• 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
Well....Not being a legal expert but having been involved in dozens of bond hearings, I've never seen a CA present his entire case in a bond motion.

If Dan hadn't given him the benefit of the doubt, I'd swear he was trying to influence the jury that hasn't been chosen yet.

At any rate, the Genie is out of the bottle.
 

sawah

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Virginia
What can be proven seems to be this:
1. The original complaint, RAS was trespassing, a misdemeanor
2. The driver had a sun screen in the window, completely covering up the view
3. She drove away against the (presumably) lawful order of the officer, failing to give up her identity
4. She turned into the street at a slow speed still unable at that moment to see out the window but was non-fatally wounded
5. The Jeep (does or does not) have hand cranked windows
6. Firing into the street with approaching traffic is hazardous

What can't (easily) be proven:
1. The officer's hand was (or was not) trapped in the window
2. The driver cut the wheels to attempt to run over the officer (doubt there are tread marks at 5-10mph)
3. The (wounded) driver was (or was not) a danger to the citizens, pedestrians, other drivers.
4. Five more rounds were (or were not) immediately needed to prevent the driver from being a danger to other drivers, pedestrians.

It may be up to the jury to decide (based on less than actual evidence) what the issues are, if the known facts are credible and if this was a good shoot and thus not murder.
 
Last edited:

sawah

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Virginia
Though I can't find the article, a friend just told me that they heard that the reason Patricia Cook was in the church parking lot was that she was meeting a 'friend'.

Consider that she had the sun shield in the window. What is the function of that? Privacy, for one thing, in addition to keeping the car interior cooler.

So if we imagine that she was there to meet up with a friend, and maybe something more, which isn't exactly uncommon, perhaps she didn't want to stick around and get ticketed and ID'd because she was worried her clandestine meeting would get back to her husband.

I'll try to get the link to the article that said she was meeting a friend if it indeed exists. (Google blocked the link in gmail)
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Though I can't find the article, a friend just told me that they heard that the reason Patricia Cook was in the church parking lot was that she was meeting a 'friend'.

Consider that she had the sun shield in the window. What is the function of that? Privacy, for one thing, in addition to keeping the car interior cooler.

So if we imagine that she was there to meet up with a friend, and maybe something more, which isn't exactly uncommon, perhaps she didn't want to stick around and get ticketed and ID'd because she was worried her clandestine meeting would get back to her husband.

I'll try to get the link to the article that said she was meeting a friend if it indeed exists. (Google blocked the link in gmail)

No question about that, the officer reported that when he asked her why she was there, she paused a long while and looked away, such that he was about to ask her again, when she gave a deep sigh, and said, "I'm here to meet a friend." Given that she had been creeping around the building and peeking into the school windows, and other bizarre behavior, I got the idea that the "friend" she was waiting for was death. Personal speculation at this point, no evidence other than her behavior at the time. One person I spoke with had the idea that she was there because she'd been having an affair with someone who worked there that had gone sour. I'm not sure I buy that one, because she apparently had a recent history of a number of "suspicious person" calls in the area at other locations.

I don't know whether she was in the habit of putting up that sun screen, though it's perfectly reasonable to think that this was something she always did before leaving her car (e.g., when creeping around a church school). Fact is, though, that when she went back to the car and got in, she started the engine and left the sunscreen up. The engine was running when the cop arrived. The sun screen was still up, as evident from photos in the news (see in particular, the Fox DC channel version link below), when her car came to a stop against the telephone pole.

http://www.wusa9.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=1680331428001

http://www.wusa9.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=1680348143001

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/06/daniel-harmon-wright-pleads-not-guilty-76777.html

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/18649969/culpeper-police-officer-charged-in-shooting-of-patricia-cook

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/187405...t-pleads-not-guilty-in-death-of-patricia-cook

http://www.nbcwashington.com/video/#!/video/clearchannel/Culpeper-Cop-Out-on-Bond/158233075

Another point of interest - If you watch these carefully, pay attention to what the Commonwealth's Attorney thinks the applicable law is - it appears to me that his idea is that the only possible defense to a charge of murder is defense of self (i.e., pretending that stopping a serious felony in progress or defense of others are not valid defenses).
 
Last edited:

architect

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
392
Location
Falls Church, Virginia, USA
I got the idea that the "friend" she was waiting for was death.
Seems a lot more likely to me that she was {having an affair|in love|infatuated} with the minister, or some other church official who was (not/no longer) returning her affections, and put up the sunscreen so as to not be seen waiting.

The "suicide by cop" scenario fails the sniff test. My unsolicited advice is to abandon it before the jury hears it.
 
