Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: I bet this LEO had a Known History

  1. #1
    Regular Member Virginiaplanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    402

    Post imported post

    Man acquitted of wounding policeman

    "Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 - 12:08 AM

    By JAMIE C. RUFF
    TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
    FARMVILLE -- A Farmville man was found not guilty yesterday of shooting a town policeman in the leg during a 2005 traffic stop, the prosecutor said.

    The jury deliberated about an hour before deciding that Russell Smith was not guilty of attempted capital murder, malicious wounding and two counts of use of a firearm in the Oct. 21, 2005, shooting of Farmville police officer Johnny Garrett, Prince Edward County Commonwealth's Attorney James R. Ennis said.

    The trial lasted two days.

    Garrett testified Thursday that he had learned Smith's license had been revoked and the officer was preparing to administer a breath test to determine Smith's alcohol level when he saw Smith raise a .38-caliber handgun just inches from the officer's chest.

    Garrett said he was shot in the thigh when the gun fired as he slapped it down. Garrett said he heard several other shots as he fled for cover, and returned fire. Garrett was treated at Southside Community Hospital and released. He is the first town officer shot since 1974.

    Defense attorney John Mann insisted the gun went off accidentally and Smith fled as Garrett fired on him.

    "He wasn't intending to hit anybody," Mann said of his client. "He left [because] the officer was trying to kill him."

    But Ennis noted during questioning of Garrett that Smith did not throw the gun out of window, put up his hands or say it was an accident.

    In late January, a mistrial was declared in the middle of closing arguments when Smith's defense attorney, James Sheffield, said he lost his train of thought and could not continue. "

    We don't know the whole story, but I bet the LEO was well known by the people and not in a good way.

    http://www.timesdispatch.com/cva/ric...0-20-0109.html

  2. #2
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Somebody in this case should go to jail for sure. Smith, Garrett, the CA, the judge or the whole dman jury.

    Actually, I'd vote for Ruff going to the clink for writing a story without ANY of the essential details involved that would let a reader figure out what the h*ll really happened.

    Well, at least we know onething for sure (probably):

    That RussellSmith isa goof with a gun.



    No matter what thefull details are, there is enough here to make that call.




  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    OK.... I am confused.

    Driver is stopped and when officer is about to administer a breath test..... the driver pulls out a gun and it is pointed in the direction of the officer's chest. The gun is slapped downward and the driver pulls the trigger shooting the cop in the leg.

    Ican agree the shot in the leg was unintentional.

    But I have a problem.

    Q: Why did the driver draw a gun?

    Q: Why did the driver not warn the cop he was pulling out a gun?

    Q: Why was his finger on the trigger?

    Q: Why was it pointed at the cop?

  4. #4
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Q: Why did the driver draw a gun?

    Q: Why did the driver not warn the cop he was pulling out a gun?

    Q: Why was his finger on the trigger?

    Q: Why was it pointed at the cop?
    Goof with a gun is the answer to all four questions....



    What I can't figure out is how thejury did what it did...theremust be a LOT more important stuffin the story...

    But we know that smith was a, well, a goofwith a gun.




  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    OK.... I am confused.

    Driver is stopped and when officer is about to administer a breath test..... the driver pulls out a gun and it is pointed in the direction of the officer's chest. The gun is slapped downward and the driver pulls the trigger shooting the cop in the leg.

    Ican agree the shot in the leg was unintentional.

    But I have a problem.

    Q: Why did the driver draw a gun?

    Q: Why did the driver not warn the cop he was pulling out a gun?

    Q: Why was his finger on the trigger?

    Q: Why was it pointed at the cop?
    Could it be that juries are starting to give citizens the same benefit of the doubt they give cops when cops blow unarmed people away by "accident?" Or could it be that the public doesn't trust what cops say anymoresince they "support their officer" no matter what happens?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    Q: Why did the driver draw a gun?

    Q: Why did the driver not warn the cop he was pulling out a gun?

    Q: Why was his finger on the trigger?

    Q: Why was it pointed at the cop?
    Goof with a gun is the answer to all four questions....



    What I can't figure out is how thejury did what it did...theremust be a LOT more important stuffin the story...

    But we know that smith was a, well, a goofwith a gun.
    I am going to link this jury to the same that failed to convict OJ Simpson.

    The common people can be dumb at times and fail to see things clearly.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    OK.... I am confused.

    Driver is stopped and when officer is about to administer a breath test..... the driver pulls out a gun and it is pointed in the direction of the officer's chest. The gun is slapped downward and the driver pulls the trigger shooting the cop in the leg.

    Ican agree the shot in the leg was unintentional.

    But I have a problem.

    Q: Why did the driver draw a gun?

    Q: Why did the driver not warn the cop he was pulling out a gun?

    Q: Why was his finger on the trigger?

