Police Home Assault Informer Revealed, and Chesapeake PD apparently made deal with bad informer

imported post

Nelson_Muntz wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I would not have just gone in like they did. I would start checking him out. Having good information would mean that they should waste time looking into the guy and seeing what evidence they could find.

I am guessing they did not do that because he was supposed to have several plants and they wanted to be sure to catch him red handed. Checking him out wold obviously take time and this would be time given to him to sell or remove his plants.

Click to expand...

Ensuring evidence was not destroyed is not a good enough reason for not checking further into the allegation.

Time is all you've got. Ask the dead officer. He ran out of time.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

We were talking about alleged pot plants here, right? Not a rape or child abduction or a suspected WMD. Is pot really such a scourge upon our society that law enforcement needs to use no knock warrants in the middle of the night, on uncorroborated and unchecked information?

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

roscoe13 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

So I can imagine that the informant really played it up and made it all sound real good to the police.

Since he had provided good information in the past. his credit rating was good and they believed him.

Click to expand...

Cite? Where did you get that from? Certainly not from the info in the OP...

Click to expand...

It was in other news articles.

Click to expand...

Cite?

imported post

possumboy wrote:

Nelson_Muntz wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I would not have just gone in like they did. I would start checking him out. Having good information would mean that they should waste time looking into the guy and seeing what evidence they could find.

I am guessing they did not do that because he was supposed to have several plants and they wanted to be sure to catch him red handed. Checking him out wold obviously take time and this would be time given to him to sell or remove his plants.

Click to expand...

Ensuring evidence was not destroyed is not a good enough reason for not checking further into the allegation.

Time is all you've got. Ask the dead officer. He ran out of time.

Click to expand...

ChesapeakePD did obtain the warrant legally. There is really no way to argue that in Chesapeake - as opposed the Atlanta PD lying to obtain it.

It sounds like Chesapeake Officers saw a few service stars or commendations in the future and wanted to act fast.

Remembering the earlier posts, the guy had a big "stash" of Japanese Maples and some solid investigation would have discovered the information...

Without risking the officer's, or the innocence home owner's life.

Click to expand...

I think short cuts were made, but I do not necessarily blame the police officers. The old police administration was a mess. There were not enough police officers to go around. Personnel shortages are well documented. This shortage also led to the recent 911 taped messageincident. Detectives were under pressure to produce. On the surface this looked like an easy win for the detectives. Very tragic results.

To fix the systemic police administration problems many things are happening.

1. There is a change in police chief. Hopefully there will be a real shake up.

2. There is an independent audit of the Chesapeake police practices.

3. There is a large class at the police academy (37 is a large number for Chesapeake) to begin to fix the manpower shortage.

************

This still leaves us with the other problem, which is the way in which the Chesapeake PDand the Commonwealth havetreated the shooter. We do not have all the facts, but what we know seems to pint to abusive behavior.

1. The Chesapeake PD charged the shooter with 1st Degree murder. 2nd degree murder for this incident would be a huge stretch, but I have not read anything that would come close t 1st degree.

2. At the bond hearing the Special Prosecutor claimed that the shooter shot the detective in the front yard and stated that the Commonwealth was considering upgrading the charge to capital murder.

Why is this such an issue? Because this apparent misapplication of the law permits the Commonwealth to successfully argue that bail should be denied. So the shooter sits in jail awaiting trial. It has been four months and there has not yet even been a preliminary hearing. This abusive charging would wear down the defendant, enabling the prosecution to get a plea bargain. Keeping the skeletons buried.

Why is this important to this forum?

Because there but for the grace of god go many gun owners. I am not saying that the shooter did not do anything wrong. Involuntary manslaughter might be seen as a reasonable charge depending on whether you feel a person is justified in shooting at a person that they cannot see. It is the difference between prosecution and persecution.

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Citizen wrote:

peter nap wrote:

SNIP I don't know a single officer that will use the word of one informant to obtain a search warrant. There always has to be more.

Click to expand...

I hate to be a PITA, but please cite and quote a case for us.

Click to expand...

I wasn't quoting a case Citizen, just normal procedure....but since you asked,

Click to expand...

I get it. Thanks for clarifying.

imported post

roscoe13 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

roscoe13 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

So I can imagine that the informant really played it up and made it all sound real good to the police.

Since he had provided good information in the past. his credit rating was good and they believed him.

Click to expand...

Cite? Where did you get that from? Certainly not from the info in the OP...

Click to expand...

It was in other news articles.

Click to expand...

Cite?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I am not going to go find it as it is lost in all the news reports that are out there and could have been removed from circulation for all I know.

Either you can take my word for it that it was written or not. Makes no difference to me.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

roscoe13 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

roscoe13 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

So I can imagine that the informant really played it up and made it all sound real good to the police.

Since he had provided good information in the past. his credit rating was good and they believed him.

Click to expand...

Cite? Where did you get that from? Certainly not from the info in the OP...

Click to expand...

It was in other news articles.

Click to expand...

Cite?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I am not going to go find it as it is lost in all the news reports that are out there and could have been removed from circulation for all I know.

Either you can take my word for it that it was written or not. Makes no difference to me.

Click to expand...

This informer had, apparently, rolled over on somebody in the past when he had been caught by the police.

If you want lots of cites just google "Ryan Frederick". Some of the sites (for cites) are a bit out there, so go with your eyes wide open. Some are sickening. They range from the Damn cops got whathe had coming to the scumbag shot a cop, he should get the needle. If anybody on this site wants to espouse either of those extremes, please go to one of those sites where such brain dead garbage is part of the daily fare, or at least behave in this thread so it doesn't get locked.

Hopefully thisthread can be a place where reasonable points of view are exchanged. I started this thread to talk about the implications of this case for gun owners in Virginia.

I thinka bigissue in this case will be whether a person in fear for their life has an obligation to see the aggressor/attacker before shooting. What do you think?

imported post

Thundar wrote:

SNIP I thinka bigissue in this case will be whether a person in fear for their life has an obligation to see the aggressor/attacker before shooting. What do you think?

Click to expand...

I wonder if we don't reach a point wherea citizen can't prove self-defense becauseof too many details to have to prove, thus he's up for manslaughter at a minimum.

We've all seen the rush to judgement in this case.

Tactics woulddictate that if it really is a home invasion, if he comes through the door armed, it might be too late to shoot.

Yet, what do you do if it isn't a home invasion?

Castle doctrine might help here.

Also, there is a difference between a moral obligation to holdfire, and a legal obligation. The legal obligation would haveenforcement considerations. And how do you get everybody who has a basic human right to self-defense to understand the legal obligation. Especially in the face of schools that do absolutely nothing to educate on guns.Its not like it comes up every day in the press. And then youstill have to get over the fact that some people are jumpy andwill shootregardless of the rules.People who are just caught off-guard, generally decent people, who wouldhave no idea that the cops might make a high-risk entry on their home.

At some point, one does have to protect the police on legitimate high-risk entries.

Lots to think about.

imported post

Just random thoughts written down here! For one I feel bad for both victims and the fam. Alot of people are hurt in this case. Something is defin fishy going on with this case. Since when does a criminal have a good credit rating? WTF! I just don't understand how something like this could happen. I know people make mistakes, but damn this mistake cost one his life and the other is well on his way to losing life as he knew it! I do agree the informant should be charged in the death of the officer. He had a grudge and made a false report. That is wrong. And know he is on the run.! God help this kid! I just hope he has a great lawyer!

imported post

IMO, Ryan Frederick should be a free man and the informant should be in jail for murder. The LEOs who applied for the search warrant based on the informant's bad info should be fired. It was those LEOs and the informant who are most directly responsible and negligent in the death of the officer and they should be soundly punished.

imported post

Granted... the police acted on information provided by their informant and may not have taken time to corroborate it. It appears that some personal use marijuana was alsofound in the home.

But let's say that the policedid check out Ryan and found some proof drugs were being used in the home. Joints in the trash or stems and seeds in a zip lock bag that had been discarded.

So now the police have something to back up thatinformant's information and they have a valid reason to go do the search......

The fact remains that Ryan Frederick shot and killed a man who was outside his door.

You have the police acting under lawful authority to go in and search the home.They asked the government for permission and it was granted. So they had a right to be there and enter the home.

Regardless on when they decided toserve the search warrantor how long they should have knocked on the door.... they were not yet in the house when the shots were fired. Had they entered the home Ryan Frederick could have heard them call out and see that they were the police.

It wasRyan's decision to shoot first and ask questions later. For this.... he will have to now explain andjustify his actionsto 12 citizens.

imported post

I can understand taking the word of just one informant if it was regarding something as sinister as bomb making, threats against innocents, evil and twisted plots against society in general...but for allegedly growing marijuana? Where is the absolute urgency and immediate need to protect the public from a slow growing plant that doesn't kill anyone?

This whole thing was preventable. I hope justice is served.

imported post

BobCav wrote:

I can understand taking the word of just one informant if it was regarding something as sinister as bomb making, threats against innocents, evil and twisted plots against society in general...but for allegedly growing marijuana? Where is the absolute urgency and immediate need to protect the public from a slow growing plant that doesn't kill anyone?

This whole thing was preventable. I hope justice is served.

Click to expand...

But even a bomb manufacturerwould be no different. How do you take the word of someone you do not know? Unless you know this person well or they have been truthful with you in the past as was the reported case here... the situation is the same.

If you trust a guy on eBay with a 1000 positive feedbackrating or the guy with a new account and no rating?

The new account you should be watchful of and validate they are on the level with what they are selling. But the guy with a known history you could probablyjust take his word on what he is telling you.

Can someone on eBay screw you over and have a top rating? Sure!!!! But you cannot distrust everyone, right? That is the whole idea behind building a trust rating.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

BobCav wrote:

I can understand taking the word of just one informant if it was regarding something as sinister as bomb making, threats against innocents, evil and twisted plots against society in general...but for allegedly growing marijuana? Where is the absolute urgency and immediate need to protect the public from a slow growing plant that doesn't kill anyone?

This whole thing was preventable. I hope justice is served.

Click to expand...

But even a bomb manufacturerwould be no different. How do you take the word of someone you do not know? Unless you know this person well or they have been truthful with you in the past as was the reported case here... the situation is the same.

If you trust a guy on eBay with a 1000 positive feedbackrating or the guy with a new account and no rating?

The new account you should be watchful of and validate they are on the level with what they are selling. But the guy with a known history you could probablyjust take his word on what he is telling you.

Can someone on eBay screw you over and have a top rating? Sure!!!! But you cannot distrust everyone, right? That is the whole idea behind building a trust rating.

Click to expand...

when it comes to something as 'sacred' as civil rights and LEO authority, it should NEVER (stress that word +100) take the simple word of an informant, no matter how trustworthy. If you are going to invade a private persons home, with weapons, and risk weapons being pointed back at you, you had better verify, reverify, and then verify it again in all respects to make sure that what you do with that warrant is totally legit.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

The fact remains that Ryan Frederick shot and killed a man who was outside his door attempting to break it down and who had already made a hole as big as his head in it, all within days of when Frederick's home had already been broken into causing him to fear for his life if they were able to breech the door completely.

Click to expand...

There, fixed it for you. :?

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Granted... the police acted on information provided by their informant and may not have taken time to corroborate it. It appears that some personal use marijuana was alsofound in the home.

But let's say that the policedid check out Ryan and found some proof drugs were being used in the home. Joints in the trash or stems and seeds in a zip lock bag that had been discarded.

So now the police have something to back up thatinformant's information and they have a valid reason to go do the search......

The fact remains that Ryan Frederick shot and killed a man who was outside his door.

You have the police acting under lawful authority to go in and search the home.They asked the government for permission and it was granted. So they had a right to be there and enter the home.

Regardless on when they decided toserve the search warrantor how long they should have knocked on the door.... they were not yet in the house when the shots were fired. Had they entered the home Ryan Frederick could have heard them call out and see that they were the police.

It wasRyan's decision to shoot first and ask questions later. For this.... he will have to now explain andjustify his actionsto 12 citizens.

Click to expand...

In the dark of the night (outfitted in the black commando outfits with face covered as many cops use in such attacks) and someone calling out POLICE WARRANT we are to just sit back and let whomever it is come on in and do their thing. That's a crock of crap. Bad guys can dress in black outfits and holler POLICE WARRANT, paint "POLICE" on their shirt and bust the door down and then while we sit there they are taking over our home and doing whatever they wish.

Also, I'm glad that you feel that if the government is our almighty savior. If they say so then it is OK to proceed at any cost. The requesters hold no responsibility for any lies made to support issuing the search warrant. They just take a criminals word and put themselves and citizens in danger. But if it turns out to be false, so what. Unless instead of the citizen getting killed it was one of the cops then all hell breaks out. If it had been the citizen killed and there was some concern about the shooting I doubt that the cop would have been in jail for months awaiting court action.

Your thoughts about our government's power is scary. You make out our country to be like some of the countries that we are fighting today. Also, anyone (except the accused) can lie with no fowl called. Thats the belief of our police and courts. It's very sad that our lawmakers have given so much power to our judge's to make decisions without verifiable proof. The Judge's, Informants, and police should be held accountable for their actions but in most cases their poor decision making is overlooked and in this case they may get away with murder or accessory to murder.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Had they entered the home Ryan Frederick could have heard them call out and see that they were the police.

Click to expand...

Rather, he could have heard them call out and seen that they LOOKED like police.
That's no guarantee that they are police.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

BobCav wrote:

I can understand taking the word of just one informant if it was regarding something as sinister as bomb making, threats against innocents, evil and twisted plots against society in general...but for allegedly growing marijuana? Where is the absolute urgency and immediate need to protect the public from a slow growing plant that doesn't kill anyone?

This whole thing was preventable. I hope justice is served.

Click to expand...

