US marshall kills sailor in road rage incident

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 6, 2004
Click to expand...

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).
 
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..
 
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.
 
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.
 
Lloyd should be sharing a cell with Lon Horiuchi, et al I'll be surpised if he isn't promoted. :banghead:
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
"Imagine the quality of life of a US Marshall in prison !!!!!!!"

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
"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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

"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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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-
 
2nd Amendment said;

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

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
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Police end road rage incident but not before unarmed driver is beaten to death.
Replies
15
Views
1K
standingbear
S
M
  • Locked
Road rage murder by permit holder
Replies
24
Views
2K
middy
M
Y
  • Locked
How to tell if you are in a tyrannical police state
2 3
Replies
60
Views
3K
DRZinn
D
G
  • Locked
More supreme stupidity
Replies
16
Views
821
Il Duce
I
J
  • Locked
Man denied firearms after being convicted in Japan.
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Byron Quick
B
Back
Top