What happens when you see an unmarked car on your property and some guy snooping around

reply to post by Jenna


Jenna, you and I usually agree, but I have to disagree on this one with ya...

I dont remember seeing where he called the cops that often for the problem....

However, if i had called the cops that many times for someone being parked on my property and AGAIN i look out and its the same story , my mind tells me

"fine, if the cops arent going to do anything about this after all this time, I guess ill have to"

Someone said before, that some people are just depend on themselves more to take care of things...and if the cops arent fixing it.........its left up to the property owner...

We dont know the whole story, but IMO the cop should have exercised better judgment.

Where I come from, cops would expect nothing less if they were on someones property lol then for the owner to come investigating with firearm in hand...

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Why wait at all?

The first time I see a strange car on my property, I will be walking out to check it out. Maybe someone is lost needing directions? Maybe it is distant relative that just found my house? Maybe it is someone passing in and out of consciousness and needing help? Maybe it is a cop doing something illegal and I will get my "get out of jail free" video?

Regardless, I have every right to confront someone trespassing suspiciously on my property in the middle of the night. I will only call the cops after I determine whether or not there is a threat. I am not a child, and the cops are not my mommy. I don't need their assistance, nor do I need their protection 99.9% of the time. If I find the car full of uzi-carrying drug dealers intent on capturing my house and manufacturing crack? Then I promise to hide and call the cops!!

reply to post by getreadyalready


you totally missed the point of my post.........

No one said anything about nanny or anything else......

Youre dealing with what you feel should have been done and how you would have handled it.....im dealing with the only information im given here.....

I wouldnt personally have called the cops at all either......but this man DID apparently and numerous times.....

I feel he was justified no matter what, but ESPECIALLY if APPARENTLY the cops hadnt taken care of it so many times before.....

edited because i copyed the wrong dang thing


[edit on 27-8-2010 by KilrathiLG]

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


in reply, use for target practice...first the wheels, then the lights
that's out on my land ofcourse...in the city, calmly walk over to the car and patiently wait for the driver to appear out of nowhere

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


You are right, and my post wasn't intentionally directed at your response.

I don't expect everybody to go out and confront a stranger. The police serve a purpose for those that wish to partake of their services. On the other hand, too many people on this thread seem to think it is a requirement to call the police before you walk out into your own driveway?

reply to post by getreadyalready


TOTALLY agree with you man, if it was me I would have done the same thing....

LoL i guess that means i should expect to get shot, instead of expecting cops to be prepared to be questioned when they are on someone elses property..

Im not a cop basher, I have lots of friends in law enforcement.....

The problem is now days, it seems that theres a large number of people that put on that badge, and they think it makes them exempt from any other law on the books, or hell, LAW OF THE LAND.

IMHO if you wear that badge, because of your training, you are held to a HIGHER standard then the average person.......

So when crap like this happens, you better be prepared to to take your licks.....

IMO its murder, we have a right to protect our property, even THAT is a LAW.

Good posts tho getreadyalready!

Originally posted by Nutter
Are you saying it is the preachers fault for going out to invesigate a cop doing the exact same thing that he has "called the cops on 100 times this year"?

Nope, though I expected someone would jump to that conclusion. What I'm saying is they both made mistakes or the pastor wouldn't be dead now. The pastor's mistake was taking it upon himself to go approach an unknown vehicle in the middle of the night with a gun in his hand when there has been an increase in criminal activity in the area. That's just a dumb decision, plain and simple.

I mean, the cop was doing something illegal to trap the criminals in the first place.

Then you know more than the rest of us do. I haven't seen anything that said he was setting a trap for criminals. Care to share where you got this information from? Or are you drawing conclusions based on him being in an unmarked vehicle?

Originally posted by harvib
Can you provide the quote you are referring to? Are you under the impression that there was consent by the property owner to enter the property?

From the article in the OP:

W. Scott Creach, 74, approached the police officer who had gone to his business before midnight after police had received a request for increased patrols there earlier in the day, police said.

The uniformed officer was parked in an unmarked car in the empty parking lot of Creach’s businesses, the Plant Farm at 14208 E. Fourth Ave. and Creach Greenhouse adjacent to the Plant Farm.

However, he recently provided information to the Spokane Valley City Council showing that burglaries in July had nearly doubled compared to the same month in 2009. And, reports of car prowling have jumped from 63 last July to 156 this year.

I misspoke when I said that he had called 100 times this year. There have been 156 reports made about car prowling, but not necessarily by him. The police did receive a request to increase patrols around his business, and I'm assuming he was the one who requested it but I'm not 100% certain of that.

I apologize for using such an offensive analogy.

Then perhaps you should've come up with a different one if the one you had made you feel the need to apologize for it.

However in this event there is no mention of the "police officer" being charged and most likely wont be.

We don't even know exactly what happened let alone whether or not there's anything to charge the cop with. All we know is there was an increase in criminal activity in the area, the pastor approached the cop car with a gun, there was an altercation, and now the pastor's dead. That's not enough to know whether the cop should be charged or if the pastor was actually threatening him. We simply don't know.

A man was killed on his own property and people are actually serving as apologist for the killer despite limited information.

I'm not apologizing for the cop. I've clearly said at least twice now that they both screwed up, and they did. That's a far sight different than being an apologist, which by the way is no worse than someone coming in here saying the cop should be charged with murder when they have no more information than anyone else.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


The guy had every right to go check it out, I'm not disputing that. But given that there was an increase in criminal activity in the area and he (or someone else, I'm not certain that it was him based on the article) requested increased police patrols around his store, common sense would tell you not to approach the car with a gun.

I misspoke when I said that he had called 100 times. Got my facts confused a bit. Quoted the parts that I had confused in my last post.

reply to post by Jenna

Nope, though I expected someone would jump to that conclusion. What I'm saying is they both made mistakes or the pastor wouldn't be dead now. The pastor's mistake was taking it upon himself to go approach an unknown vehicle in the middle of the night with a gun in his hand when there has been an increase in criminal activity in the area. That's just a dumb decision, plain and simple.

I agree with you here. A 78 year old man, a preacher, in a high crime area in the middle of the night should probably not approach an unknown vehicle. Obviously he was not prepared to meet another armed criminal.

However, he should have been relieved to find a cop there, and not end up DEAD?!?!?

Shouldn't finding a cop in your parking lot in the middle of the night be a good thing?

reply to post by getreadyalready


Yeah, it should be a good thing. That's what tells me there's a lot more to this story than what's in the article. A 78 year old man is generally speaking not going to look like a threat, but he also may be less able to understand what someone's saying to him because of hearing loss.There are so many questions that need to be answered to give an accurate picture of what happened here:

How dark was the parking lot? Could the cop not see the pastor to determine he was an elderly property owner and not a burglar? Could the pastor not see into the car well enough to see it was a cop and not a burglar?

How good was the pastor's hearing? Was he supposed to wear hearing aids but didn't have them in when this happened? Could he not hear and/or understand what the cop was saying because of it?

Did the pastor approach the vehicle with the gun showing? Was he pointing it at the car as he walked up? Did the cop think he only had a second to make a decision on whether to shoot?

Did the cop call out and let the pastor know he was a cop? Did he spot the gun and automatically go into "I'm about to get shot" mode? Did the pastor believe he wasn't really a cop and refuse to put down the gun?

So many questions, not enough answers..

[edit on 27-8-2010 by Jenna]

Originally posted by Jenna
Then you know more than the rest of us do. I haven't seen anything that said he was setting a trap for criminals. Care to share where you got this information from? Or are you drawing conclusions based on him being in an unmarked vehicle?

Being in an unmarked car on a man's property without the man's consent is last time I heard trespassing. And also, the last time I heard, trespassing was illegal.

reply to post by Jenna

We don't even know exactly what happened let alone whether or not there's anything to charge the cop with.

