I can't remember what they said about this case, but I think that she
wasn't armed and really wasn't a threat to the cop. Police officers
are trained! They shouldn't be able to shoot anyone just because they are
there! If he was charged, it means that he probably didn't have a good
enough reason to shoot her. If it were someone else who shot her, would they be
able to say it was self defense. I bet that they wouldn't! She is dead! So,
they portray her as a bad person and make up some lame excuse as to why he felt
a need to kill her! The sad thing is, that people will judge her life and
because of that, he will probably go free. He is a killer. Don't tell me
that isn't worse than anything she might have done!
Since all cops are not legal to exist under the constitution, the cop committed
the same crime as if you or I did it.Title 18, part 1, section 241,
United States Code, and Article 6 et al.
Did they shoot her in the head? Many are saying that, but I can't confirm
it in anything I've been able to find online. Wondering if that's an
assumption, or a fact.I would not be totally surprised if it is a
fact. When you are trying to stop a driver you don't shoot the car.
Shooting the car does not stop the car (that only works in movies). So what
part of the body is exposed through the windows of the car?'They could try to stop her by shooting less vital areas through the doors,
trunk, or the engine compartment, but that would take super-human marksmanship.
I don't think it could be done reliably in the split second needed to stop
the car.But I think it's important to know the facts before
just making assumptions.====BTW.. Our DA is SIM Gill
(not SAM Gill). Most of the people defending SAM Gill, don't even know
enough about the case to know his name.
A Federal Judge may know more about the legalities than us. We are allowed to
protect ourselves when we feel our life is in danger. Police officers
included. If they thought the way she was operating her vehicle was putting
them in danger... that's their decision (not ours).If you think
she was a completely innocent victim... you would have to explain why BOTH
officers made the same decision (that they needed to use their weapon). Both
officers fired. So obviously BOTH made the same spit-second decision that they
were in danger and needed to stop the driver of the car.I don't
think she was completely innocent. She did not comply with the officer's
orders and ran from them (that's breaking a law). She was admittedly a
drug user (that's breaking the law). She was in the process of committing
a crime (that's why she decided to run and take her chances instead of
talking to the officers). The way she took off made them think she could run
them over (her vehicle became a deadly weapon).Unless you've
been in their situation... who knows what you would do.
Cassell has stated that "this [case]would cause a huge problem for law
enforcement." Utah LE has for some time averaged nearly one killing per
month. Frankly, this case causes a huge problem for the public if it is not
tried. Cowley is attempting to claim rights and considerations that an arrested
person is routinely denied at the hands of LE and the justice system.
First of all, those in the "know" also know that Sim Gill is a DA and
not an AG. It's a head start on the facts we probably aren't giving up
soon.Second, for those who cry out "Politics!", please
explain to me how going after a cop is good politics?Third,
defending a cop simply because he is a cop is stupid because there are stupid
cops. Most aren't, some are. This particular cop is verified stupid because
he carried evidence from crimes in his trunk after investigations were over.
Why? I can only guess. Perhaps he thought it was his? He got fired for it.
He's not a "good" cop even if the shooting is justified. Last, everyone should stop pretending they "know" any of the facts. We
don't. We know what the prosecutors believe they can prove happened. We can
also be sure the defense attorneys will decry the "injustice" and
"complete lack of evidence" and "motives" of prosecutors until
the final breath of closing argument. It's their job. As a citizen, you can
have your opinion, but don't pretend it is an informed opinion yet.
Studied Thomas Mann at the U, and he is supposed to have said, "Everything
is politics." He also said, "Everyone should be a moderate
Socialist." Don't agree with him on either, but much of what we do is
related to or involved in politics, or at least has a political position...and
this case has that smell.Some people on this post have watched too
many Al Pacino movies. Yes, there was a time when cops held the upper hand,
such as in the days of Chief Parker in the L. A. Police Department, but since I
studied law and the Miranda and Escobedo cases, and all of the accused legal
rights cases of the turbulent 60s, that is no longer the case. I
just don't want the accused to get the upper hand...and that is what
Cassell is trying to prevent here.Like many before him, Gill is
certainly political and i believe smells blood in the political waters...the
good policeman needs Cassell's expertise in this one.
I am becoming more and more convinced that Sim Gil is letting politics guide his
decisions at the AG's office. Is he planning to run for some other office,
because this smells weird. The dramatic arrest of Swallow and Shurtleff
(innocent or guilty) of a white collar crime, and a manslaughter prosecution
against a police detective (innocent or guilty) seems to be in response to media
and public perception more than anything. Now this has my confidence dropping
in his ability to impartially discharge the duties of his office. Seems like he
has been showboating a lot recently.
