You might want to ask him to explain again just what his job was and entailed while he was in the Marines. I suspect you have confused an acronym with a verb.
-
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
You might want to ask him to explain again just what his job was and entailed while he was in the Marines. I suspect you have confused an acronym with a verb.
Ok, thanks (to Skid too..). I'll try to ride by there today to see if the church has 'no tresspassing' signs..... that should take care of the 'tresspassing' speculation. :uhoh:
(edit to add: ... with regard to whether the signs exist or not. If she was asked to leave and didn't, that could still be a factor)
Last edited:
Absolutely! Regardless of who 'wins' in court... they have still lost *something*.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Uh, yeah. I'd ask for a cite, but it would be pointless because you can't cite the incorrect. The law you cited only applies in the nighttime, or if the person is explicitly asked to leave.
There's a church in Blacksburg that declares "Thou shall not park!"
Too bad that doesn't create a curtilage, or equate to actual "No trespassing" signage adequately posted around the perimeter. There's a difference between being able to tow someone's car and being able to charge them with trespassing. Now, does the church in question have such signage?
I think it's hilarious how user's deciding to take on the officer's defense caused this thread to turn on a dime into a bastion of police apologia, without there being a single change in the known facts or a shred of conceivable justifiability.
The mere fact that the guy found a lawyer, and that some of us happen to know the lawyer, and that said lawyer made the expected statements regarding his client's innocence (which is, after all, his job) doesn't in any way change the facts of the situation, and it isn't capable of magically justifying the unjustifiable. Nor, as it happens, are the misguided judgements of a judicial system more concerned with bolstering its own authority than with the rights of the citizens it supposedly exists to protect, or even basic justice.
Anti-police bias and blah blah blah I know, but I'm quite confident that when all the salient facts are finally revealed (assuming they will be, which is probably an unsafe assumption), the death of this woman will remain as indefensible as it appeared at the onset, user's bought-and-paid-for remarks (no judgement there) notwithstanding.
See, I get this. But to stretch it into even an insinuation that the de facto reality equates to justifiability or objective defensibility is absurd.
I mean, I hate to conform to Godwin's law, but I think a bit of reductio ad absurdum is in order. In Nazi Germany, the Gestapo "disappeared" all kinds of people for trivialities. It was quite inarguably "stupid" to, for instance, hide Jews from the authorities. Clearly, then, we should defend the Gestapo's actions, as all their victims likely knew better, or should have known better. Or are we to only defend our own particular brand of police state extrajudicial homicide without reasonable cause?
See, I get that the woman might have done something "stupid". In fact, I'm sure she did. If nothing else, it's always "stupid" to piss of an armed agent of the law free to act with virtual impunity. That doesn't mean the unecessary homicide of such a "stupid" person is justifiable, or ought to be defended.
Now is a perfectly good time to point out that this is exactly the sort of situation which we should cease tolerating as a society. It's beyond immoral that nonaggressive middle aged women should have to worry that minor "stupidities" will get them killed, especially when the danger is so easily mitigable. We all have better things to do than walk on our tiptoes every time a police officer is in sight. That isn't how a free society operates, and now is a perfectly good time to argue that case. And platitudes about writing my representatives when significant social awareness of the issue would first be needed to effect any notable change are less than valueless. In fact, your (intentional or otherwise) defense of the de facto "stupidity death penalty" as meted out by law enforcement officers (rather than, say, passing trains or grizzly bears) is itself an impediment to the achievement of that social awareness, whether or not you recognize it, or care to admit it.
Last edited:
MKEgal
Regular Member
I've seen news video not too long ago (within the past month, IIRC) showing a local (Milwaukee) officer narrowly avoiding being hit on his bicycle, jumping off, drawing his pistol as he ran after the car, & firing as the car was level with him --> moving away.paramedic said:
All that with traffic driving by on the 4-lane street in the background, maybe 80' away.
Pretty sure if any non-LEO had done that they'd be in the hoosegow & have their gun taken away.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
This is pretty much the exact opposite of my experience. Most parking lots do have signs warning against unauthorized parking, but this is not the same as trespass. I've never been to the church in question, but I can't think of a single church with actual "no trespassing" signs in the parking lot. I'm gonna have to say such would be outside the norm, unless a preponderance of the thread participants disagree.
'Scuse me, but that's not the totality of the problem. The fact that the system itself has rabies is also a rather large problem. You know, I'd be happy to give this officer a pass (criminally speaking) in exchange for laws enacted to rectify the courts' assignation of carte blanche powers and corresponding impunity to their enforcement agents. Barring that, a nice prison sentence would at least serve as some (however small) disincentive to shooting harmless citizens for other officers. But no, instead justice will be stymied by apologia, the officer will walk, and there will be no social impetus to change the situation. But at least we haven't passed judgement before all the facts are in!
Seriously, skid, I don't need "all the facts" to be unequivocally certain that I'd far prefer my country to not be a society where the supposed justifiability of highly questionable extrajudicial homicide is predicated upon the existence of facts revealed only, if at all, long after the incident has faded from the public consciousness.
Our government and its agents should be subject to complete and total transparency and accountability, and constant citizen oversight, most especially when the lives of its citizens are taken. Even in a fantasy alternate reality where a fact which justifies this death actually exists, this incident is proof positive that such transparency and accountability do not exist.
Expect me to be highly intolerant of suggestions of justifiability without at the very least accompanying and constant reminders and admissions that the system itself needs reform. Cynically telling me to write my representatives, when you know very well that my doing so all by my lonesome will accomplish nothing, doesn't cut it. In fact, your stance amounts to whitewashing the issue and sweeping the existence of police excess and impunity under the proverbial rug, which is the reason I've taken such verbose issue with it. Deny it all you like, but you're actively doing your part to resist any attempts to increase social awareness of the issue which might stem from this incident.
Last edited:
riverrat10k
Regular Member
Based on the info so far released to the press, I gotta go with Marshaul on this one:
"It's beyond immoral that ..(we)..should have to worry that minor "stupidities" will get them killed, especially when the danger is so easily mitigable. We all have better things to do than walk on our tiptoes every time a police officer is in sight. That isn't how a free society operates, and now is a perfectly good time to argue that case. And platitudes about writing my representatives when significant social awareness of the issue would first be needed to effect any notable change serve are less than valueless. In fact, your (intentional or otherwise) defense of the de facto "stupidity death penalty" as meted out by law enforcement officers (rather than, say, passing trains or grizzly bears) is itself an impediment to the achievement of that social awareness, whether or not you recognize it, or care to admit it."
"It's beyond immoral that ..(we)..should have to worry that minor "stupidities" will get them killed, especially when the danger is so easily mitigable. We all have better things to do than walk on our tiptoes every time a police officer is in sight. That isn't how a free society operates, and now is a perfectly good time to argue that case. And platitudes about writing my representatives when significant social awareness of the issue would first be needed to effect any notable change serve are less than valueless. In fact, your (intentional or otherwise) defense of the de facto "stupidity death penalty" as meted out by law enforcement officers (rather than, say, passing trains or grizzly bears) is itself an impediment to the achievement of that social awareness, whether or not you recognize it, or care to admit it."
Doogie
Regular Member
Here's your cite Marshaul:
Nowhere does it say night or that the perimeter has to be posted or that they have to verbally be told to leave.
It is a class 1 misdemeanor.
§ 18.2-119. Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties.
If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian, or the agent of any such person, or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by or at the direction of such persons or the agent of any such person or by the holder of any easement or other right-of-way authorized by the instrument creating such interest to post such signs on such lands, structures, premises or portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may be reasonably seen,or if any person, whether he is the owner, tenant or otherwise entitled to the use of such land, building or premises, goes upon, or remains upon such land, building or premises after having been prohibited from doing so by a court of competent jurisdiction by an order issued pursuant to §§ 16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-278.2 through 16.1-278.6, 16.1-278.8, 16.1-278.14, 16.1-278.15, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9 or § 19.2-152.10 or an ex parte order issued pursuant to § 20-103, and after having been served with such order, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This section shall not be construed to affect in any way the provisions of §§ 18.2-132 through 18.2-136.
(Code 1950, § 18.1-173; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1982, c. 169; 1987, cc. 625, 705; 1991, c. 534; 1998, cc. 569, 684; 2011, c. 195.)
Last edited:
The very title says... "Trespass after having been forbidden to do so"... after having been forbidden. Doesn't that mean that something needs to 'forbid' it first? Whether that is a sign, or a person verbally indicating that??
MamabearCali
Regular Member
I have to agree with the Marshall and Doug. It is terribly sad, all of it, there are no winners here, none at all. Just bad and worse. The police officer made split second decisions that may or may not have been justified. However this is not an isolated incident. It is becoming more and more common for people to be given the death penalty for simple misunderstandings, minor stupidity, and poor police work. This is not good for the police officers (as officer Harmon is finding out), not good for the police department (as culpepper PD has found out), and terrible for the community. It keeps otherwise good and decent people from trusting the police or the justice system and we become less and less a nation of common sense laws, this puts everyone in danger. Perhaps we need better training, or different tactics. But the first response of a police officer to anything out of the ordinary or scary at all to shoot is killing far too many people for taking out a wallet or a cell phone. This becomes a vicious cycle, people do somthing stupid, police respond with over the top force because they are trained to, people get more nervous around the police and do more stupid things because they are nervous, and round and round and round we go until the common citizen is terrified he will be shot if he so much as sneezes around a police officer, and the police are treated with disdain and animosity, and the rule of law goes by the wayside.
This is bad bad bad.
This is bad bad bad.
Last edited:
Read the statute Blk.
A sign where it can be reasonably be seen, is all they need.
It's no different than the trespassers I have arrested when I get them on the game cameras. The signs forbid entry.
Giving the system a chance to work is not hypocrisy. Waiting for the facts to be reveled is not malodorous.
What is distasteful is rushing to judgement on a public forum and playing the drama card.
Who amongst us is prepared to give first hand, expert testimony as to what transpired that day?
Further, generalizations regarding LEA and LEO are not well received today any more than they were yesterday.
And that is based on 'if' they have no tresspassing signs... I'll answer that question right after I consume the wonderful lunch my wife is fixing for me...
If I don't post back in a few hours.... hopefully the Cull-peppa PD didn't want to 'question' me in the same manner they wanted to question Patricia Cook!!!
And that is based on 'if' they have no tresspassing signs... I'll answer that question right after I consume the wonderful lunch my wife is fixing for me...
If I don't post back in a few hours.... hopefully the Cull-peppa PD didn't want to 'question' me in the same manner they wanted to question Patricia Cook!!!
That would be much appreciated BLK!
It would give us one more fact to go on rather than making assumptions and what if's.
This thread has gotten so long it's hard to keep track of what we're doing but somewhere in it I said something like....
assuming they have a no trespassing sign as most do.
Last edited:
1245A Defender
Regular Member
Wowwie!!!
Im with Marshual,
Riverrat,
Doogie, and
Mommabearcali...
Then comes Peter Nap,,, citing a first class MISDEMEANOR Trespassing law!
Is that cite here in order to Justify SHOOTING a CITIZEN?
Im with Marshual,
Riverrat,
Doogie, and
Mommabearcali...
Then comes Peter Nap,,, citing a first class MISDEMEANOR Trespassing law!
Is that cite here in order to Justify SHOOTING a CITIZEN?
optiksguy
Regular Member
Am I missing something here? It's not clear to me how the trespassing issue is really all that relevant. Lets interpret every detail that is in dispute in a manner most favorable to the officer, e.g. she was trespassing, he had legal standing to initiate contact, she was aggressive, he was trapped/stuck to the car, went for a ride on the running boards, etc. How is any of that relevant to the fact that he fired most of his shots (5 was it?) after he was free from the the vehicle, which was then traveling away from him and therefore presented no immediate threat to him?
DocWalker
Regular Member
I have yet to see a church with a no trespass sign, most churchs are places of sanctuary and welcome strangers and are there to help the community. A church with no trespass signs is akin to having armed guards, fences, and barbed wire around your facility that is there for the community. Sounds more like Jonestown than a community church.
One accout had the church calling on the jeep but they didn't actually talk to the driver (Mrs. Cook). So if they don't have signs and they didn't talk to her then she wouldn't have been trespassing.
Of course we have to wait for the system to run its course before we find out what really happened.
One accout had the church calling on the jeep but they didn't actually talk to the driver (Mrs. Cook). So if they don't have signs and they didn't talk to her then she wouldn't have been trespassing.
Of course we have to wait for the system to run its course before we find out what really happened.
I fail to see where such quantum leaps serve any good purpose. NO ONE here is trying to "justify" shooting a citizen. We are discussing what little we know and trying to deduce more.