• 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.

Ryan Frederick Conviction

ravonaf

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
128
Location
, ,
imported post

SaltH2OHokie wrote:
ravonaf wrote:
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.
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?
Yes it does. It's all about intent. If an intruder is attacking you or others with the possibility of deadly harm it's lawful to shoot to stop. Meaning you don't want to kill the person, just save yourself and others. If a jury is convinced you where shooting to kill a person, which is above and beyond just trying to save yourself, then you can be convicted of a crime.

I know the difference is subtle and very screwed up. That's why if you are EVER in a shooting you NEVER talk to the police. Let the lawyers do the talking. If you don't know the difference and they trick you into saying you meant to kill the intruder you can be in big trouble.

However, you should still shoot center mass as that is the easiest way to stop an intruder. You still do not shoot to wound, always shoot to stop.
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
imported post

Never point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot them.

Never shoot someone unless you intend to kill them.

Basic survival.
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

TFred wrote:
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
What I had read was that a panel was broken out and that the LEO that was shot was reaching in through the holeto unlock the door and was in the process.
 

suntzu

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,230
Location
The south land
imported post

wylde007 wrote:
Never point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot them.

agreed

Never shoot someone unless you intend to kill them.

Basic survival.

disagree--you shoot to stop, not to kill...if you want to shoot to kill you join the military and become a Marine sniper.


basic survival is--using common sense and don't knowingly allow yourself to be drawn into a trap.
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
imported post

My grandfather was a USMC Lt Colonel and my dad was an Lt in the Army Corps of Engineers.

Their instructions for proper use of a firearm: Shoot at bad guy. If bad guy survives, reload and repeat as many times as necessary.
 

Smurfologist

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
536
Location
Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
imported post

My experience tells me to say that I shoot center mass! When I go to court, it will not be "shoot to stop" (is ok in court)or "shoot to kill (not ok in court)." Of course, everyone has the right to say what they want; the perception of what is said is what's pertinent.

This is an unfortunate situation. The situation (to me) will make it even harder to protect yourself in your own home. I also think it will (ultimately) make it harder to pass a "Castle Doctrine" bill as well. My two cents.

2nd Amendment.........Use it...........Or, lose it!!:X
 

hsmith

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
1,687
Location
Virginia USA, ,
imported post

You don't "shoot to kill" - you shoot to stop the threat - thats what the "jury" wants you to hear.

Now, it just so happens stopping the threat means center of mass, which should mean death.
 

TexasNative

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
856
Location
Austin, TX
imported post

Shooting to stop unfortunately means that the shot has a high likelihood of killing the threat. But self-defense dictates that I shoot to protect myself, and if stopping the threat happens to mean the threat dies, well, that's just an unfortunate result of self-preservation.

~ Boyd
 

jegoodin

Newbie
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
337
Location
Stafford, Virginia, USA
imported post

ravonaf wrote:
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.
You don't shoot to warn, wound,or "stop", if you are shooting it better be to kill since you should be in fear for your life or the life of a loved one. If you aren't fearing for a life, you shouldn't be shooting at all. You don't stop shooting until the threat has been stopped. In my mind there is a difference.
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

IANAL But.

Why are you all arguing over the semantics of this issue. Some here are arguing the nature of the language that you BETTER be using when talking to the police, prosecutor, and courtroom after the shooting. The rest are arguing the nature of the bravado they like to use in Internet postings.

The short of it is, if the application of deadly force is appropriate, everyone understands that someone could die. That is why they call it deadly force. But it is only POTENTIALLY deadly, not INTENTIONALLY deadly. The justification for the application of deadly force when you are talking to everyone in the post incident "interviews" BETTER be that you feared for your life and you fired your weapon to stop the threat. It better NOT be that you intended to kill someone by shooting them for what ever reason. All this crap about shooting to kill or shooting until the person is dead will get you put away for a very long time.

Also the use of the language you might have been taught with in the military is wrong in a civilian shooting incident. The training you got in the military was geared to an entirely different purpose then defensive shooing on the streets of this country. The language used to describe military application of deadly force in completely incompatible with defending your action on the streets of the United States.

Is this all politically correct language? You bet it is, and it is the language your lawyer will tell you to use. It is free of all this bravado and most important it does not smack of premeditation in the taking of a human life. In case you were wondering that would be murder, not self defense.

All of that said, you guys use whatever language you want. But remember this, whatever you say here will reappear in court if you EVER have to defend yourself with a firearm.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

A new article about this was published tonight, but fair warning, it will just make you mad.

