Culpeper shooting

Maverick9 said:

...We can't seem to get anyone to say what happened...

Click to expand...

Because the only other participant is dead.

user said:

SNIP The trial was about the five shots he put in the back of the vehicle after he'd gotten free.

Click to expand...

Point taken. Personally, I tend to think that an arbitrary delineation of the argument (the state's, not yours). But, I've formed my own opinion on the case overall and don't feel like arguing about it much anymore.

Check your PM's for something else.

Maverick9 said:

Since we seem to be continuing to beat this horse that's nailed to his perch, may I offer a thought.

Would it be fair to say that if a party (the other side) could show, or if the defense could not show how a seemingly impossible action could have taken place that it would tend to impeach Harmon-Wright's entire account of the event?

I wonder if the jury was taken to the parking lot and Mr HW was allowed to reenact the events in near real time. Show how he did each action. How he pulled up, where her car was, how he confronted her at the driver's side window, how he got his hand caught (with a person in the drivers' seat rolling up the window with gusto, for example), and how he deployed the firearm on his right hip at, oh, 4:00 with his left hand?

Don't most LE suggest that the officer reach into the car with their LEFT hand to avoid being prevented from drawing if needed?

We can't seem to get anyone to say what happened. I don't suggest that User do it, because the case is on-going, though he's discussed quite a bit here.

Further is there a chance that the entire recounting and testimony could be released some day?

Click to expand...

I didn't understand the first question, seemed to pose a hypothetical, but I didn't get it.

The jury did go on "a view", but all they were allowed to do was walk around and look at the parking lot and stuff; both sides were kept away while they did so.

It's considered bad form to reach into a detainee's vehicle for just this reason, and that's the one thing that the officer wished he could take back, but he figured the woman was a routine encounter with an average citizen, and wasn't as careful as he might have been.

A full transcript is available, should you wish to obtain one, from Lane's Ct Rptr in Charlottesville.

marshaul said:

Right. Because it's totally justified to shoot people so long as they're black and are committing at least one malum prohibitum offense.

Do you really not see how you shoot your own arguments in the foot? I used to think you were just being a good attorney for a client with an unwinnable case, but...



Fair enough. In which case, since the proffered defense was fundamentally precedential (common law), you've been informed by a jury exactly how mistaken your understanding of the common law is.

You don't get to declare what the common law is any more than government does. That's wholly up to juries. And, thankfully, juries don't believe cops should be as trigger happy as you apparently do.

With that in mind, I'd like to opine that the only thing which makes questioning the verdict of a jury any less "contempt of court" than questioning the judgements of a costumed agent of the state, is precisely the lack of that costumed agent taking personal offense.

Something about respect demanded where not earned and hypocritically not granted in reciprocation...

Click to expand...

Error again. Juries are there to decide what the facts are; the Judge is supposed to decide what the law is and instruct the jury as to the law that applies to the case. The jury, while acting as "the conscience of the community" is required to apply the law as instructed to the facts as they see them.

user said:

SNIP Juries are there to decide what the facts are; the Judge is supposed to decide what the law is and instruct the jury as to the law that applies to the case. The jury, while acting as "the conscience of the community" is required to apply the law as instructed to the facts as they see them.

Click to expand...

Uh-oh. I foresee trouble over these statements.

Magna Carta (trial by the country), Bushell's case (juror imprisoned for judging the law, circa 1650 AD), and a couple SCOTUS cases in the early days of this republic all recognize the power of a jury to judge the law as well as the facts. This is an ancient power designed to reduce the power of government to just make any law it wants and enforce it.

Professor James Duane of Regent University Law School, the host of the video Talking to Police on YouTube, is also involved in FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association). Their website has more information on the subject.

Also, the first section of Lysander Spooner's Trial by Jury lays out a very good explanation of the powers and purpose of a jury. If you simply read the first section, you will know more about the purpose of a jury than 95% of Americans. Very, very informative.

user said:

I didn't understand the first question, seemed to pose a hypothetical, but I didn't get it.

The jury did go on "a view", but all they were allowed to do was walk around and look at the parking lot and stuff; both sides were kept away while they did so.

It's considered bad form to reach into a detainee's vehicle for just this reason, and that's the one thing that the officer wished he could take back, but he figured the woman was a routine encounter with an average citizen, and wasn't as careful as he might have been.

A full transcript is available, should you wish to obtain one, from Lane's Ct Rptr in Charlottesville.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your patience and kind reply. The first question was what if a reenactment attempt showed that the defendant, Mr H-W claimed something -verbally- that was clearly impossible when asked to -show- as in a walk through, it suddenly became clear he couldn't have done what he said.

For example "I stood at point A and pointed my firearm in a direction that was safe from collateral damage and fired at the fleeing felon". Then, hypothetically it is seen there is no such place to stand (too much cross-traffic, playground in the line of sight).

Or perhaps he claimed to have an arm caught but it looked like he couldn't draw his firearm AND be caught, AND shoot out the window to free himself. If the wounds were on his right hand, meaning the hand was caught, and when asked to show how he reached his holster and retention release, couldn't do it.

For that reason I would think that the prosecutor would want that, but at the same time it appears they though they had a slam-dunk and didn't need to muddy the waters. Your side proposing doing that would only complicate things and maybe raise more doubt about his story.

Guess I answered my own question, heh.

user said:

SNIP A crime is an offense against the dignity of the state. The style of the case tells it all, "Commonwealth of Virginia v. Joe Defendant"...The drive to turn every criminal prosecution into "seeking justice for the victim" is merely a way to water down the protection available to every citizen to be free of baseless criminal charges by making it easier to get convictions where the defendant isn't necessarily guilty of whatever it says he did in the warrant or indictment.

Click to expand...

OK. I'll nibble at that bait. It'll be more interesting than going around in circles on Harmon-Wright.

---------------------------

"A crime is an offense against the dignity of the state." This is a concept that can be traced directly to Henry II (from 1154 AD), and his successful attempts to expand his royal power and influence by sending royal judges on "eyre" (circuits). A Plantagenet king, a Norman. An invader--starting with William the Conquerer in 1066, and ending with Henry II's son, king John circa 1217 who was the same king cornered at Runnymeade and forced at sword-point to accede to Magna Carta.

It is a concept alien and in contradiction to the common law. In fact, the whole reason the common law was asserted, and demanded was precisely because the Norman invaders pushed their law on the Britons. This is why Magna Carta makes reference to trial by the law of the land--it is referring to the ancient common law of England, the laws and customs that pre-dated the Norman invasion in 1066, legal customs and concepts that existed before law was written down (the period between the end of Roman rule over Britannia and the consolidation of power by Anglo-Saxon kings, say for the moment, Alfred the Great in the 800's, as a reference point where laws might have actually started being written down and disseminated again.)

Prior to Henry II's move to expand his power, trials were by ordeal (dunking in water, carrying a very hot iron) and battle. Trials were held, for example, every three months at the manor of the lord. Henry's judges offered an option--the accused could be judged by a royal judge instead of maybe drowning, having his hand badly burned, or losing combat. The accused had to ask for it--the beginnings of pleading guilty or not guilty. This last point, consent to be judged by the king's judge, morphed over time, but even in Tudor England (1500's), the courts felt impotent to proceed until the accused pled guilty or not guilty. Thus, in Elizabeth I's time (1558 to 1603), during the period of religious strife, some people were pressed with heavy iron, even unto death, to force them to plead to the indictment. This was not considered torture. It emphatically was not to coerce confession. It was to force them to plead to the indictment. Without that plea, government was powerless to proceed. Of significant importance is that the people being pressed were accused of political crimes--crimes against the state, crimes against the dictates of the Privy Council and Elizabeth.

Just for perspective, in the early days of this country, crime victims prosecuted their own cases. The government attorney only got involved in the most serious crimes. Even the name tells the tale: pro se cutor. For self speaker.