It seems to remain undisputed that the individual sitting in the car on private property was the killer. The police know who that individual was, or so it seems. For those that "are equal under the law" a charge of murder or at the very least manslaughter would be issued. At that time the claim of self defense could be used as an affirmative defense. But to not charge an individual who killed a man on his own property is heinous to say the least.

All we know is there was an increase in criminal activity in the area, the pastor approached the cop car with a gun, there was an altercation, and now the pastor's dead.

No, we don't know that the pastor approached the car nor do we know that there was an altercation. You are making an assumption.

That's not enough to know whether the cop should be charged or if the pastor was actually threatening him. We simply don't know.

Is it enough to charge a homeless man who was sleeping on the victims property and ended up killing the property owner? If so then it is enough to charge anyone else. In our society we have long since recognized the dangers of giving certain individuals preferential treatment, until recently. It is up to a jury to decide what charges warrant a conviction and which do not. It is not acceptable, however, for the employer of the killer to be allowed to play the role of the jury. This man has killed an elderly church pastor for god sakes.

That's a far sight different than being an apologist, which by the way is no worse than someone coming in here saying the cop should be charged with murder when they have no more information than anyone else.

Stating that a killer should be charged with a crime is "no worse" then serving as an apologist for a killer? I couldn't disagree more and I think your assertion contradicts our entire legal system. Any other man that kills another man on the victims own property is certainly going to face charges. That is the norm.

I would, however, agree with you if I was stating that the killer should face no jury trial and just be sentenced. However that is not my position.

EDIT TO ADD:

So many questions, not enough answers..

Those are legitimate questions that are the responsibility of a jury to sort out. Not the individuals employer. It just isn't...







[edit on 27-8-2010 by harvib]

Originally posted by Jenna
So many questions, not enough answers..

This. I agree with. Star.

reply to post by Nutter


It's a place of business, not his house. Trespassing laws aren't quite the same for a business as they are for a house, nor are businesses usually considered private property since people have a reasonable expectation of being able to enter without an invitation during business hours.

He (or someone in the area, the article isn't clear on it) had requested increased patrols in the area due to increased criminal activity.


reply to post by harvib


You're arguing semantics. The article says plain as day that there was a confrontation. I just used a different word. It also says he went to "check on" the vehicle and it's occupants. You think he did that from the opposite side of the parking lot?

And yes, saying he's guilty and calling him a murderer without having all the facts is just as bad as saying he did absolutely nothing wrong. Both are judgements made with few facts, next to no details, and no clue about what happened between the time the pastor started walking towards the car with a gun in his hand and the time he was shot.

reply to post by Jenna

You're arguing semantics. The article says plain as day that there was a confrontation.

A confrontation ensued, according to police.

The only "police" that appear to have been present at the time of the killing was the "police" that did the killing. I wasn't arguing semantics. My point was that the only witness is the killer. Killers aren't exactly credible as serving as their own witness. You are making the assumption he is. And maybe he is but that is up to a jury to decide. Not his employer.

And yes, saying he's guilty and calling him a murderer without having all the facts is just as bad as saying he did absolutely nothing wrong.

Agreed.






[edit on 27-8-2010 by harvib]

I would screem like a little girl or like flanders

Originally posted by Jenna
It's a place of business, not his house.

It is also his house as he lives on the property. And it is a greenhouse. Not a business that is open at midnight.

Plain and simple. You don't use someone's private property to perform a stakeout while not informing the property owner.

You guys keep saying that the preacher should have called the cops. Well, I say the cops should have called the preacher.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by Nutter]

reply to post by whatukno


Sure, but then again why did this police officer kill the man? If he was actually a police officer and "calling the cops" helps in these situations, wouldn't the fact that the trespasser was a cop help the pastor?

In this case he lost his life because a cop killed him on his own property.

I don't hate cops but I disagree with your premise. In this situation it was an officer of the law who's sworn to uphold the law and protect and serve shot dead the owner of the property he was trespassing on.