OWN POCKETS. That's disgusting, and I hope there's a special place in hell waiting for him.
Click to expand...
I must disagree with ya Cosmoline. Cops moonlighting in uniform might be a case of an officer "lining his own pockets", but they do serve a usefull function for the buisness owner. From childhood we've been conditioned to respect the police and offer deference when we see them in uniform. Just their presence can serve to keep things from getting REALLY crazy, at a night club for instance. This keeps the business owner's property from getting trashed by rowdy folks, and heads off the need to call the cops when events turn into a charlie foxtrot since the cops presence in uniform can help keep that charlie foxtrot from even happening. Sure, the business could hire private security, but they often seen as little more than "Mall Ninjas" without the force of law that the cops have.

hankdatank1362: You might want to chill on the attacks, least you find youself the one bounced from THR. I've no power to do so, but other do.
 
I disagree with Cosmo myself

But them fighting words are better off in PM's.

Cars kill far more people then guns do, they are deadly weapons.


The REAL criminal here is Stephen Smith, who should be charged with attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and manslaughter for Aaron Brown's death. He was the driver of the vehicle, he was the intoxicated one, he needs to face justice.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what Tiny says,yup!
 
You might want to chill on the attacks, least you find youself the one bounced from THR. I've no power to do so, but other do.
Click to expand...

That was me being "chill."

I could have told him to "go to Hell." Apparently, that sort of thing is okay around here.

The cop-bashing must stop. They're real people, with real concerns, trying to do their job and feed their families.

Normally, when I read Cosmo's post, they're right on, but he was waaayyyyy off base with this thread.
 
I have yet to see an I Hop with only one lane for cars to get in and out. If there's space to move out of harms way. Then it should of been done. Of course it all depends how far was the vehicle from the officer. As an LEO myself, Im smart always trying not to position myself in harms way always looking for that path of escape. Im not defending the kids behavior of the fact that he was strung on drugs. He sure didnt sound like a model citizen either but if there's a non violent path usually thats the one i take.
 
Cosmoline said:
The scope of an off-duty LEO's powers are a matter of state and local law. If he's moonlighting with approval and in his police uniform then I agree he'd be in his legal rights to kill. But was he in his department uniform under department orders?
Click to expand...

I'd tend to argue that somebody's status as a police officer, whether on duty or not should have no effect on justifiable homicide. If a citizen wouldn't be clear, the police officer isn't.

The only exceptions I'd be willing to make is to acknowledge that it's a police officer's duty to apprehend criminals, and thus have no duty to retreat or even stop pursuit. As in the criminal can't yell 'self defense' when he shoots at cops trying to arrest him. I'd also restrict this ability to Uniformed police officers in most cases. This is also a part of deparmental safety, as uniformed cops have shown a tendency to shoot undercover cops with weapons out.

Thus, in this incident, finding of facts is critical. While 'moonlighting' as a security guard(in police uniform, no less), did he retain his authorization/power of arrest and pursuit to arrest? If so, then going outside to get the kids was part of his job. They threatened him with death/SBH by auto. At that point, shooting would be justified.

Now, as a arm-chair coach with hindsight vision, it might of been better to simply dodge out of the way and get the plate number to pick them up later. But the officer likely only had a second or so to make that decision.
 
I'd be OK with him shooting to stop a threat (vehicle ramming him) from killing him, but shooting the driver wouldn't have even saved his bacon.

There's no guaranteeing the vehicle would have slowed down once the driver was shot...in fact, i'd say it's as likely if not MORE likely that the pedal would have hit the metal and the car would have been totally out of control @ full throttle with an injured, dying, drunk, stoned person behind the wheel. Yippee for saving the 26$ tab :rolleyes:

If a normal civvy did this, they'd be in the slammer. An off duty cop should be held to the same accountability as a civilian.

You don't see the loss prevention department of Wal-Mart chasing people down in the parking lot and throwing themselves in front of cars to keep a shoplifter from stealing a 22$ thong do you? Why should 26$ of pancakes justify it?

He put himself in a position to be injured, then used this as a justification to shoot into an occupied vehicle, killing an occupant who was not even driving/had control of the vehicle...from the side, after he had already dodged the threat. Which he originally caused to himself in the first place. I mean c'mon now.
 
"An off duty cop should be held to the same accountability as a civilian."

I disagree. If it's like the jurisdictions around Richmond, the employer has to apply to the police force to get uniformed help and hired help is in fact a sworn officer of the law. A uniformed police officer has the right to stop and detain; a civilian doesn't. Different standards apply all the way around and in many cases the ones for the officers are tougher.

(Civil police are in fact civilians subject to civil law and not at all subject to military law.)

John
____________

For instance:

Off-Duty Employment of Police Officers

The process for hiring a Henrico Police Officer is easy. Just download the below forms, complete them and fax or mail the completed forms to the Secondary Employment Coordinator at 804 501-7225. Once your request has been processed you will receive notification of the officer or officers scheduled to work your event. If you have hired us within the last year you may only need only to complete the application form.

Henrico County requires that employers, who hire officers off duty, provide the Agency with a certificate of liability insurance from that particular employer. A certificate of insurance can be obtained by contacting your insurance provider. A sample insurance certificate, which contains the specific verbiage required by the County, is available by clicking here (PDF File). If you have any questions you may contact the Secondary Employment Coordinator at 804 501-7226.

Police Secondary Employment
Henrico County Police
P. O. Box 27032
Richmond, Va. 23294
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Judge to Student: No NRA T-Shirt While Lawsuit Pending
Replies
10
Views
1K
MuzzleBlast
M
V
  • Locked
Cop gets fired after 3 strikes within 4 years
2 3
Replies
60
Views
4K
rock jock
R
D
  • Locked
High Court Considering Police Searches (He said NO, She said YES. They searched.)
Replies
15
Views
922
kirkcdl
K
M
  • Locked
Justices uphold concealed gun ban
Replies
1
Views
303
Standing Wolf
S
M
  • Locked
U.S. Is Settling Detainee's Suit in 9/11 Sweep
Replies
0
Views
237
Merkin.Muffley
M
Back
Top