The idea that a crime is a crime against the dignity of the state is nothing more than a holdover from an usurpation that occurred long ago. Not at all unlike sovereign immunity--the idea that the king can do no wrong, and no mortal man can judge him because he rules by divine right. These are just legal artifices, constructs designed to give the state more legitimacy and power than it deserves.

Even if one argues that "the people" are sovereign (a crime being an offense against "the people'), it still misses. Such an argument relies on collective-ism: a crime against a single person is a crime against all.

Who knows where we'd be today if Henry II hadn't been power-hungry, trying to expand illegitimate power seized by his forebear William the Conqueror. Or, perhaps more to the point, to where might we progress if we abandon old, old legal falsehoods and continue the march toward liberty started on that morning in 1775 in Lexington and Concord?*



*Actually, the march toward liberty began far earlier--Magna Carta, at least. English political history to 1776 is one long story of government abusing or even squashing rights, and the victims pushing back, winning one piece of a right at a time across 560 years. Half a millennium of blood, smoke, treasure and suffering as men and women pushed back against the power-hungry.

Citizen said:

OK. I'll nibble at that bait. It'll be more interesting than going around in circles on Harmon-Wright.

---------------------------

"A crime is an offense against the dignity of the state." This is a concept that can be traced directly to Henry II (from 1154 AD), and his successful attempts to expand his royal power and influence by sending royal judges on "eyre" (circuits). A Plantagenet king, a Norman. An invader--starting with William the Conquerer in 1066, and ending with Henry II's son, king John circa 1217 who was the same king cornered at Runnymeade and forced at sword-point to accede to Magna Carta.

It is a concept alien and in contradiction to the common law. In fact, the whole reason the common law was asserted, and demanded was precisely because the Norman invaders pushed their law on the Britons. This is why Magna Carta makes reference to trial by the law of the land--it is referring to the ancient common law of England, the laws and customs that pre-dated the Norman invasion in 1066, legal customs and concepts that existed before law was written down (the period between the end of Roman rule over Britannia and the consolidation of power by Anglo-Saxon kings, say for the moment, Alfred the Great in the 800's, as a reference point where laws might have actually started being written down and disseminated again.)

Prior to Henry II's move to expand his power, trials were by ordeal (dunking in water, carrying a very hot iron) and battle. Trials were held, for example, every three months at the manor of the lord. Henry's judges offered an option--the accused could be judged by a royal judge instead of maybe drowning, having his hand badly burned, or losing combat. The accused had to ask for it--the beginnings of pleading guilty or not guilty. This last point, consent to be judged by the king's judge, morphed over time, but even in Tudor England (1500's), the courts felt impotent to proceed until the accused pled guilty or not guilty. Thus, in Elizabeth I's time (1558 to 1603), during the period of religious strife, some people were pressed with heavy iron, even unto death, to force them to plead to the indictment. This was not considered torture. It emphatically was not to coerce confession. It was to force them to plead to the indictment. Without that plea, government was powerless to proceed. Of significant importance is that the people being pressed were accused of political crimes--crimes against the state, crimes against the dictates of the Privy Council and Elizabeth.

Just for perspective, in the early days of this country, crime victims prosecuted their own cases. The government attorney only got involved in the most serious crimes. Even the name tells the tale: pro se cutor. For self speaker.

The idea that a crime is a crime against the dignity of the state is nothing more than a holdover from an usurpation that occurred long ago. Not at all unlike sovereign immunity--the idea that the king can do no wrong, and no mortal man can judge him because he rules by divine right. These are just legal artifices, constructs designed to give the state more legitimacy and power than it deserves.

Even if one argues that "the people" are sovereign (a crime being an offense against "the people'), it still misses. Such an argument relies on collective-ism: a crime against a single person is a crime against all.