But even a bomb manufacturerwould be no different. How do you take the word of someone you do not know? Unless you know this person well or they have been truthful with you in the past as was the reported case here... the situation is the same.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Manufacturing a bomb is in many places illegal simply because the risk of an accidental explosion injuring others in an urban area is high, the same reason discharging a firearm in city limits is generally prohibited. The very manufacturing of the item is potentially an imminent threat of grave bodily injury or death to untold numbers of people. Although in that case I also don't want a no-knock midnight raid that may cause the bomb builder to accidently set off an explosion in the dark. Just as with Frederick, they should arrest him on his way to work in the morning if at all possible.

On the other hand, a guy growing pot in his garage is ZERO imminent threat to anyone unless he has gangstas delivering it for him armed to the teeth. What, one of the grow lights might set something on fire and burn down his detached garage? WTF? Also, growing pot is NOT inherently a VIOLENT crime.

*I'm having this really bad mental image of a bunch of hippies sitting around a drum circle smoking a doobie when cops bust down the door and rush in guns drawn. One of the hippies blows smoke into an LEO's face and the LEO drops his gun, falls to the ground rolling around, holding his hands to his face, screaming "I'm hit, I'm hit!"*

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

The fact remains that Ryan Frederick shot and killed a man who was outside his door attempting to break it down and who had already made a hole as big as his head in it, all within days of when Frederick's home had already been broken into causing him to fear for his life if they were able to breech the door completely.

Click to expand...

There, fixed it for you. :?

Click to expand...

Oh Please!!! The person was still outside the door and not in the home.

Ryanshot blindly at someone outside his home on the front steps. He failed to observed any real threat of attack or even a weapon being displayed. He decided to act and he shot someone lawfully permitted to be there.

Just like somewould say a cop was wrong for shooting a guy reaching for his wallet at gun point.

Funny how that works out, huh? The police should wait for a gun to be pointed in their face but a citizen can shoot of they are "scared."

Go figure!! :lol:

imported post

doctork wrote:

In the dark of the night (outfitted in the black commando outfits with face covered as many cops use in such attacks) and someone calling out POLICE WARRANT we are to just sit back and let whomever it is come on in and do their thing. That's a crock of crap. Bad guys can dress in black outfits and holler POLICE WARRANT, paint "POLICE" on their shirt and bust the door down and then while we sit there they are taking over our home and doing whatever they wish.

Also, I'm glad that you feel that if the government is our almighty savior. If they say so then it is OK to proceed at any cost. The requesters hold no responsibility for any lies made to support issuing the search warrant. They just take a criminals word and put themselves and citizens in danger. But if it turns out to be false, so what. Unless instead of the citizen getting killed it was one of the cops then all hell breaks out. If it had been the citizen killed and there was some concern about the shooting I doubt that the cop would have been in jail for months awaiting court action.

Your thoughts about our government's power is scary. You make out our country to be like some of the countries that we are fighting today. Also, anyone (except the accused) can lie with no fowl called. Thats the belief of our police and courts. It's very sad that our lawmakers have given so much power to our judge's to make decisions without verifiable proof. The Judge's, Informants, and police should be held accountable for their actions but in most cases their poor decision making is overlooked and in this case they may get away with murder or accessory to murder.

Click to expand...

So it should be permissible to shoot anyone even if they say they are the police?

How about traffic stops? No need to stop since it could be swatpro911 in his crown vic with red and blue lights installed?

Your argument is pointless.

You cannot argue that because someone could pretend to be the police it is a justification to shoot them. You have to take some type of step to confirm it first and it MUST be justified in some way.


"Also, I'm glad that you feel that if the government is our almighty savior."

Your words, not mine. I am working with what the government has allowed. The same government involved when you referencethe second and forth amendment.

Funny how rightscreatedby the government that benefit you aregood but when the police are given certain rights or authority to do thingsby the same government it is not.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

BobCav wrote:

I can understand taking the word of just one informant if it was regarding something as sinister as bomb making, threats against innocents, evil and twisted plots against society in general...but for allegedly growing marijuana? Where is the absolute urgency and immediate need to protect the public from a slow growing plant that doesn't kill anyone?

This whole thing was preventable. I hope justice is served.

Click to expand...

But even a bomb manufacturerwould be no different. How do you take the word of someone you do not know? Unless you know this person well or they have been truthful with you in the past as was the reported case here... the situation is the same.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Manufacturing a bomb is in many places illegal simply because the risk of an accidental explosion injuring others in an urban area is high, the same reason discharging a firearm in city limits is generally prohibited. The very manufacturing of the item is potentially an imminent threat of grave bodily injury or death to untold numbers of people. Although in that case I also don't want a no-knock midnight raid that may cause the bomb builder to accidently set off an explosion in the dark. Just as with Frederick, they should arrest him on his way to work in the morning if at all possible.

...snipped

Click to expand...

So you are saying it is OK to take the word of an informant that someone is making a bomb and go kick in the door?