• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Another point of view regarding the Culpeper Town meeting

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

"Hello,

I read your representative'sletter in the StarExponent today.


I support the right to protect oneself. Personally, I think only people who are extremely insecure, obsessed,or wacko need to collect semi-automatics and other numerous weapons of death; BUT, it's their choice. ...."


I guess I am an obsessedwacko!! :lol:
 

Glock27Bill

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
821
Location
Louisa County, Virginia, USA
imported post

I did not post a reply to that newspaper.

Was you email published, or did she get it through 'other means?"


ETA: I just looked, email addresses are NOT published in comments.

Sounds like abuse of authority to me. Did she have a warrant to get your address?
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
imported post

Our company name was listed. I'm sure a quick internet search yielded our contact form.

The thing to remember here is that the "police dept" did not email me.A woman emailed me as a private citizen but she sent the email from a Culpeper government email address. A quick internet search yielded the info that she works for the police department. I think there is a difference there.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
imported post

I just looked at the mission statement for the Culpeper Police Department. (I was actually looking for a code of conduct for Culpeper employees.) Somehow, I can't see her e-mails to you as meeting some of their goals. If she uses a government computer and works with the department, you could reasonably believe she's supposed to be bought in to this statement.
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
imported post

Tess wrote:
I just looked at the mission statement for the Culpeper Police Department. (I was actually looking for a code of conduct for Culpeper employees.) Somehow, I can't see her e-mails to you as meeting some of their goals. If she uses a government computer and works with the department, you could reasonably believe she's supposed to be bought in to this statement.

Yeah I suppose that you could say that she bent one or 2 of those :)

Its a typical LEA mission statement. When I was working (back in the day), we were supposed to be "exemplary stewards of the public trust" and "sound protectors of the environment" or something....nice fluffy white cloud stuff. Its an accreditation requirement that you have a mission statement. Trust me, its not a creed that any employee plans on living by on a daily basis. It would be nice, but its not realistic.
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
"Hello,

I read your representative'sletter in the StarExponent today.


I support the right to protect oneself. Personally, I think only people who are extremely insecure, obsessed,or wacko need to collect semi-automatics and other numerous weapons of death; BUT, it's their choice. ...."


I guess I am an obsessedwacko!! :lol:
Wonder how her co-workers would feel about that!
 

bayboy42

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
897
Location
Gloucester Point, Virginia, USA
imported post

ProShooter wrote:
bayboy42 wrote:
ProShooter wroe

Dear Ms. Sullivan,

Thank you for your email. I appreciate your thoughts and comments. As a gun owner, I do own a few semi-automatic handguns. I'm not sure that you can say that I 'collect' them, and hopefully I'm not viewed as a 'wacko', to use a term from your email. I could potentially say that people who collect coins, stamps, and garden gnomes are also extremely insecure, obsessed and wacko, but then I'd sound as ridiculous as you did in yourhoplophobic assessment of gun owners.
I do not know the history of the gun issue at Yowell Meadow Park that you speak of. I'm sure that rather than the Town being "forced to allow guns back in the park", it was morea matter of the Town being forced to follow the state law. I'm sure that you would not want your elected officials violating state law, now would you?
By your own statements in your email "the park...where many young children, elderly and other non-violent, non-threatening people used to enjoy gathering. It IS simply a matter of time when someone will allow something to get out of hand and someone will be shot...Face it, it's not just the "good folks" who own weaponry" - I couldn't agree more. Wouldn't it be nice if there were law abiding citizens there with the means and ability to protect those innocent children, elderly, and non-violent people? Crime happens everywhere Ms. Sullivan, and good people have the right to protect themselves.
We could debate gun rights all day. The point of my letter, and the purpose of those in attendance at the Town meeting is not to tell you how to kill garden pests. The purpose of their presence there that evening is greater than the discussion of how to eliminate mice from nibbling on your tomatoes. The point is that there is already a state law in place that addresses these things. Once we allow local government to start passing laws and ordinances more restrictive than state law, we give up certain freedoms. There is already a state law prohibiting jurisdictions from passing more restrictivelocal laws regarding firearms. If anything, the presence of those gun owners there that evening possibly saved the Town of Culpeper from future lawsuits and bad publicity by convincing them to make the correct decision not to pass the ordinance. Numerous localities across Virginia have been taken to task in recent months because of this issue.
You asked me in your email whether we are prepared to pay all the bills when someone is hurt because of one little mistake.Let me ask you the same thing. If the Town of Culpeper bans guns at their meetings, as Mr. Meriwether suggested, and someone is assaulted, injured or killed because they were not afforded the right to defend themselves with their legally owned firearm, will the Town of Culpeper be prepared to pay all of the medical bills and lawsuits?
You are correct in your assessment of gun ownersthat no one knows what level of ability they have with marksmanship, how much training they may have, whether they know much about gun safety, or or how good their peripheral vision is. The same statement and assessment could be made about vehicle owners. Should we ban all cars from being driven to Town meetings or within the town limits? Do you know how many more people are killed by cars than by guns each year? Have you been properly trained to operate your gas barbecue grill? Do you know how much danger an improperly handled and/or maintained propane cylinder can cause? Should be prohibitoutdoor cooking with anything other than charcoal or firewood?Did you attend a safety class and pass a proficiency test when you purchased that set of steak knives on your kitchen counter? The list is endless Ms. Sullivan.
Again, the issue is not about shooting backyard pests, its about passing laws that do not need to be passed, and the possibility of freedoms being lost or limited due to the passing of these unnecessary laws.