Who knows where we'd be today if Henry II hadn't been power-hungry, trying to expand illegitimate power seized by his forebear William the Conqueror. Or, perhaps more to the point, to where might we progress if we abandon old, old legal falsehoods and continue the march toward liberty started on that morning in 1775 in Lexington and Concord?*



*Actually, the march toward liberty began far earlier--Magna Carta, at least. English political history to 1776 is one long story of government abusing or even squashing rights, and the victims pushing back, winning one piece of a right at a time across 560 years. Half a millennium of blood, smoke, treasure and suffering as men and women pushed back against the power-hungry.

Click to expand...

Crimes committed by persons against other persons who were the subjects of the king (the state) or against things under dominion of the king (e.g. poaching), become offenses against the dignity of the state. Kings were arrogant bastards. All we've managed to do since Lexington & Concord is eliminate the king and replace him with the state, which we have empowered to govern. Now the agents who do the governing are the arrogant bastards.

2a4all said:

Crimes committed by persons against other persons who were the subjects of the king (the state) or against things under dominion of the king (e.g. poaching), become offenses against the dignity of the state. Kings were arrogant bastards. All we've managed to do since Lexington & Concord is eliminate the king and replace him with the state, which we have empowered to govern. Now the agents who do the governing are the arrogant bastards.

Click to expand...

Best comment in 94 pages.

Citizen said:

Uh-oh. I foresee trouble over these statements.

Magna Carta (trial by the country), Bushell's case (juror imprisoned for judging the law, circa 1650 AD), and a couple SCOTUS cases in the early days of this republic all recognize the power of a jury to judge the law as well as the facts. This is an ancient power designed to reduce the power of government to just make any law it wants and enforce it.

Professor James Duane of Regent University Law School, the host of the video Talking to Police on YouTube, is also involved in FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association). Their website has more information on the subject.

Also, the first section of Lysander Spooner's Trial by Jury lays out a very good explanation of the powers and purpose of a jury. If you simply read the first section, you will know more about the purpose of a jury than 95% of Americans. Very, very informative.

Click to expand...

...or, simply put, jury nullification...judges, and by extension, the state, hate this "power." But, it may very well be that a uppity judge/prosecutor (the state?) would work to nullify the juries decision...the one they don't agree with that is.

The dead church lady was a violent and dangerous criminal, bent on wreaking death and destruction across the land, who, it seems was without a criminal record...who knew.

OC for ME said:

The dead church lady was a violent and dangerous criminal, bent on wreaking death and destruction across the land, who, it seems was without a criminal record...who knew.

Click to expand...

Quite the opposite. The deceased woman was someone who was suffering from some kind of apparent mental breakdown. Her immediate actions were so dangerous to the lives of this officer and the nearby public that she needed to be stopped quickly, so as to not kill or seriously injure others, as she had attempted to do with the officer.

ProShooter said:

Quite the opposite. The deceased woman was someone who was suffering from some kind of apparent mental breakdown. Her immediate actions were so dangerous to the lives of this officer and the nearby public that she needed to be stopped quickly, so as to not kill or seriously injure others, as she had attempted to do with the officer.

Click to expand...

Was forensic evidence introduced at trial to substantiate your allegation, that she was suffering a mental breakdown? Or, were her reactions based on the aggressive nature of the cop's actions. My question may not have been introduced at the cop's trial, it may remain unanswered/unanswerable.

ProShooter said:

Quite the opposite. The deceased woman was someone who was suffering from some kind of apparent mental breakdown. Her immediate actions were so dangerous to the lives of this officer and the nearby public that she needed to be stopped quickly, so as to not kill or seriously injure others, as she had attempted to do with the officer.

Click to expand...

OC for ME said:

Was forensic evidence introduced at trial to substantiate your allegation, that she was suffering a mental breakdown? Or, were her reactions based on the aggressive nature of the cop's actions. My question may not have been introduced at the cop's trial, it may remain unanswered/unanswerable.

Click to expand...

Purely for the sake of conversation, there is no need to "substantiate" an "apparent" (opinion) breakdown.

She had apparently developed an obsession with stalking the kids there, been told she wasn't welcome and to leave, but still persisted. IMO her actions were not consistent with someone thinking right.