Re: "The issue is NOT the prosecutor. It is the incident, the facts that led
to it, and if the shooter was justified."Exactly.And, when Gill trotted out his charts and graphs, his tragi-comic attempt at
justification clearly amounted to overwhelming proof that police officers in
this fast-moving situation were clearly justified in their reasonable assessment
that a drug user was coming at them with deadly force, in a desperate attempt to
injure and evade them, so she could flee and likely do further harm to innocent
civilians.In other words -- that they were doing their job. What
they would have had absolutely no motive, to do, unless the facts were as they
said.Yes, there needs to be trust between police and prosecutors. I
know, from being a prosecutor, that they need to be able to rely on a cop's
word. And, from being a cop, that they need to be confident they'll receive
honest assessments of their efforts, the benefit of any honest doubts, and the
DA's best efforts to prosecute crime.Sadly, all are lacking in
Pretty clear Sim Gill is not advocating for the police and protection vote...I
see the end of a political career with this one going to trial.
This has always looked like Sam Gill trying to grab more headlines. Its pretty
simple, when the police try to arrest you, don't try and run them down with
your car, or even try to get away in your car.
Ah, yes those who agree that probable cause exists that the officer was not
justified in EVERY shooting must be Pro-Crime. And, charging a cop is a
politically desirable thing to do in politically pink SLCounty. You
failed to mention that Rawlings also agrees, and he is DA for uber-red Davis
County.The issue is NOT the prosecutor. It is the incident, the
facts that led to it, and if the shooter was justified. I
wasn't there so I don't know. Were you there? Do you know how firm the
foundation is for the evidence? Yeah, me either because that is determined at
trial.Are people really worried about the relationship between
police departments and prosecutors over this? Every cop knows he's gonna
get scrutinized when he shoots someone in the head. Every prosecutor knows their
duty to impartially review it. Any "closer" relationship is collusive
and abusive. It is offensive that some, like procuradorfiscal, wish to encourage
Now a ex-Federal judge has thrown his nose in the ring are we all now to bow
down to his highnessand find him "Shaun Cowley" not guilty? A lot
of main stream society just because of their federal judge position claim they
are never wrong. Wake up and watch out America.........
Thank you Judge Cassell. This case needs someone who is neutral in regards to
the West Valley Police. Sim Gill's desire for higher office overrides his
I believe he should be charged! Let the legal system, to the fullest extent
make a ruling.Personally I think there are some "odd"
circumstances surrounding this 'case'.
In my opinion it seems to me that Sam Gill has caused "a lot of damage"
to several prominent names in the news lately. What office is he seeking in the
future is the question that could be asked.
I have a hard time seeing how you justify shooting a young lady in the head when
you are standing on the side of her car. Especially since she didn't have
the drugs on her that the cops claimed they saw her put in her mouth.
Re: Sim Gill quote, "Nothing personal. Both of us just doing our
job,"I wish we could believe that.With an election
looming, political and legal lightweights like Gill often try to spin a
disingenuous public image by the cases they choose to bring to court.Given some of the comments on this page from the callow, pro-crime element,
that may have been a politically astute decision. But, Gill's short-term
political gain can never justify the long-term damage to Mr. Cowley's life,
or even worse, to the trust that used to exist between Salt Lake County police
agencies and Gill's prosecutors.Sad.
Just like George Zimmerman shouldn't have been charged. Its just the
liberal judges trying to take away our gun rights.
And why shouldn't he have been charged? Because he was a cop? Being a cop
doesn't mean having diplomatic immunity.
The question here is what 2016 office is Paul trying to set himself up for?
Perhaps that is why he is an "ex federal judge" ?
Cassell is a good man I rarely agree with.In this matter, I will not
form an opinion without seeing the evidence. The prosecutors, likely more than
one, will be ready and competent to prosecute. I have no problem with the
defendant having more than one competent attorney defending him. The parties
cannot change the evidence, but simply communicate it from their point of view.
Sim's burden is high, the defendant should make him prove it.
1st comment assumes Utahns don't like Federal judges; likely due to recent
rulings in support of the 14th amendment but unpopular among some who think
religious belief should be the law. 2nd comment assumes the jury will consist of
"good and true" members and the actual "facts" will come out. It
would be nice if justice really were blind instead of for sale and if juries
were actually made up of impartial souls who could make just determinations but
that's just now how it works in our world. This story has always had a
fishy smell and unfortunately testimony which could fill in the gaps will never
There will be a trial and 12 men and women, good and true, will determine if the
charges were justified.I strongly support cops and the right of
everyone to self defense. But, I don't like dirty cops and excessive
police force.Lawyers for both sides will make their best arguments
for and against the officer involved, then we will see what the facts are.
What makes Cassell think that ex-federal judges or federal judges in general
have any kind of credibility with the citizens of Utah.