Regards,

James A. Reynolds
President
Proactive Shooters, LLC
The red statement above is factually incorrect. If I read your statement correctly, I believe what you are reffering to is what we call "Preemption" around here. Preemption doesn't prevent jurisdictions from passing laws regarding the discharge of firearms which is what Culpepper tried to do.

I'm not trying to justify what Culpepper attempted to do, only point out a factual error. Maybe I just mis-interpreted your statement?
I see what you are saying, but my intent was that there is a law adressing firearms. I wasnt specifically talking about "discharge" but more to the fact that a law exists talking about firearms and we dont more local laws talking about firearms. I probably could have phrased it better....but I was on a roll....:) She was so off the chart that I dont think it phased her anyway.
Cool. Thanks for clearing up my mis-interpretation!!
 

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
Funny how things work out in the long run.... the woman who wrote this email to ProShooter back in 2008 is the <strike> current </strike> Correction: former Administrative Assistant to the Chief of Police... and the mother of the Culpeper cop who has just been charged with murder (among other charges).... and she herself has been charged for accessing her sons personel records and 'taking all the bad stuff out'....

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?99768-Culpeper-shooting&p=1762242&viewfull=1#post1762242

Someone should ask her how she feels about those 'good folks' now.... :uhoh:


From the other thread on this, I'm sure that you all read the email that I sent to the columnist at the StarExponent. A few minutes ago, I received an email from a woman using a Town of Culpeper email address. I'm unsure as to what her postion is but I found her email so entertaining that I felt the need to post it here. Obviously, she doesnt want anyone to harm the backyard pests that may nibble at her garden.....

First, her email in italics, followed by my reply in bold.....enjoy the read...

Hello,

I read your representative'sletter in the StarExponent today.

I support the right to protect oneself. Personally, I think only people who are extremely insecure, obsessed,or wacko need to collect semi-automatics and other numerous weapons of death; BUT, it's their choice.

About the Town of Culpeper. I stopped walking in Yowell Meadow Park when the Town was forced to allow guns back in the park...where many young children, elderly and other non-violent, non-threatening people used to enjoy gathering. It IS simply a matter of time when someone will allow something to get out of hand and someone will be shot...I simply don't want to be there when it happens. Face it, it's not just the "good folks" who own weaponry.

I do not think you should be allowed to shoot a firearm in such small lots as found in most Towns. There are many ways to get rid of pests to your backyard garden; you don't have to shoot them to get rid of them. It is NOT safe to use a firearm in a lot that may only be 8,000 square feet with homes, yards and children near by. No one wanted to take away the right to bear arms or protect themselves in their homes - that was stressed and in writing early on.

I guess people get rabid about gun rights, which ever side they are on -- and perhaps commonsense is lost along the way - but, seriously, are you and your organization going to pay all the bills when that 1st incident occurs and someone is hurt/maimed/killed because one "little mistake" that can happen in such close quarters? No one knows what level of ability these individuals have with marksmanship, how much training they may or may not have, whether or not they know much about gun safety and how good or bad their peripheral vision is; and face it, I doubt the evil garden villian will simply sit still and wait to be shot. What guarantee is there that allowing this right to fire firearms in Town limits is safe now that the population has increased so dramatically over the last 5-6 years? Gone are the days of large green space and buffer areas.

