Posted on 06/03/2005 11:21:51 AM PDT by JZelle
Two police officers testified yesterday that 20-year-old Navy Seaman Ryan T. Stowers was belligerent toward authorities several times before he was killed by a deputy U.S. Marshal in Rockville last fall. A detective from California told a Montgomery County jury that Seaman Stowers, of Redding, Calif., challenged him to a fight and shouted obscenities at him in June 2003. An officer from Chestertown, Md., said he had a run-in with the sailor about a month before the sailor was killed.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
They sure are covering for the marshal. First the sailor was drunk, now he's a violent animal. Next they'll say he was Islamic and ate babies. Fun to watch the system cover for one of it's own.
Pretty hard to defend yourself to these accusations when you're dead.
I think the difference is that the patrol officers had experience with people in this type of situation. The marshall was inexperienced as a "street" cop. The marshall made a bad judgement call and fired after the "threat" was gone. It was a revenge shooting to me.
Except he kept firing! Remember Stowers was already shot once and had called 911. I simply think that the marshall was not trained for average police street work.
What if's do not apply. Any common citizen whould be serving time.
And I don't think that being twice the legal driving limit is "quite drunk." It's only a few beers to get to that.
Andrew
No, I'm not suggesting the other officers fabricated their stories, though that sort of thing is not unheard of.
What I was commenting on was how the law enforcement community has closed ranks around him, and how every article I've seen since the story broke casts the sailor in an increasingly negative light. They're using the media to defend their man and sway public opinion against the sailor.
Perhaps they realize that drunk driving in a parking lot is not a crime punishable by shooting.
Agreed. Regardless all the other offices testified is he had a bad temper. Big woo.
I would agree that the marshall probably lacked the training in how to respond to such an encounter.
As I had mentioned in my previous post, it is common for officers to respond in such a manner.
A common citizen, one who is using common sense, wouldn't confront such an individual. They'd report this person to law enforcement. Nor would they be carrying a firearm in their vehicle. As you have stated, "What if's do not apply."
Let me ask this. What justified the marshall even firing the first shot to the leg with no weapon of any kind on Stowers part? That is the crux of the matter in my book.
Stowers called 911 on his cell phone from inside the vehicle after being shot.
Nor would they be carrying a firearm in their vehicle
No idea what you are relating to. The marshall?
That is a very good question. When I first read that, my impression was that the marshal was unable to defend himself going toe to toe with Stowers. If we had more detailed information about the two mens build, that may have shed a little light on this subject.
It would appear that in the heat of the battle, the marshal may have felt that the only course of action was to subdue the attacker by shooting him. The article doesn't give us any indication that the marshal had a history of violent or irrational behavior in performing his duties.
I'm just drawing conclusions, as you are, from what I've read, and I don't wish to read into what transpired.
Or perhaps, in a haste to make the law enforcement community look bad, the mainstream media got the story wrong and as the trial goes on, we are starting to see the truth emerge that this twenty year old a-hole thought he could get away with harassing, threatening and intimidating just one more harmless, unarmed citizen before he sped off into the night to sleep off his buzz.
I'm not justifying anything. But young bucks get into a habit of using their youth and brashness as a weapon to intimidate innocent bystanders and passerbys. Especially say, passerbys such as a father who just happens to be escorting his kids across a parking lot row as the drunks emerge from a local bar and hop into their pimped-out firebirds?
WRT "carrying a firearm", I was responding to your comment:
"Any common citizen would be serving time."
Stowers called 911 after engaging the marshal. A common citizen, upon witnessing his wreckless driving, or being confronted by him, would have called 911.
Yesterdays thread sheds a little light.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1415239/posts
The part where he testified that he jumped out of the way then fired is pretty clear.
"....bad temper. Big woo."
Well, if the "Big woo" involves driving wrecklessly, public intoxication, and violent behavior, it is a "Big woo" indeed.
The other 2 incidents he was not shot in the back for:
Public intoxication
Driving recklessly
Violent behavior? He was using his mouth not physical contact as stated by the other officers. Resisting arrest can be non-violent also and the charges were dropped.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.