• 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.

Culpeper shooting

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
To be honest, I am in the hangem high camp but for a different reason. As I stated, if user does his job well as he is wont to do the cop will be acquitted and rightly so. If the Commonwealth does their job and is able prove beyond a reasonable doubt the cop will have his justification rejected by the people.

Either way, you, skid, user, Grapeshot, and some others are squarely in the camp of being the adults in the room. Me I'm still on the fence about being one of the adults.

+1 to you Sir.

Thanks, the welts were starting to smart!:lol:
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
If you are going to lob the soft ones over the plate, I'll swing at them. First, our system of laws, our system of adversarial criminal trial, and our system of justice as the means to protect the innocent rather than to punish the guilty all answer your question. Because, secondly, there is absolutely nothing now, nor has there been, here in Virginia, since 1604 anything to stop the state from doing just what you suggest it might do. Well, except for our system of seeking accountability as opposed to ascribing blame.
:rolleyes:

They didn't have video recorders in 1604. What's your point?


Just as nothing physically prevents you from double-tapping the cop.
Let's compare the probability of my being killed by other cops after doing so, with that of a cop being convicted after doing so to me, shall we?
:rolleyes:


I'm going to lump all of this together - you want to use the outcome of a sensational case as not the impetus to change the way policy and procedure are derived, the rationale behind the criminal prosecution of suspects, and the laws themselves but as those actual changes. Sure, this case will more likely than not highlight a staggering list of things that need to be changed. But they should not be changed by the outcome of this case. They should, instead, be changed by deliberation and the administrative and legislative procedures established and in place - unless it can be demonstrated that those are also in neeed of change.
This despite the fact that I've said half a dozen times that I'm far more interested in legislative reform than the outcome of this case. Which is pretty much, you know, the exact opposite of making the case itself into the change.
:rolleyes:

But, hey, if the other guy's statements aren't convenient enough, just pretend he said whatever best helps the point you're trying to make. I believe they call that a "straw man".


So if you do not like the way the law and the legal system works you are going to convict someone anyway to send a message that you wish things were different?
Yeah, I would. But not by preference – only because there is nothing else on the table. As I said, officers and their lobbies are complicit in the process by which reform is stifled and rendered impracticable. They made the **** sandwich – not my fault if they have to take a bite. I've provided two very reasonable options for police who don't like it. In the meantime, there is no other avenue to creating disincentive. And, some disincentive needs to come out of this case, as if the officer walks it will be an "inspiring" example of just how much police can get away with. Yes, it's perfectly reasonable for those who choose to be agents of the state to bear this burden. The instant one becomes an agent of the state, his interests become secondary to that of the people, as the interests of the state, where distinct, are secondary to the interests of the people. And if an individual doesn't wish his interests to be tied to the interests of the state, then he oughtn't to seek a career in service to the state.

Remember the Nuremberg trials? Kind of the same thing, but without a holocaust.


At the moment they seem to have more influence than you and those who support your views. That's pretty much the way a representative republic works, as opposed to mob rule whether it disguises itself as a democracy or not. That was the position of those wanting to improve the access to civil rights of a significant population of this country. They went from roughly 1865 to 1943 trying to go along to get along. Teen, when a small crack appeared, they became "uppity"[SUP]![/SUP] and started exerting more and more pressure until they got most of what they said they wanted - by convincing the rest of the population that it was either "the right thing to do" or it was less troublesome than trying to cling to the way things used to be and how things used to get done. Somewhere between 1954 and 1975 they in fact got as much as they were willing to push for.

But you? No! "What do we want? - Not really sure, boss. When do we want it? Right now!!"
Oh yeah, because I haven't been painfully specific about the very small number of reforms I think are necessary to restore a proper balance.
Back to this:
:rolleyes:

Sure it would be nice if everybody agreed to do "the right thing" - and even better if we all agreed what "the right thing" is. But since society is made up of human beings and human beings (along with the other great apes and the lesser apes and monkeys) tend to operate based on power it becomes necessary to change the base of power. Humans have at least said (if not practiced) that it is better to change power through negotiation and compromise than by force. There have always been outliers to that concept. I say you are now one of those outliers.
That's nice. I can't control what you think, nor what conclusions you force from what you've been presented with. Know, however, that it says nothing about me, and plenty about yourself.

By the way, this is another of those things you say which is beyond merely ironic, in a couple different ways. See if you can figure it out.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
It is no accident that I make every attempt to avoid jumping to conclusions. I neither apologize nor make excuses for the officer. So too do I not subscribe manufactured details regarding the lady, her reasons, thought process or reactions. I have sincere reservations and questions as to what transpired that day, but hold them in abeyance for now. Whether I express them or not at a later time will be my choice alone.