There are times when it IS appropriate and intelligent to say, "no" to being able to shoot your weapon; in backyards of Towns; thisis one of them. Again, no one wants to take your guns away from you -- we just don't want people firing them in such close quarters.

The Town of Vienna does not allow this, nor do they allow shooting of bb/air guns. It's legal and permissible, and makes sense. Again - they don't forbid ownership -just trying to prevent a tragic accident.

Thanks for your time.

Bethany Sullivan





Dear Ms. Sullivan,

Thank you for your email. I appreciate your thoughts and comments. As a gun owner, I do own a few semi-automatic handguns. I'm not sure that you can say that I 'collect' them, and hopefully I'm not viewed as a 'wacko', to use a term from your email. I could potentially say that people who collect coins, stamps, and garden gnomes are also extremely insecure, obsessed and wacko, but then I'd sound as ridiculous as you did in yourhoplophobic assessment of gun owners.
I do not know the history of the gun issue at Yowell Meadow Park that you speak of. I'm sure that rather than the Town being "forced to allow guns back in the park", it was morea matter of the Town being forced to follow the state law. I'm sure that you would not want your elected officials violating state law, now would you?
By your own statements in your email "the park...where many young children, elderly and other non-violent, non-threatening people used to enjoy gathering. It IS simply a matter of time when someone will allow something to get out of hand and someone will be shot...Face it, it's not just the "good folks" who own weaponry" - I couldn't agree more. Wouldn't it be nice if there were law abiding citizens there with the means and ability to protect those innocent children, elderly, and non-violent people? Crime happens everywhere Ms. Sullivan, and good people have the right to protect themselves.
We could debate gun rights all day. The point of my letter, and the purpose of those in attendance at the Town meeting is not to tell you how to kill garden pests. The purpose of their presence there that evening is greater than the discussion of how to eliminate mice from nibbling on your tomatoes. The point is that there is already a state law in place that addresses these things. Once we allow local government to start passing laws and ordinances more restrictive than state law, we give up certain freedoms. There is already a state law prohibiting jurisdictions from passing more restrictivelocal laws regarding firearms. If anything, the presence of those gun owners there that evening possibly saved the Town of Culpeper from future lawsuits and bad publicity by convincing them to make the correct decision not to pass the ordinance. Numerous localities across Virginia have been taken to task in recent months because of this issue.
You asked me in your email whether we are prepared to pay all the bills when someone is hurt because of one little mistake.Let me ask you the same thing. If the Town of Culpeper bans guns at their meetings, as Mr. Meriwether suggested, and someone is assaulted, injured or killed because they were not afforded the right to defend themselves with their legally owned firearm, will the Town of Culpeper be prepared to pay all of the medical bills and lawsuits?
You are correct in your assessment of gun ownersthat no one knows what level of ability they have with marksmanship, how much training they may have, whether they know much about gun safety, or or how good their peripheral vision is. The same statement and assessment could be made about vehicle owners. Should we ban all cars from being driven to Town meetings or within the town limits? Do you know how many more people are killed by cars than by guns each year? Have you been properly trained to operate your gas barbecue grill? Do you know how much danger an improperly handled and/or maintained propane cylinder can cause? Should be prohibitoutdoor cooking with anything other than charcoal or firewood?Did you attend a safety class and pass a proficiency test when you purchased that set of steak knives on your kitchen counter? The list is endless Ms. Sullivan.
Again, the issue is not about shooting backyard pests, its about passing laws that do not need to be passed, and the possibility of freedoms being lost or limited due to the passing of these unnecessary laws.


Regards,

James A. Reynolds
President
Proactive Shooters, LLC
 
Last edited:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Wow, talk about a strange turn of events... Who would have guessed she was talking about her own son when she was worried about people with guns getting out of hand!

I wonder who she will be hiring for HER attorney!?

TFred
 

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
Wow, talk about a strange turn of events... Who would have guessed she was talking about her own son when she was worried about people with guns getting out of hand!

I wonder who she will be hiring for HER attorney!?

TFred

I'm sure in her mind.... its all the guns fault!! Damn guns, they just kill so many people... all by themselves!!! :banghead:
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
A very unusual place, thank God!
They may well be as bad as Surry.

