Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
Disgusting, but not surprising.
Disgusting, but not surprising.
-
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.
-
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.
Ryan Frederick Conviction
- Thread starter tripledipper
- Start date
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
+1
Tomahawk wrote:
+1
KBCraig
Regular Member
imported post
I am disappointed, but I am not surprised. I expected it the moment the judge allowed lesser included offenses, instead of it being capital murder or nothing.
Voluntary Manslaughter in VA requires both malice and intent. In light of the testimony and evidence, there was no malice. This would have been perfect for a directed verdict of not guilty.
I am disappointed, but I am not surprised. I expected it the moment the judge allowed lesser included offenses, instead of it being capital murder or nothing.
Voluntary Manslaughter in VA requires both malice and intent. In light of the testimony and evidence, there was no malice. This would have been perfect for a directed verdict of not guilty.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
KBCraig wrote:
KBCraig wrote:
Yes, but one of Leviathan's minions has beentaken,so right or wrong satisfaction must be had and the peasantry must be reminded of the heirarchy, you know.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
KBCraig wrote:
Thinking malice and intent would add up to murder, to this layman, I made a quick check.
Here is what I found:
Malice . . . is unnecessary in manslaughter cases and is the touchstone by which murder and manslaughter cases are distinguished.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=va&vol=2468002&invol=1
KBCraig wrote:
Thinking malice and intent would add up to murder, to this layman, I made a quick check.
Here is what I found:
Malice . . . is unnecessary in manslaughter cases and is the touchstone by which murder and manslaughter cases are distinguished.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=va&vol=2468002&invol=1
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I'm not surprised given the average American now days, but that doesn't mean that I'm not feeling like:banghead:
I'm not surprised given the average American now days, but that doesn't mean that I'm not feeling like:banghead:
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
While IANAL, if I was and I was representing Frederick, I would be filing appeals. THe first one would be based on the jury instruction from the judge.
While I can't find the citation (Citizen probably has it) there is a SCOTUS decision that speaks to the issue of a citizen shooting a LEO. I do not remember if that was the point of the case or just something in the discussion on the way to the decision.
But there is a real possibility that this could be reversed on appeal. I am not certain that the fat lady has arrived at the theatre yet, let alone started to sing.
While IANAL, if I was and I was representing Frederick, I would be filing appeals. THe first one would be based on the jury instruction from the judge.
While I can't find the citation (Citizen probably has it) there is a SCOTUS decision that speaks to the issue of a citizen shooting a LEO. I do not remember if that was the point of the case or just something in the discussion on the way to the decision.
But there is a real possibility that this could be reversed on appeal. I am not certain that the fat lady has arrived at the theatre yet, let alone started to sing.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
Nescio quid dicas.
All I have is Bad Elk, and, if I recall, that dealt with the homicide of an LEO during a warrantless arrest, not an arrest or search on a flawed warrant.
Hawkflyer wrote:
Nescio quid dicas.
All I have is Bad Elk, and, if I recall, that dealt with the homicide of an LEO during a warrantless arrest, not an arrest or search on a flawed warrant.
Nozoki
Regular Member
imported post
Well, I guess a manslaughter conviction is better than the drug conviction. He'd probably be in jail 4 times longer for growing a plant than for killing someone. Of course, he should be home today instead of still sitting in jail. And he would be if he had a jury with half a brain between them. Oh, wait, he did.
I hope he appeals.
Well, I guess a manslaughter conviction is better than the drug conviction. He'd probably be in jail 4 times longer for growing a plant than for killing someone. Of course, he should be home today instead of still sitting in jail. And he would be if he had a jury with half a brain between them. Oh, wait, he did.
I hope he appeals.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Setting asside the warrant as an element of the case, the shooting of a LEO in self defense is the precedent this guy is going to need. It is especially important if the precedent includes foreknowledge that it was a LEO.
I know in common law there is recognition of a right to self defence against unjust attack from one acting under color of law, but the justification is based on illegal acts or use of excessive force by the official. In this case the warrant MIGHT overcome the concept that breaking in the door unannounced was a violation of law, if that is what happened.
This will be an interesting case should it be appealed as the courts in the last 30 years have been trying to remove the recognition of the common law self defense claim for LEO shootings. After all it is rather difficult to authorize a LEO to perform a "no knock" entry on the one hand, and still support the concept of self defense against a full breach home invasion on the other. Unless the court picks a side going in they are no better than Damon Killian in the "Running Man" sending people into a death match against well trained and armed gladiators fighting for the amusement of the state.
Citizen wrote:
Te absolvo.Hawkflyer wrote:
Nescio quid dicas.
All I have is Bad Elk, and, if I recall, that dealt with the homicide of an LEO during a warrantless arrest, not an arrest or search on a flawed warrant.
Setting asside the warrant as an element of the case, the shooting of a LEO in self defense is the precedent this guy is going to need. It is especially important if the precedent includes foreknowledge that it was a LEO.
I know in common law there is recognition of a right to self defence against unjust attack from one acting under color of law, but the justification is based on illegal acts or use of excessive force by the official. In this case the warrant MIGHT overcome the concept that breaking in the door unannounced was a violation of law, if that is what happened.