My lord, Grape! How many times do I have to say, I'm not interested in playing trial? Manufactured details serve to illustrate a possibility which necessitates reform. She could have been a meth head for all we know. But, the important fact is that, from what we do know, she was guilty of nothing more than a handful of highly dubious allegations of felonious behavior, made only after the fact in justification.

This is why I prefer (and have repeatedly stated my preference for) legislative reform over courtroom lynching. She could, for all we know, be much worse than anybody suspects, and the officer "pure as the driven snow".

But we don't know that. From what we do know, she was guilty of nothing beyond the allegations made by her killer, for which we must trust his word. And, unlike Joe Citizen, her killer uses his duty as a defense, a duty which also happens to provide him with the video recorder he ought to have been required to turn on (knowing in advance he was going to make a contact) to back up his claim. This creates both a possibility for abuse, which requires reform, and suggests a trivial solution requiring nothing more than a policy change.

That's all I'm saying.

I did say that I'd tolerate a conviction if reform were not forthcoming, as the citizenry deserve some disincentive for police to abuse this possibility. Perhaps I should not have said that, as you and Skid have latched on to it like a dog to a bone, and use it – manipulatively due to its sensational overtones – as a straw man for my actual argument, so that you can ignore it entirely, and focus your attention on destroying what you wish my argument was.

+1 To the adults.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
....

By the way, this is another of those things you say which is beyond merely ironic, in a couple different ways. See if you can figure it out.

Sorry, but I'm thick as three bricks. Guess you'll have to spell it out for me - please use short words. And type slowly 'cause I don't read too fast.

stay safe.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Grapeshot

It is no accident that I make every attempt to avoid jumping to conclusions. I neither apologize nor make excuses for the officer. So too do I not subscribe manufactured details regarding the lady, her reasons, thought process or reactions. I have sincere reservations and questions as to what transpired that day, but hold them in abeyance for now. Whether I express them or not at a later time will be my choice alone.

My lord, Grape! How many times do I have to say, I'm not interested in playing trial? --snip--

You redirect the point to being about you and your preference of not "playing trial". What I objected to rather strenuously was that you chose to belittle Skidmark and I for allegedly siding with the officer -we were described as being "so intent on being apologists for this cop" - amongst other negative and inaccurate conclusions.

I have repeatedly expressed both my general concern and my intent to maintain public neutrality. It is to the latter that my quoted reply above relates..........not to your intents.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
My lord, Grape! How many times do I have to say, I'm not interested in playing trial? Manufactured details serve to illustrate a possibility which necessitates reform. She could have been a meth head for all we know. But, the important fact is that, from what we do know, she was guilty of nothing more than a handful of highly dubious allegations of felonious behavior, made only after the fact in justification.
....

And there's a possibility that you are a fool. Policy, especially public policy, should not be altered on the possibility that someone did/might do something criminal. But if you really believe your assertion I will be more than happy to demonstrate the consequences you would incur.


But we don't know that. From what we do know, she was guilty of nothing beyond the allegations made by her killer, for which we must trust his word.

In spite of your "not wanting to play trial" the rest of us have agreed to the notion that when such is the case we turn the matter over to a trier of facts - the jury (unless the defendant is willing to take a chance with the judge being both judge and jury). What you are saying is that we should not try the facts. Instead we should glom onto a position based on emotionalism and whip it for all it's worth.


And, unlike Joe Citizen, her killer uses his duty as a defense, a duty which also happens to provide him with the video recorder he ought to have been required to turn on (knowing in advance he was going to make a contact) to back up his claim. This creates both a possibility for abuse, which requires reform, and suggests a trivial solution requiring nothing more than a policy change.

Sure, making cops turn on their dash cameras at the start of shift and keep it on till end of shift might offer additional information which might also be useful as evidence. But what you really seem to want to is videographer who can move about and select the best camera angle as the dynamic situation evolves. How are you going to pay for that? And what if the videographer does not get "the" best angle to show what's taking place? ultimatefacepalm.png

Also - I ask you to show me how the proferred defense is any different from that Joe Citizen has access to. Yes, there is a perception, based on something that is not quite "data", that he will get a more tolerant acceptance of that defense based on his position as a cop. Except that he has been thrown under the bus already.



That's all I'm saying.

Hoist by your own petard.


I did say that I'd tolerate a conviction if reform were not forthcoming, as the citizenry deserve some disincentive for police to abuse this possibility. Perhaps I should not have said that, as you and Skid have latched on to it like a dog to a bone, and use it – manipulatively due to its sensational overtones – as a straw man for my actual argument, so that you can ignore it entirely, and focus your attention on destroying what you wish my argument was. ....

Again, you would accept a manufactured conviction in order to punish the defendant criminally, in the hope that doing so would then lead him and his supervisors, and through them "the system", to penalties that might be so egregious as to compel them to enact some "reform" in order to avoid a repetition of the egregious penalty.

But did you forget that there is a mandatory monetary cap on civil damage awards, and that localities can generally afford paying that amount without batting an eye? Did you forget that if it is shown that the cop was acting outside his assigned and lawful duties his supervisors and the Town are excused from any civil suit? Did you forget that punishing someone to "make a point" is a violation of the 8th Amendment and they can mount an appeal with a more than fair chance of reversal because of that?

stay safe.

PS - have you ever been aware that I have never posted my thoughts about what I hope and wish and pray the outcome of the trial will be? That I have all along been advocating for following the established policies and the existing case law unless a convincing argument can be advanced why that line of reasoning needs to be changed?
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
And there's a possibility that you are a fool. Policy, especially public policy, should not be altered on the possibility that someone did/might do something criminal.

Nice redirect attempt.

We're not talking about merely a possibility of just anybody doing something criminal. We're talking a current state of affairs where the state, or its agents, can simply murder anybody with no more scrutiny than having to make an ex post facto allegation of "felonious behavior", which can be trivially applied to just about anybody. And, I have offered a simple way to make that much more difficult.

This speaks for itself. My concerns, and suggestions, are eminently reasonable. You, obviously, are simply unconcerned. Let's hope the blind faith you place in the state and its agents is not misplaced.

Sure, making cops turn on their dash cameras at the start of shift and keep it on till end of shift might offer additional information which might also be useful as evidence. But what you really seem to want to is videographer who can move about and select the best camera angle as the dynamic situation evolves. How are you going to pay for that? And what if the videographer does not get "the" best angle to show what's taking place?

Nice attempt at a reductio ad absurdum. Too bad you failed. I never said the video had to actually provide usable evidence. I merely observed that, when the police are equipped with video recording devices, but they are not utilized, it creates doubt in the minds of the citizenry, when instead there is a potential for transparency which we are entitled to.

As I already pointed out, in this case the officer is either A: guilty, in which case he benefits from the lack of video, or B: innocent, in which case he is harmed by its absence. In neither case does he, or the citizenry, get what is deserved. The most useless video couldn't be as actively bad as this absence.

So, once again, I never suggested anything which would even approach requiring a "videographer who can move about" and pick the best camera angles. That is your straw man. I merely said that, since we have all these laws creating these oh-so-difficult and sympathy-engendering obligations on the part of officers, we should as well have a law which requires them, so they don't "forget", to turn on whatever video cameras they are equipped with. You know, for their protection. Since, you know, they are always well-intentioned and trustworthy. Who can be opposed to laws designed to protect police? What, are you exhibiting anti-cop bias or something?

But did you forget that there is a mandatory monetary cap on civil damage awards, and that localities can generally afford paying that amount without batting an eye? Did you forget that if it is shown that the cop was acting outside his assigned and lawful duties his supervisors and the Town are excused from any civil suit? Did you forget that punishing someone to "make a point" is a violation of the 8th Amendment and they can mount an appeal with a more than fair chance of reversal because of that?

When did I say anything about a civil award?
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Must be an awful large cap then.

A family in Albemarle County recently got $4.5 million in damages in a wrongful death at the hands of cops.

http://www.newsplex.com/home/headlines/4680851.html

As Mashaul is wont to say: "Nice redirect", but no cigar. Apples and oranges.

"Grossly negligent" means there is no soverign immunity. The cops were sued as individuals, and there is no cap on awards there - although how the plaintiffs expect to collect is beyond my ken. Even personal tort insurance will not cover gross negligence.

The civil suit in the present case is against the cop as agent of the Town, and against the Town. Go look at what happened to the awards for the families who did not take the Commonwealth's settlement offer.

stay safe.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Nice redirect attempt.

We're not talking about merely a possibility of just anybody doing something criminal. We're talking a current state of affairs where the state, or its agents, can simply murder anybody with no more scrutiny than having to make an ex post facto allegation of "felonious behavior", which can be trivially applied to just about anybody. And, I have offered a simple way to make that much more difficult.