    Q: Why was it pointed at the cop?
    Could it be that juries are starting to give citizens the same benefit of the doubt they give cops when cops blow unarmed people away by "accident?" Or could it be that the public doesn't trust what cops say anymoresince they "support their officer" no matter what happens?
    Everyone knows you should NOT draw a gun and point it at a cop!!

    IMO....The shot in the leg was absolutely unintentional. The driver had actually wanted to shoot the cop in the chest.

    As far as I can tell.... this guy had no valid reason to draw and point his gun at the cop.

    Do you think the driver was going to arrest the cop? This can be the only valid reason I can think of.


  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    The common people can be dumb at times and fail to see things clearly.
    The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA/GOP *******

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    The common people can be dumb at times and fail to see things clearly.
    The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA/GOP *******
    Love the little catch phrases... How about posting something else more intelligent...

  10. #10
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Do you think the driver was going to arrest the cop? This can be the only valid reason I can think of.
    Citizen's arrest....Citizen's arrest!!



  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    You didn't read the Wikipedia URLs, now did you? Try this

    http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/rhetoric.php

    Educating the invincibly ignorant is like sweeping the tide or whistling at the wind - or trying to teach an old dog new new tricks. D'ya ever wonder what Barney Fife was going to be like in his dotage? LEO666.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA/GOP *******

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    You didn't read the Wikipedia URLs, now did you? Try this

    http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/rhetoric.php

    Educating the invincibly ignorant is like sweeping the tide or whistling at the wind - or trying to teach an old dog new new tricks. D'ya ever wonder what Barney Fife was going to be like in his dotage? LEO666.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA/GOP *******
    Most of what you post I gloss over. You normally do not contribute much worth reading.

    Either we are equal or we are not...... Stupid is as Stupid does.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Most of what you post I gloss over. You normally do not contribute much worth reading.

    Either we are equal or we are not...... Stupid is as Stupid does.
    That figures. I love what doug huffman posts. Half the time it makes me think and the other half it makes me laugh, and it's usually concise and to the point...andoften it's rather eloquent.

    Btw, Doug, is the quote that you use as your signature...where is that from?

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Blushing... They are all mine.

    Grasping another opportunity to be wrong.

    The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

    Either we are equal or we are not.

    Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA/GOP *******

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post



  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Most of what you post I gloss over. You normally do not contribute much worth reading.
    With so much to post, passing 3000, I imagine you gloss over a lot. I don't know where you might find the time to read.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA/GOP *******

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Blushing... They are all mine.

    Grasping another opportunity to be wrong.

    The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

    Either we are equal or we are not.

    Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA/GOP *******
    I heard that one a long time ago on keepandbeararms.com, was that you?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    I am going to link this jury to the same that failed to convict OJ Simpson.

    The common people can be dumb at times and fail to see things clearly.
    And I am going to use your post as the perfect evidence of why a jury system is so important.

    All you, a police officer,have to go on is what is in this article, and you are sure that this man should be convicted.

    But the jury of his peers heard all the evidence, and after deliberating all of them decided that this man is not guilty.

    In the OJ Simpson case, the prosecution failed to convince a jury of 12 people that there was enough evidence to support a conviction.

    You want to blame the juries, but clearly it was the prosecution and the police who bungled it, either by wrongly accusing these men of crimes, or by failing to provide proof to support an otherwise correct accusation.

    The jury is your last defense against a bad law or a wrong accusation, and it's the only thing that stands between a system with some sense of fairness and the bananna republic's prejudice.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    I am going to link this jury to the same that failed to convict OJ Simpson.

    The common people can be dumb at times and fail to see things clearly.
    And I am going to use your post as the perfect evidence of why a jury system is so important.

    All you, a police officer,have to go on is what is in this article, and you are sure that this man should be convicted.

    But the jury of his peers heard all the evidence, and after deliberating all of them decided that this man is not guilty.

    In the OJ Simpson case, the prosecution failed to convince a jury of 12 people that there was enough evidence to support a conviction.

    You want to blame the juries, but clearly it was the prosecution and the police who bungled it, either by wrongly accusing these men of crimes, or by failing to provide proof to support an otherwise correct accusation.

    The jury is your last defense against a bad law or a wrong accusation, and it's the only thing that stands between a system with some sense of fairness and the bananna republic's prejudice.
    Sorry, they were blinded by his fame. It is called celebrity justice!

    All the evidence was there.... They chose not to see it.

    The jury was stacked in his case. The polls show he should have been convicted. He had money and fame... That is what saved him.

    http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...son/polls.html



    Stars get paid millions to entertain us and they get the pitty of the people all the time. Do not believe it? How much jail do you get for DWI?


    [line]


    Having pleaded guilty to driving under the influence, Nicole Richie -- a celebrity whose fame is so inexplicable that Paris Hilton's almost makes sense by comparison -- arrived last week at the Central Regional Detention Facility in Lynwood, Calif., to serve her four-day sentence. Eighty-two minutes later, she was released due to overcrowding in the jail.

