Posted on 06/09/2005 11:36:41 AM PDT by JZelle
As jurors went through a second day of deliberations yesterday with no verdict in the murder trial of a former U.S. marshal, the victim's mother took issue with the way her son was portrayed in court. Ryan T. Stowers, a Navy seaman from Redding, Calif., was killed Oct. 28 after a minor traffic collision with off-duty Deputy Marshal Arthur Lloyd escalated into a fistfight and then gunfire in a shopping center parking lot on Rockville Pike. Prosecutors said Mr. Lloyd shot Seaman Stowers in the back as Seaman Stowers tried to drive away. Mr. Lloyd contended that Seaman Stowers was the aggressor and that he acted in self defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
This should be interesting as I have been following this story since it began. Thanks for posting.
From everything I've read about this case, my gut tells me that the marshall just lost control. Take away the badge and the gun, and I think there'd have been a very different outcome.
I fully agree. I think the marshall exercised very bad judgement. The fact that he continued firing after the "threat" cinched it for me and made it a payback incident.
Wasn't this the seaman that drank 4-5 Long Island Ice Teas? Very potent drink.
Anyone who would raise his hand to a woman would definitely shoot someone in the back.
Correct
re your "wifebeater" charge the article says:
Testimony about Mr. Lloyd's past, including accusations of assault from his wife, was kept out of court.
I wonder if this is any more than frequent divorce-proceedings type accusations.
Yup. I can't stand people like this, but it's still not OK to kill them.
You do the Washington Times a disservice when you add your editorial comment to their title.
Hmmm . . . it says "wife" not "ex-wife" so I presume his current wife was the complainant.
I assumed the usual scenario - he hits her, police show up, he lets them know he's a fellow LEO. They ask her if she wants to press charges, the usual psychological phenomenon kicks in and she decides not to press charges, and the fellow LEOs walk away and are not very aggressive with followup.
So being accused means that you're guilty?
I'm sorry
No more so than having charges dropped for lack of evidence means you're innocent.
When a woman calls the police to her house because she's being beaten, she's generally telling the truth.
And there is no mention of his wife being accused of filing a false police report.
There was a discussion of this case on FR some time back. I can't recall the details but am pretty sure this Marshall had a long history of misconduct and losing his temper. In fact probably should have been fired a long time ago.
Legally, a murder victim's prior history can be relevant. If a guy charged with murder is claiming that the victim attacked him, we need to know whether the victim was a pacifist Buddhist monk or a 250 bodybuilder suffering from steroid rage.
On the other hand, a criminal defendant's prior acts are generally not admissible unless they are somehow relevant to the crime in question. This guy's wife-abuse isn't relevant in this case.
But, since nobody knows all of the facts, you really can't say. For all we know she could've gotten in a few jabs that started it all and he just ended it with a right hook. Then she gets all pissy and calls the cops. Who knows?
I'm going to assume that post 19 was facetious.
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.