This speaks for itself. My concerns, and suggestions, are eminently reasonable. You, obviously, are simply unconcerned. Let's hope the blind faith you place in the state and its agents is not misplaced.

Proof, please.

Nice attempt at a reductio ad absurdum. Too bad you failed. I never said the video had to actually provide usable evidence. I merely observed that, when the police are equipped with video recording devices, but they are not utilized, it creates doubt in the minds of the citizenry, when instead there is a potential for transparency which we are entitled to.

As I already pointed out, in this case the officer is either A: guilty, in which case he benefits from the lack of video, or B: innocent, in which case he is harmed by its absence. In neither case does he, or the citizenry, get what is deserved. The most useless video couldn't be as actively bad as this absence.

So, once again, I never suggested anything which would even approach requiring a "videographer who can move about" and pick the best camera angles. That is your straw man. I merely said that, since we have all these laws creating these oh-so-difficult and sympathy-engendering obligations on the part of officers, we should as well have a law which requires them, so they don't "forget", to turn on whatever video cameras they are equipped with. You know, for their protection. Since, you know, they are always well-intentioned and trustworthy. Who can be opposed to laws designed to protect police? What, are you exhibiting anti-cop bias or something?

Why do we need a law* to attend to something that can be handled by policy at the local level, or at the very most be made a part of state-wide certification standards? Or are you more inclined to seek out punishment than to actually amend something you see as not working as well as it could?

*It seems you either forgot, or possibly never knew, the limits on the extent to which the Legislature can reach down into the day-to-day operations of the localities, let alone the sub-units of the localities.

When did I say anything about a civil award?

1 - the suit that has been filed (a civil action) has been filed against the cop and the Town. I only repeated what Mr. Cook and his attorney(s) said.

2 - This is another instance where you either forgot your civics lessons or intentionally want to alter the way in which our whole society works - and I'm voting for the latter.

There is already a question before the bar of justice regarding whether or not the actions amount to criminality. Should it be found that they do, there are proscribed punishments established by law. Those punishments are restricted to the los of liberty - at best you could try to get the time limit extended from it's current position.

The General Assembly is required by their own rules to do a cost analysis of such a move - betcha didn't know that. They are going to answer to the taxpayers for how much more will be spent because of instituting the "Marshaul Plan" and have set themselves up to be able to decide (first of all) if they want to and (then) how they will answer.

And we come around again to
Or are you more inclined to seek out punishment than to actually amend something you see as not working as well as it could?
I guess you skipped over my 8th Amendment comment completely. As well as forgetting/ignoring the difference in purpose in punishment and social policy. (Let me get this out of the way so you do not bog down discussion with an attempt to misdirect - as an example, folks talk about the "deterrent value" of the death penalty,, But that is merely a side benefit that we know has never worked -- name on person who stopped suddenly and said (to the effect) "Oh, no! I better not kill this person because I could ge the death penalty!") Your attempt to use punishment to "amend something" will run afoul of the appellate system whether finally at the state or federal level. All you will have done is cause the needless expenditure of funds seeking to uphold an unsound and unconstitutional idea.

What I have seen but so far refrained from commenting on is your desire to use the majesty of the law to correct everything. Therere names for folks who think like that - very ugly, spiteful, hurtful names such as Democrat, nanny-stater, and liberal.

stay safe.
 

Sheriff

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,968
Location
Virginia, USA
The civil suit in the present case is against the cop as agent of the Town, and against the Town.

Gonna have to disagree with you here. I have the lawsuit laying right in front of me as I type this. A Daniel W. Harmon-Wright is the only named defendant. Culpeper is not named as a defendant. The lawsuit of course highlights the fact that he was a police officer in Culpeper, but this still does not bring Culpeper in as a co-defendant. The suit goes on in page 6 to claim defendant Harmon-Wright engaged in unlawful conduct (a/k/a wrongful death). On page 7 the lawsuit asks for $5 million in compensatory damages, and the state law cap of $350,000 for punitive damages from defendant Harmon-Wright solely.

I think you are thinking of the cap state law puts on punitive damages.

I repeat, Culpeper is not named as a defendant or co-defendant anywhere in the lawsuit.
 
Last edited:

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
...2 - This is another instance where you either forgot your civics lessons or intentionally want to alter the way in which our whole society works - and I'm voting for the latter....

Probably neither - give him the benefit of the doubt - he probably got all his "civics lessons" from public schools and television.
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Cool,,,

Probably neither - give him the benefit of the doubt - he probably got all his "civics lessons" from public schools and television.

I just knew that it would come to this.

Attack the poster, and his message.
Kill the messanger!

Their is no valid arguement in dissent of the "made up minds of the "deleted group"".
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Public policy is routinely changed based on what a citizen (not THE citizen of OCDO) might do criminally.....happens all the time. BUT, it rarely occurs to our elected officials to 'adjust' public policy on what a cop might do criminally. This is because cops can and do get away with 'murder'....literally sometimes.

The goal here....er, my hope to be more precise, is for the beat cop to have a doubt in his mind that his masters may not be inclined to 'stick-up for' one of their thug minions if that thug minion makes a poor choice, or a publicly unpopular one. Let the beat cop second guess himself on the potential outcome of his shoot. When in doubt don't shoot, call for back-up and nab any future felonious church ladies in a more controllable manner sans the shooting a half mag from their service weapon.

Typically, cops shoot somebody who needed getting shot. But, just because you are a cop does not mean that you should count on your masters to cover your backside just because you are one of those on the 'in'.

As to him being thrown under the bus....tough toenails. Welcome to the world of the citizenry when a thug cop turns our world upside down due to a cops nitwittery.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Probably neither - give him the benefit of the doubt - he probably got all his "civics lessons" from public schools and television.
Where civics lessons are concerned, there is the 'book version' learned in schools....even public schools vs. the 'version used' by those who are charged with implementing civics related stuff.
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
well,,,

I just knew that it would come to this.

Attack the poster, and his message.
Kill the messanger!

Their is no valid arguement in dissent of the "made up minds of the "deleted group"".

I want to thank Peternap for his PM in response to this post..
I get a kick out of being adressed as "Junior".

I can assure Peter and the "Others" th t what I have to say in this thread, has been said by me, right here, right now.
Other points that I wished to express about the Shooting,
and points of the law in effect there, at that time,
have been well expressed by many other thoughtfull posters.

In addition, thoughts about ways to avoid the questionable nature of this shooting,
have lead to personnal attacks against a poster, by a moderator!

It seems reasonable for User to paint a one sided picture of his Client, but
,,, well you know the rest...
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
I want to thank Peternap for his PM in response to this post..
I get a kick out of being adressed as "Junior".

I can assure Peter and the "Others" th t what I have to say in this thread, has been said by me, right here, right now.
Other points that I wished to express about the Shooting,
and points of the law in effect there, at that time,
have been well expressed by many other thoughtfull posters.

In addition, thoughts about ways to avoid the questionable nature of this shooting,
have lead to personnal attacks against a poster, by a moderator!

It seems reasonable for User to paint a one sided picture of his Client, but
,,, well you know the rest...

This isn't the thread I was talking about. Why don't you drink a cup of coffee before you put on your cheer leading outfit! But as long as you took it down here...spit it out. Let's hear about those personal attacks.

No, I don't know the rest...why don't you tell me?
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
well,,,

This isn't the thread I was talking about. Why don't you drink a cup of coffee before you put on your cheer leading outfit! But as long as you took it down here...spit it out. Let's hear about those personal attacks.

No, I don't know the rest...why don't you tell me?

I stand corrected,,, the attack came from User,,, not you.
coffee wouldnt help,,, im delexic,,, again,, sory for the false accusation.

Sooo the PM was in response my post in the july 10 get together?
Where I dont think I quoted anybody,,, just talked about a poster that many, of a group, have on Ignore?
I belive that post was complete, and could stand alone by itself.
I will now stoop this silly man to man banter and address the thread at hand.

If the church lady had been stopped for a broken tail light,
the cop would have used his emergancy lights, automaticly activating his dashcam recorder.
this would have added greatly to the body of availible evidence and facts.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
If the church lady had been stopped for a broken tail light,
the cop would have used his emergancy lights, automaticly activating his dashcam recorder.
this would have added greatly to the body of availible evidence and facts.

Yeah, if she had been stopped for that... and maybe the dashcam would have activated, that's not an across the board thing. IMO it should be but there are a lot of shoulda been things, that will be addressed in the General Assembly regarding this.

There should be an elected citizen review board in every jurisdiction....lots of things that should be.

In this case we have to deal with what we have though.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
--snip--

In addition, thoughts about ways to avoid the questionable nature of this shooting,
have lead to personnal(sic) attacks against a poster, by a moderator!

Cite please.

BTW - false allegation of wrong doing is tantamount to a personal attack.

Edited to reflect the apparent error in claiming Peter Nap's postings here were personal attacks. Now as to a Moderator's alleged misconduct, please cite or withdraw the comment, sir.
 
Last edited:
Top