The police department has apparently learned nothing, and is now promising to put their "bitter feelings in a lock box", so that they can continue to do their jobs. And a Chesapeake Detective, rather than accept any portion of blame for the SWAT/military tactics, chooses instead to blame laws against marijuana. "We don't right [sic] the laws, we enforce them and we can't be blamed for doing our jobs and enforcing laws that someone else passed," said Crimmins.

Simply amazing. I really do hope that this conviction gets thrown out on appeal. Even then, I still don't think they will learn.

TFred

http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_wavy_ryan_frederick_free_20090205

Ryan Frederick to be free in 7 1/2 yrs.


Mary Kay Mallonee

CHESAPEAKE, Va. - Ryan Frederick, who has been convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter in the killing of Chesapeake Police Officer Jarrod Shivers, will be a free man 7 1/2 years from now, according to special prosecutor Paul Ebert.

Ebert, who is back at his Northern Virginia office, told WAVY.com Frederick, by law only has to serve 85% of his sentence, which means he will serve a total of 8 1/2 years in prison.

Also, Frederick will get credit for the year he has been in jail awaiting trial, which means Frederick will be set free in 7 1/2 years, according to Ebert.

"I am very disappointed in the jury's verdict. I really thought they were going to find 2nd degree murder," said Ebert. "Detective Jarrod Shivers lost his life for no reason."

Wednesday a Chesapeake jury refused to convict Frederick of capital murder and instead found him guilty of a lesser charge, voluntary manslaughter and simple possesion of marijuana.

Detective Shivers and a team of undercover narcotics detectives went to Frederick's house on January 17, 2008 to search for a marijuana growing operation based on information from a confidential informant. Frederick shot and killed Detective Shivers as Shivers attempted to bust through his front door.

Many police officers around Hampton Roads say they are very disappointed, and concerned with the jury's verdict.

"This verdict puts the lives of police officers in jeopardy," said Detective Jack Crimmins, president of the Chesapeake Coalition of Police.

"There are a lot of disturbed people out there who would take a chance at killing a police officer for only 10 years in prison ," said Crimmins. "Mr. Frederick should be in prison for the rest of his life."

Crimmins said police officers are always there for the community when needed.

"And when something happens to one of us, we ask the community to come to our aid and when Jarrod Shivers was murdered we asked the community to come to the aid of our police officers and Jarrod's family and they failed us. So, there is some bitterness."

Crimmins quickly added that any lingering bitterness on the part of local police officers will never stop them from protecting and serving the people of Hampton Roads.

"We are able to put those bitter feelings in a lock box and go out and do our jobs and help people. But, I don't think anyone can go to Jarrod's three children right now and tell them, 'The trial is over, you have closure now.' There is no closure. This wound will be open forever."

As for widespread criticism of Chesapeake Police that they should not have put the lives of the officers or Ryan Frederick in jeopardy "over a little bit of marijuana," Detective Crimmins asks citizens to remember, police officers do not make the laws.

"We don't right the laws, we enforce them and we can't be blamed for doing our jobs and enforcing laws that someone else passed," said Crimmins.

Crimmins said if the community does not believe marijuana is serious enough to warrant police action, then the community should push their lawmakers to change the law. Until then, he said, police officers are hired to, sworn to enforce the laws on the books, they can't pick and choose which ones they believe are worth enforcing.

"We have to take risks. It's the nature of our job," said Crimmins.

Prosecutor Ebert voiced great support for the police as well.

"Police got a bad wrap from the public when they did nothing more than their job," said Ebert. "They acted professionally that night and absolutely by the book."

Ebert went on to tell WAVY.com, "In some parts of the country Mr. Frederick would be dead now because police would not have tolerated losing one of their own. But, these fellas showed a lot of restraint that night I thought."

Ebert said it would have been understandable if, on that night, the officers standing right behind Detective Shivers as he was fired upon, returned fire and shot Frederick.

"Police need more support from the community, but I don't know how they could have been more careful than they were in this case," said Ebert.

The judge on Ryan Frederick's case is set to make a final ruling on Frederick's sentence in May.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

TFred wrote:
Ebert went on to tell WAVY.com, "In some parts of the country Mr. Frederick would be dead now because police would not have tolerated losing one of their own. But, these fellas showed a lot of restraint that night I thought."