This will be an interesting case should it be appealed as the courts in the last 30 years have been trying to remove the recognition of the common law self defense claim for LEO shootings. After all it is rather difficult to authorize a LEO to perform a "no knock" entry on the one hand, and still support the concept of self defense against a full breach home invasion on the other. Unless the court picks a side going in they are no better than Damon Killian in the "Running Man" sending people into a death match against well trained and armed gladiators fighting for the amusement of the state.
imported post
I'm not surprised at all with the verdict. If we completely take the LEO element out of it I believe under Virginia law it was still an illegal shoot. In order to use deadly force in VA you must be defending yourself or someone else from life threatening harm. This means a burglar must first break into your home and then threaten you. The act of breaking into your home is not enough. Even states with castle doctrines state that the bad guy must be in your home before shooting.
Take the shooting aside. I believe the city of Chesapeake should be sued over this entirely botched raid. The city should have to pay and some people should be prosecuted or at the very least lose their jobs.
I'm not surprised at all with the verdict. If we completely take the LEO element out of it I believe under Virginia law it was still an illegal shoot. In order to use deadly force in VA you must be defending yourself or someone else from life threatening harm. This means a burglar must first break into your home and then threaten you. The act of breaking into your home is not enough. Even states with castle doctrines state that the bad guy must be in your home before shooting.
Take the shooting aside. I believe the city of Chesapeake should be sued over this entirely botched raid. The city should have to pay and some people should be prosecuted or at the very least lose their jobs.
suntzu
Regular Member
imported post
so I'm confused--I thought the police were completely through the door when he opened fire?
so I'm confused--I thought the police were completely through the door when he opened fire?
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
One completely or all completely? Not as I understand it.
One completely or all completely? Not as I understand it.
suntzu
Regular Member
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
the people should completely outlaw "swat teams, and no-knock warrants"....
Doug Huffman wrote:
I understood--perhaps wrongly, that the mans door had been battered in, and at least one of the people were actually inside the house when the shots took place...
the people should completely outlaw "swat teams, and no-knock warrants"....
TFred
Regular Member
imported post
There were press reports during the trial that stated the lower door panel was broken out by the battering ram, and Frederick shot through the open panel, hitting the deceased officer.
I don't have a link, but I'm sure you could find it if you looked around.
TFred
There were press reports during the trial that stated the lower door panel was broken out by the battering ram, and Frederick shot through the open panel, hitting the deceased officer.
I don't have a link, but I'm sure you could find it if you looked around.
TFred
SaltH2OHokie
Regular Member
imported post
As I read it (and I did a lot of reading), there was a man breaking through the bottom section of the door, but Ryan Frederick shot through the door and hit the detective who ultimately died, while the detective was standing on the steps of the porch (so not the one coming through the door).
Could be wrong, and I'll dig around and see if I can find where I read that, but that was the way I've been picturing it...
ETA: From an older Pilot article:
As I read it (and I did a lot of reading), there was a man breaking through the bottom section of the door, but Ryan Frederick shot through the door and hit the detective who ultimately died, while the detective was standing on the steps of the porch (so not the one coming through the door).
Could be wrong, and I'll dig around and see if I can find where I read that, but that was the way I've been picturing it...
ETA: From an older Pilot article:
KBCraig
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
According to the report at Tidewater Liberty, the judge's instructions were:
To find the defendant guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter, the prosecution;
Must prove victim was killed.
Must prove it was intentional and impassioned.
If this sets the standard, then every legitimate case of self-defense which results in the death of the attacker, would be voluntary manslaughter.
Citizen wrote:
I substituted "malice" for "impassioned".
According to the report at Tidewater Liberty, the judge's instructions were:
To find the defendant guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter, the prosecution;
Must prove victim was killed.
Must prove it was intentional and impassioned.
If this sets the standard, then every legitimate case of self-defense which results in the death of the attacker, would be voluntary manslaughter.
imported post
That's why you shoot to stop and not to kill. If you are legally in a situation where it's lawful to shoot to stop and your target gets killed then it's still lawful. The jury must have been convinced that he wanted to kill the intruder.
That's why you shoot to stop and not to kill. If you are legally in a situation where it's lawful to shoot to stop and your target gets killed then it's still lawful. The jury must have been convinced that he wanted to kill the intruder.
SaltH2OHokie
Regular Member
imported post
ravonaf wrote:
(edit to add): Don't mean to sound like a smart ass...just asking because I'm only ever going to pull my gun in a 'shoot to kill' situation and if my shot only stops someone, then that's fine...
ravonaf wrote:
I'm not sure I follow...my .45 doesn't know the difference in shoot to stop and shoot to kill, are you saying that the law does recognize such a difference?
(edit to add): Don't mean to sound like a smart ass...just asking because I'm only ever going to pull my gun in a 'shoot to kill' situation and if my shot only stops someone, then that's fine...
wylde007
Regular Member
imported post
A wounded intruder will still try to harm you and may be even moreso motivated.
Plus, dead men tell no tales. The other officers are lucky that Ryan only had a cheap handgun and one magazine. I wager to say that would not have been the case in the homes of many OCDO denizens.
A wounded intruder will still try to harm you and may be even moreso motivated.
Plus, dead men tell no tales. The other officers are lucky that Ryan only had a cheap handgun and one magazine. I wager to say that would not have been the case in the homes of many OCDO denizens.