Can't understand why we are still beating this cold horse.

Grapeshot said:

Can't understand why we are still beating this cold horse.

Click to expand...

Perhaps its because sometimes the court of public opinion wants to right a wrong.

Wowwie!!!,,, But off topic,,, Is the horse is dead??

glockfan said:

I wonder is it possible for anyone to say in this forum that he was guilty and got probably less prison time than he deserved.

Click to expand...

skidmark said:

Obviously it is possible.

But is it necessary for you to insult the wisdom of the judge? You do realize that is considered contempt of court and you can be brought in front of the judge on either civil or criminal charges for that behavior?

The rest of us had our say before, during, and immediately after the trial concluded, the verdict was given, and sentence was passed. Why do you feel it necessary/appropriate to bring it up this late in the game?

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Do you doubt my/our/your/glockfans 1st amendment right to insult the wisdom of a judge?
Would it/could it/is it really Contempt of court?
Could civil/criminal charges for that be proven,, in the face of a 1st A right?
I think we all have insulted the wisdom of judges,,, lots of them,,, even the Supreme Court ones!

It may be necessary to bring "it up" this late in the game since the game aint over yet,,
and "it" was thought of this late.

You also know the Major player in this Clustered Snafu is still talking, writing,
and trying to play every angle in his desperate bid to convince us,,, lowly forum posters
that this judges "wisdom" was wrong.

Grapeshot said:

Purely for the sake of conversation, there is no need to "substantiate" an "apparent" (opinion) breakdown.

She had apparently developed an obsession with stalking the kids there, been told she wasn't welcome and to leave, but still persisted. IMO her actions were not consistent with someone thinking right.

Can't understand why we are still beating this cold horse.

Click to expand...

I can, some folks continue to paint a picture of a citizen who is not available to tell her side of the story. Was the church lady a saint? Don't sound like it. Was she the devil incarnate? Who knows. Did she deserve to die for her creepyness? Reading some folks the answer is not so simple as yes or no.

user said:

Error again. Juries are there to decide what the facts are; the Judge is supposed to decide what the law is and instruct the jury as to the law that applies to the case. The jury, while acting as "the conscience of the community" is required to apply the law as instructed to the facts as they see them.

Click to expand...

Ah, yes. How could this be? Grand juries are not so limited as you describe.

At trial, most of the time the facts and the law are intertwined. Even for a petit jury, no matter what the judge and the court rules say, the juror decides. Whether the juror decides based upon facts alone or based upon facts and the law, or based upon facts, the law and common sense is a decision for each juror.

I believe that when prosecutors and judges use the law to keep juries and facts from meeting that we have injustice and evil.

ProShooter said:

Her immediate actions were so dangerous to the lives of this officer and the nearby public that she needed to be stopped quickly, so as to not kill or seriously injure others, as she had attempted to do with the officer.

Click to expand...

Apparently the jury (you know, that "public" the Harmon-Wright apologists are so eager to "protect") didn't share your appreciation of the immense "danger" which "needed to be stopped".

I'm quite sure that the public gets to decide what sort of threats to themselves are "dangerous" enough to "need to be stopped" by lethal force. And I'm quite sure they disagree with your assessment.

In other words, you're wrong.

ETA: I was prepared to tear into user on both "jurors as triers of fact but not law" and "crimes against the dignity of the sovereign", but I see these have been addressed. I will simply add that in addition to being logically facile, both premises are morally utterly devoid of merit.

I stand by my remarks.

2a4all said:

Crimes committed by persons against other persons who were the subjects of the king (the state) or against things under dominion of the king (e.g. poaching), become offenses against the dignity of the state. Kings were arrogant bastards. All we've managed to do since Lexington & Concord is eliminate the king and replace him with the state, which we have empowered to govern. Now the agents who do the governing are the arrogant bastards.

Click to expand...

I think this is the Post of the Year!

TFred

marshaul said:

I stand by my remarks.

Click to expand...

and your remarks, like the jury's decision, are incorrect.