marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Speaking of lying, I haven't seen these "first news accounts" to which you refer. I mean, I've been following this since the beginning, and I've not seen any reports such as you claim.
Cite, please.
-
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.
Culpeper shooting
- Thread starter TFred
- Start date
Speaking of lying, I haven't seen these "first news accounts" to which you refer. I mean, I've been following this since the beginning, and I've not seen any reports such as you claim.
Cite, please.
Repeater
Regular Member
What's absolutely relevant is the officer's name, rank, and years on the force, all of which remain unpublished.
Perhaps you can help out. Thank you.
wylde007
Regular Member
False.
My ignorance of the law is eclipsed only by yours... that and your irrational desire to exonerate a murderer by discrediting, well, everyone.
wylde007
Regular Member
Vehicle stop?
Sure.
Order to exit vehicle? Very different.
Where did YOU get your degree, pray-tell? We have already heard in thread from a respected PRACTICING ATTORNEY and methinks his knowledge of and opinion on matters of law is far more reliable than yours.
Sure.
Order to exit vehicle? Very different.
Where did YOU get your degree, pray-tell? We have already heard in thread from a respected PRACTICING ATTORNEY and methinks his knowledge of and opinion on matters of law is far more reliable than yours.
Yes, yes, we all know about RAS. There still hasn't been any verifiable statement providing the officer with an excuse to approach the vehicle, with his gun out and his dashcam "inoperable at the time".
Last edited:
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
I've been following this thread with some interest and at times consternation. I think this story/event is actually 2 parts.
Part 1 consists of the initial encounter (RAS?), what the officer was reaching for if his hand was in the window, why she rolled up the window, whether or not the LEOs arm was caught which leads to was he dragged or not and was he justified in the first shot.
Part 2 consists of why he continued firing at a middle age women, already wounded (which he may or may not have known) endangering her, innocents in the area form an errant shot and the stopping of someone who was apparently unarmed instead of holstering his weapon and goinng back to his car and stopping her otherwise.
Even if we make a for the sake of argument allowance that his arm was, however stupidly, caught in the window as she started to drive away and his first shot shattered the window freeing him, I fail to see how the following 5, 6, 7 shots, whatever the count, were reasonable. It sounds like an adrenaline dump that regardless of the first shot, led to a massive, deadly, to her and bystanders, if any, over reaction following his stopping the threat.
In other words, even IF the first shot was justified to stop an imminent threat to great bodily injury or death (shooting out the window), every shot afterwards appears to be excessive force and shooting to kill. It is difficult to draw conclusions without reporting of the antecedents to the stop and the officers full version of teh stop itself, ie what happened between his approaching her and his drawing his sidearm. Hopefully, after the investigation, this will become available one way or the other.
Part 1 consists of the initial encounter (RAS?), what the officer was reaching for if his hand was in the window, why she rolled up the window, whether or not the LEOs arm was caught which leads to was he dragged or not and was he justified in the first shot.
Part 2 consists of why he continued firing at a middle age women, already wounded (which he may or may not have known) endangering her, innocents in the area form an errant shot and the stopping of someone who was apparently unarmed instead of holstering his weapon and goinng back to his car and stopping her otherwise.
Even if we make a for the sake of argument allowance that his arm was, however stupidly, caught in the window as she started to drive away and his first shot shattered the window freeing him, I fail to see how the following 5, 6, 7 shots, whatever the count, were reasonable. It sounds like an adrenaline dump that regardless of the first shot, led to a massive, deadly, to her and bystanders, if any, over reaction following his stopping the threat.
In other words, even IF the first shot was justified to stop an imminent threat to great bodily injury or death (shooting out the window), every shot afterwards appears to be excessive force and shooting to kill. It is difficult to draw conclusions without reporting of the antecedents to the stop and the officers full version of teh stop itself, ie what happened between his approaching her and his drawing his sidearm. Hopefully, after the investigation, this will become available one way or the other.
wylde007
Regular Member
From one of the same witness statements you are attempting to discredit. Quo erat demonstratum.
There are members of this forum who have had the police called on them (MWAG) who have been approached with less prejudice shown.
Repeater
Regular Member
You assume the stop was valid. Do you know this? Investigating a supposed suspicious person, and investigating a person suspected of committing a crime, are different.
I'm suspicious of your motives for being here and being a pest. Maybe you should be investigated.
Would that be valid?
Repeater
Regular Member
A loaded question. What in the world makes you assume, without evidence, that Mrs. Cook was violating any of the provisions of Section 18.2-119?
Did anyone with authority ask Mrs. Cook to leave? If yes, did she refuse?
Let's rewrite your leading question:
Q: "What would you do if you saw a random woman [strike]trespassing[/strike] in a vehicle on your private property?
A: "Hi! How are you?"
wylde007
Regular Member
A church parking lot.
While that meets the criteria of "private" property it has yet to be verified that Ms. Cook was trespassing.
BTW, trespassing is not a felony and certainly not on the menu for the death penalty. And last I checked it is only an arrestable offense if the person refuses to leave. Sounds like she was in her vehicle attempting to leave. My speculation is just as valid as yours at this point, except I choose to side with the citizen and not the state.
Misleading argument - the woman had not been determined to be a trespasser. The police officer would not have been the correct entity to determine that as he was neither the property owner nor an agent thereof.
wylde007
Regular Member
Pesky things, facts.
MamabearCali
Regular Member
This precisely. Let's give the officer the benefit of the doubt that his non dominate hand was caught....the follow-up shots after he was freed are extremely troubling, and are not reasonable under any circumstance I can think of.
wylde007
Regular Member
I hope you're classing yourself among us, because pretty much everything you've said has been speculation... INCLUDING (and especially) the "caught in a lie" fabrication.
Because there is absolutely nothing about this story that should make any sense even to the most casual of observers.
However there is one thread which you have sewn throughout your unwavering defense of a cop who emptied a magazine into the vehicle of a 54 y.o. woman with no police record... attempted character assassination of forum membership.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
Obviously you have missed a few posts and confused some hypothetical discussion with discussion of fact and some points totally unrelated to the witness. But hey, if in your opinion insulting overgeneralization bolsters your position, post whatever you want.
Last edited:
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
I'm not taking sides on this issue as I am trying my best to remain objective until more and definitive information is available. But there is one item that keeps coming up which perhaps should be addressed.
A number of folks have commented on the number of shots delivered and have questioned the "why" of this. I would surmise that police, just like us civilians who carry and train, are taught that you continue to fire until the thread is over. Now I know the issue is multiple shots fired at a "fleeing" individual and that also gives me pause for the same reasons previously mentioned. I just wanted to mention that multiple shots fired at someone who is a threat is not a bad or questionable thing. And nor is the age of sex of the individual. The real issues are: 1) was she enough of a threat to warrant a deadly response? 2) What did she do to warrant this sort of response? 3) what transpired just prior to the incident which culminated in this officer's actions?
I think our own "user" has given among the best, most succinctly lucid comments on this incident so far, and I trust his judgement and responses more than just about anyone else's. Cooler heads on this thread would do all of us well as this is thing is far from over.
Maybe not speculation Wylde, rather insider but biased knowledge.
I'll email you later!
Last edited:
wylde007
Regular Member
qed.
nuc65
Activist Member
Seems an awful lot like a pot calling a kettle black.
nuc65
Activist Member
I don't know. If a civilian shot an unarmed person that many times, while the person were fleeing, then we would be cooling our heels in a not so nice place. A cop, part of the job (and protected species), they can shoot until all the mags are empty doesn't matter if the threat is ended or not.