Ebert said it would have been understandable if, on that night, the officers standing right behind Detective Shivers as he was fired upon, returned fire and shot Frederick.
Translation: "We could've murdered that guy, and with a dead cop already on the scene, we'd have got away with it no problemo. But we're such nice guys, ya know."
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

TFred quoted:
SNIP Ebert said it would have been understandable if, on that night, the officers standing right behind Detective Shivers as he was fired upon, returned fire and shot Frederick.
Perhapsguilty consciences caused their fortitude to desert them.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:
IANAL But.

Why are you all arguing over the semantics of this issue. Some here are arguing the nature of the language that you BETTER be using when talking to the police, prosecutor, and courtroom after the shooting. The rest are arguing the nature of the bravado they like to use in Internet postings.

The short of it is, if the application of deadly force is appropriate, everyone understands that someone could die. That is why they call it deadly force. But it is only POTENTIALLY deadly, not INTENTIONALLY deadly. The justification for the application of deadly force when you are talking to everyone in the post incident "interviews" BETTER be that you feared for your life and you fired your weapon to stop the threat. It better NOT be that you intended to kill someone by shooting them for what ever reason. All this crap about shooting to kill or shooting until the person is dead will get you put away for a very long time.

Also the use of the language you might have been taught with in the military is wrong in a civilian shooting incident. The training you got in the military was geared to an entirely different purpose then defensive shooing on the streets of this country. The language used to describe military application of deadly force in completely incompatible with defending your action on the streets of the United States.

Is this all politically correct language? You bet it is, and it is the language your lawyer will tell you to use. It is free of all this bravado and most important it does not smack of premeditation in the taking of a human life. In case you were wondering that would be murder, not self defense.

All of that said, you guys use whatever language you want. But remember this, whatever you say here will reappear in court if you EVER have to defend yourself with a firearm.

+1

This has been discussed so many times that at a certain point, and after repeated refusal of education, onehas to almost suspectthat the "kill"-ers are trolls trying to make the rest of us look bad.

Any nonsense about "dead men tell no tales" needs to stop. It too easily looks like killing threats and threats-that-stopped. Killing someone who has stopped being a threat is a crime as I understand it. As I understand it, your lawful authority ends when the threat ends.

If you disagree with these points, you should research self-defense scenarios and see how many different ways an incident can evolve, how many times the shot assailant was stopped, yet lived. Discover for yourself that killingis not always necessary. The"law" alreay knows this.

The"law"hashad some40 or 50 centuries to refine the details on this, a most ancient issue. Don't think for onemoment that youare smarter than that refined wisdom.
 

scarletwahoo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
76
Location
, ,
imported post

Has anyone heard of, or is interested in heading to Chesapeake to protest the conviction of Ryan Frederick?
 

mpolo79

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
65
Location
, , Afghanistan
imported post

<blockquote>
Ebert went on to tell WAVY.com, "In some parts of the country Mr. Frederick would be dead now because police would not have tolerated losing one of their own. But, these fellas showed a lot of restraint that night I thought."
</blockquote>

That's an amazing statement.

So if someone finds themselves in the unfortunate position of Mr. Frederick, how do you make sure you come out alive? I don't want to think about the answer.

I think the reason they showed restraint is because they pissed themselves once they realized that they were dealing with someone who sincerely believed in defending his home.
 

nova

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,149
Location
US
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
TFred wrote:
Ebert went on to tell WAVY.com, "In some parts of the country Mr. Frederick would be dead now because police would not have tolerated losing one of their own. But, these fellas showed a lot of restraint that night I thought."

Ebert said it would have been understandable if, on that night, the officers standing right behind Detective Shivers as he was fired upon, returned fire and shot Frederick.
Translation: "We could've murdered that guy, and with a dead cop already on the scene, we'd have got away with it no problemo. But we're such nice guys, ya know."
That's what I got out of it.
 

T Dubya

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
914
Location
Richmond, Va, ,
imported post

nova wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
TFred wrote:
Ebert went on to tell WAVY.com, "In some parts of the country Mr. Frederick would be dead now because police would not have tolerated losing one of their own. But, these fellas showed a lot of restraint that night I thought."

Ebert said it would have been understandable if, on that night, the officers standing right behind Detective Shivers as he was fired upon, returned fire and shot Frederick.
Translation: "We could've murdered that guy, and with a dead cop already on the scene, we'd have got away with it no problemo. But we're such nice guys, ya know."
That's what I got out of it.


Me too! These kind of statements show just how much disconnect these cops and the prosecuter has with such a large part of society. This is where anti-LEO rhetoric comes from.



The statements from the prosecuter and the union president just shows pure arrogance.
 
Top