    [line]


    Paris Hilton has not only had her sentence cut short, she is already out of jail!
    The deal was sealed yesterday, and that Hilton made her exit early early this morning.
    She was originally sentenced to 45 days in jail, but that was reduced to 23. She served a total of five days -- the normal stay for a violation of this kind.


    [line]


    I do not knowall the details in the guy pointing a gun at the cop and being set free.. Seems a little suspicious to me. If I lay out the facts given in the story.. I think any clear minded person would say "He was going to shoot that cop!"



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    duplicate

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    I am going to link this jury to the same that failed to convict OJ Simpson.

    The common people can be dumb at times and fail to see things clearly.
    And I am going to use your post as the perfect evidence of why a jury system is so important.

    All you, a police officer,have to go on is what is in this article, and you are sure that this man should be convicted.

    But the jury of his peers heard all the evidence, and after deliberating all of them decided that this man is not guilty.

    In the OJ Simpson case, the prosecution failed to convince a jury of 12 people that there was enough evidence to support a conviction.

    You want to blame the juries, but clearly it was the prosecution and the police who bungled it, either by wrongly accusing these men of crimes, or by failing to provide proof to support an otherwise correct accusation.

    The jury is your last defense against a bad law or a wrong accusation, and it's the only thing that stands between a system with some sense of fairness and the bananna republic's prejudice.
    Sorry, they were blinded by his fame.

    All the evidence was there.... They chose not to see it.
    Yes, I know what you think, but the point I'm trying to make is that it's a good thing that your opinion doesn't matter, and the jury's does.

    I think that you're siding with the police officer in this story,because you identify with him. You are taking the story about him drawing his pistol at face value. So, if it were up to you, this guy is guilty.

    But the jury sat through the whole trial and got the whole story, all that there was of it, and they decided there wasn't enough to convict.

    Maybe they were wrong, I don't know. But I'm glad we have a jury system rather than convicting people based on some half-story in a newspaper.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Yes, I know what you think, but the point I'm trying to make is that it's a good thing that your opinion doesn't matter, and the jury's does.

    I think that you're siding with the police officer in this story,because you identify with him. You are taking the story about him drawing his pistol at face value. So, if it were up to you, this guy is guilty.

    But the jury sat through the whole trial and got the whole story, all that there was of it, and they decided there wasn't enough to convict.

    Maybe they were wrong, I don't know. But I'm glad we have a jury system rather than convicting people based on some half-story in a newspaper.
    No, I am not siding with the cop. At face value... that guy was going to shoot that cop! But that is what the story wants you to read. I understand that I do not have the case details. We are discussing the story as presented. As many others do on here.

    Can you provide me with just onelegitimate reason for why he would have drawn his gun and pointed it at the cop with his finger on the trigger?

    Come how Tomahawk.... Just one legal, legitimate reason. Prove to me it could have been some other harmless act and there was no intent to shoot the cop dead!

    "Garrett said he heard several other shots as he fled for cover, and returned fire."

    I am going to guess that either the cop lied, lost too much blood and was hearing things, the driver accidentally kept shooting as he ran away, or it was backfire from a car.



  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    SNIP.... Just one legal, legitimate reason.
    I think capital murder is a reasonable speculation. I think another reasonable speculation would bean idiot drunk trying to intimidate the police officer.

    The facts provided just aren't conclusive that he was trying to kill the officer.

    We really do need more facts.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    October 21, 2005

    Farmville, Virginia -- A Farmville police officer was shot in the leg during a traffic stop on South Main Street late Friday afternoon.

    Police had received a complaint from Freidman's Jewelers on Peery Drive that the driver of a pickup truck had caused a disturbance and appeared to be drunk, said Sgt. Pam Wilson, public affairs officer for the Farmville Police Department. About 4 p.m., officer Johnny Garrett pulled over a pickup truck that fit the description.

    The driver pulled a gun and shot Garrett in the thigh, Wilson said. Garrett returned fire and was fired upon once again. The driver then sped north on Main Street into downtown Farmville.

    Other Farmville police officers arrested Russell Smith of Farmville at Fourth and Main streets.

    Garrett was treated at Southside Community Hospital and released into police custody.

    Smith is being held at the Piedmont Regional Jail. He was charged with attempted capital muder of a police officer and with using a firearm in the commission of a felony.

    Garrett was the first police officer shot in Farmville since 1974.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Well, it could be that the cop made up some of the details, maybe the man felt his life was threatened, I don't know. But the jury must have some reason why they felt the accused should not be convicted.

    My cynical side says maybe the cop is not a popular man and the jury just liked the accused man more than the cop. But my happy-face optimistic side says maybe they actually were looking at this objectively and not automatically giving the prosecution a free pass as juries so often do.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •