Jim675
Founder's Club Member
Oh, I think we all agree with that.
-
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
Oh, I think we all agree with that.
Really?
Cite or get off the pot!
And while you're it, let us know what states you're licensed to practice in?
5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.
Last edited:
OK...non applicable cases. None supersede the right to free speech.
Anything else and since you're dispensing legal advice, answer the question and tell what states you are licensed to practice in.
Last edited:
No, I'm not mad. I'm having fun. Let's dance some more Mary!
I don't expect you to answer. You did exactly what I knew you would.
taurusfan
Regular Member
Why is the name of the Culpepper cop being withheld? Does anyone know whom it is?
riverrat10k
Regular Member
user
Accomplished Advocate
I'm sure he had a reason. Most of the time, people who kill others have a reason. The question is, does his reason fall under the category of "privilege, excuse, or justification"? There is a legal presumption that what he did was second-degree murder. He may well have a very good defense to that charge. I hope we'll have the chance to find out.
Last edited:
This is what people don't understand about the legal system. If you do certain crimes then you have a presumptive guilt, for which you have to have reasonable or legal justification to be let off.
Second-degree murder would be purposeful (unlike manslaughter), but not pre-meditated. Self-defense for citizens is an 'excuse'. There's a broader definition for LEOs who we give a license to kill under certain circumstances. AND, imo, this should be tightened up. Make it very hard to justify killing a suspect who is not attacking the LEO or his partner armed, with intent and capability (not just a cranky grandmother swinging a purse).
IANAL, and user is, so I'm just babbling here.
riverrat10k
Regular Member
Yeah, if he is anyone but the "mystery officer." Can't believe we don't have a name yet.
Oh, and Raven, murder is murder, by cop or anyone else. Certainly not beyond the pale based on the evidence available that murder is a possibility.
Read this again from User:
There is absolutely no question here that there's probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person who committed the crime happens to be a town police officer. He may well have a good defense, but that should be a matter for evidence at trial, in exactly the same manner as would obtain for anyone else.
This exactly. No benefit of the doubt. No doing his job crap. In fact, all officers should be held to a much higher standard than other citizens. We have given them certain powers. By accepting these powers, they must be a cut above and impecable in behavior to retain the public trust.
Oh, and Raven, murder is murder, by cop or anyone else. Certainly not beyond the pale based on the evidence available that murder is a possibility.
Read this again from User:
There is absolutely no question here that there's probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person who committed the crime happens to be a town police officer. He may well have a good defense, but that should be a matter for evidence at trial, in exactly the same manner as would obtain for anyone else.
This exactly. No benefit of the doubt. No doing his job crap. In fact, all officers should be held to a much higher standard than other citizens. We have given them certain powers. By accepting these powers, they must be a cut above and impecable in behavior to retain the public trust.
Last edited:
IANAL, and user is, so I'm just babbling here.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Because "people of your ilk" never engage in profiling, right?
Nice try. Obviously, merely being a Sunday School teacher, or a Marine, doesn't mean someone isn't a criminal. But, until you've got evidence of a crime, that's all they are.
Would you rather me describe her as "the latent criminal whose guilt just hasn't been proved yet"?
Would that correspond more closely to your worldview? I suspect it would.
Last edited:
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Yeah, and if he ever made it to court (where he belongs), he'd have that. It's a little late for Mrs. Cook though, isn't it?
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
It's not a presumption of guilt. It's the existence of undisputed facts which, absent a valid affirmative defense, necessarily make the defendant a murderer.
There is still a presumption of innocence in allowing him to make that defense.
+∞
Last edited:
2a4all
Regular Member
And given that the prosecutor is the son of a (retired?) VSP trooper, will he have it?
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
That's the thing. If there were even the slightest hint this will go to trial (as it should), I'd shut up and let the jury do their job. The cop is entitled to no less.
However, as it stands, the people have every right to be upset, and to analyze and criticize the situation.
Raven and "people of his ilk" would, I don't think I'm stretching to say, prefer to suffer neither trial by law nor by public opinion.
Too bad.
No sir, you did not provide a cite, you supplied the alledged source, not the specific content on which you rely. Cites are not supposed to be a search and ye shall find closet of information.
Trust that you are not laughing in the face of OCDO rules and rejoicing with your ill chosen dancing banana.
CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules
Also, threatening or implying threat of legal action against other posters for stating their opinions is decidedly bad form. If you feel that such is justified, do so on your own time please but not on this forum.
What you said was what I was trying to say, emphasis on the need for an affirmative defense. It's not like we don't know how she got shot and yes, at this point murdered in the second degree (depending on local statute).
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I think he's a cop. Maybe a trainer. He's too handy with 4A cites. And, his question about a trespass women in a car. Both the question and the polemical style are very much like hostile cops we've seen here before.
I doubt he's an attorney. I can't see many playing his game as rudely/crudely as he's playing his.
So, the question in my mind is whether he's the cop, or somebody else in the same department? He's putting too much energy and vitriol into his posts to be merely some cop from any old department.
Which gives rise to another question. Which department does he work for? I'd really like to know which department has that sort of person in their midst.