Now I have to wonder if Dear Old Mom is ....The Raven?
 

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
More:

http://www2.starexponent.com/news/2012/may/30/culpeper-officer-indicted-february-slaying-ar-1951488/

“Through the course of the special jury’s investigation into the shooting incident, evidence came to light concerning Ms. Sullivan’s role in forging public records in an attempt to purge Harmon-Wright’s personnel file of negative information,” Fisher told the crowd of reporters during Tuesday’s press conference.

Bethany Sullivan was an employee of the Culpeper Town Police Department under former chief Dan Boring when Harmon-Wright was hired five years ago.

Fisher added that the dates Sullivan tried to alter documents occurred on April 30, 2008 and in May 2010, unrelated to the Feb. 9 shooting.

“They were prior incidences not related to the shooting incident, but rather related to other incidences relating to her son,” Fisher explained. “She was the custodian of records at the time and had access to his personnel files and it’s his personnel files that she’s been charged with having some of the documents forged or altered.”

According to Fisher, Bethany Sullivan left the police department in May 2010.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
I think it's clear that Mrs. Sullivan was not the author of the email, but someone was using her name for political subterfuge. She does not live in Culpeper County, by the way. Apparently, Mrs. Sullivan had political problems with the former Chief because of her having made complaints about misconduct of certain officers within the department. Being a romantic idealist, she made the mistake of assuming that people really want to do the right thing, including the former Chief, and made too much noise about what she saw as problems within the department. You can see the results. It might be worthwhile to track down the URL's from the email headers to find out where it really came from.
 

1911 Enthusiast

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
77
Location
Heart of Appalachia
I think it's clear that Mrs. Sullivan was not the author of the email, but someone was using her name for political subterfuge. She does not live in Culpeper County, by the way. Apparently, Mrs. Sullivan had political problems with the former Chief because of her having made complaints about misconduct of certain officers within the department. Being a romantic idealist, she made the mistake of assuming that people really want to do the right thing, including the former Chief, and made too much noise about what she saw as problems within the department. You can see the results. It might be worthwhile to track down the URL's from the email headers to find out where it really came from.

So, contrary to what Jim Reynolds believed back in 2008, your contention is that the e-mail didn't come from an authentic "Town of Culpeper email address" even though she apparently was working for the town at the time?

Might be clear to you Dan, but it isn't to me.
 

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
I wonder who she will be hiring for HER attorney!?

The answer to your question might have just appeared. LOL!

(btw, if thats the case... I sure as hell don't fault her... or even the officer for that matter.... for retaining the best defense lawyer they could find. If I were facing criminal charges, I would want the best I could find as well.)

Yup, this is gonna get interesting....
 

sawah

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Virginia
Proshooter, while I can appreciate your intent, your reply to this person was not very helpful. You didn't really reply to her email, you used it as a platform to make a 'position statement'. You also used words that she wouldn't readily know the meaning of and you were a bit sarcastic. So often we do this - we pontificate when we really mean to educate. I'm sure I've done this kind of thing, so I'm not simply casting aspersions, I'm just hoping to get you to realize that you didn't make any relevant points from which she would be able to learn.

For example, I would have suggested you say 'the danger is not in the park, necessarily, it's coming to and going from the park. It's in the parking lot at a supermarket and elsewhere where you're simply not expecting it. Therefore, if you feel you have a duty to protect yourself and your loved ones and don't own a crystal ball, you have to carry at all times where the state law allows.', or words to that effect.

I would try to put myself in the person's place and try to respond in a way that would be received as a gentle way to educate and illuminate on the benefits of carrying. Anyway, good thread, hope my reply is useful.
====
To speak to the rest of the thread, it is indeed ironic that this woman's son was actually the kind of person about which she was most concerned, and I'm sure that totally escapes her, even now.
 
Last edited:

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
With the seriousness and amount of felony charges mother & son have accumulated so far, I suspect they will be seeking court appointed counsel unless they have quite a nestegg saved up. They're facing anywhere from $150,000 to $300,000 in legal fees.

Don't know about Mom but

User has already agreed to represent him so he has the best now.
I know a little about Mom that isn't public and her relationship in a lot of areas is complicated, but since I don't know if User is representing her or if any of that would bleed over...and because of the relationship some in the pro gun world has with her, I'll leave it lay for now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top