Last edited:

ocholsteroc

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
1,317
Location
Virginia, Hampton Roads, NC 9 miles away
Seems a lot more likely to me that she was {having an affair|in love|infatuated} with the minister, or some other church official who was (not/no longer) returning her affections, and put up the sunscreen so as to not be seen waiting.

The "suicide by cop" scenario fails the sniff test. My unsolicited advice is to abandon it before the jury hears it.

Was about to say the same thing.
 

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
The "suicide by cop" scenario fails the sniff test. My unsolicited advice is to abandon it before the jury hears it.

I'd agree with that.

Although I don't think User has to convince the jury that the officers version is exactly what happened... only that its plausible the events occurred differently then what the prosecutor alleges. Whats that phase.... 'reasonable doubt'...?? :eek:

As much as User dislikes pleas.... I'm thinking the officer eventually accepts a plea for a relatively minor charge (compared to the four felonies anyway).. and sentenced to 'time served' or something like that.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I'd agree with that.

Although I don't think User has to convince the jury that the officers version is exactly what happened... only that its plausible the events occurred differently then what the prosecutor alleges. Whats that phase.... 'reasonable doubt'...?? :eek:

As much as User dislikes pleas.... I'm thinking the officer eventually accepts a plea for a relatively minor charge (compared to the four felonies anyway).. and sentenced to 'time served' or something like that.

Very premature for such a distant possibility. Too, such would have great potential impact on any civil litigation.

I doubt that we have seen all of the hole cards yet either.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Is 'disclosure & discovery' completed at this point? Or is that still ongoing... and more can come out?

I sincerely doubt it is concluded.

And motions to be made - I'd ask for change of venue if to be a jury trial. Postponements considered. The dance has hardly begun.
 

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
I sincerely doubt it is concluded.

And motions to be made - I'd ask for change of venue if to be a jury trial. Postponements considered. The dance has hardly begun.

Thats pretty much what I had said.... that there is probably still more to go... for both sides.

Gonna be a long road....
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Very premature for such a distant possibility. Too, such would have great potential impact on any civil litigation.

I doubt that we have seen all of the hole cards yet either.

I'm not going to second guess Dan's strategy but if I were a betting man, I'd wager he was not using a true suicide by cop defense.

A perfect storm isn't just a lot of rain coming from direction and suicidal tenancies aren't always a straight line either.

She could be distraught over an affair (A rumor I've heard) and rather than being purely suicidal, simply feel so lost she really doesn't care if she lives or dies.

There are a thousand directions this may go....so it's still watch and wait time.
 

sawah

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Virginia
My question to User (Dan), if he can say, is does he intend to put the officer on the witness stand, in order to give his account of what happened?

What might be hard to do is to show that for a trespassing (misdemeanor) charge:
1. Doesn't the person have to be told to leave -or- they will risk a trespassing charge? (Yes, I know we now know the lot is posted).
2. Does such a charge, being a misdemeanor require ID?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Not to monkey up the game of our esteemed (genuinely) friend User, but I do feel compelled to point out that the words creeping around are a bit evaluative. They're a bit like the police favorite furtive movement.

A movement is a movement. Whether it is furtive or not is injected by person who views the movement. Its gotten so bad that pretty much any movement you make with your hands during a police encounter can be characterized as furtive. The point here is that when a cop reports a furtive movement he's deliberately injecting his evaluation about the movement rather than describing the movement and letting the judge or listener decide (evaluate) whether it was furtive. A clinically sterile description of a physical universe occurrence is called relating the facts. A fact is a fact. An evaluation is an evaluation.

I can't easily see a 54 year old woman creeping around much of anything in broad daylight.

And, the sunshade. Plenty of times I wished I had one. If I was going to be waiting for a little while in the sun, I might put it up myself.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
My question to User (Dan), if he can say, is does he intend to put the officer on the witness stand, in order to give his account of what happened?

What might be hard to do is to show that for a trespassing (misdemeanor) charge:
1. Doesn't the person have to be told to leave -or- they will risk a trespassing charge? (Yes, I know we now know the lot is posted).
2. Does such a charge, being a misdemeanor require ID?

Virginia Code § 18.2-119 defines the crime of trespassing as follows:

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 other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by such persons 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.

I would imagine that writing a citation would require that the officer would need to know for whom it was being written...hmm?

Further, if one doesn't wish to ID themselves, when properly requested, for an infraction then they may be taken into custody.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Virginia Code § 18.2-119 defines the crime of trespassing as follows:

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 other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by such persons 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.

I would imagine that writing a citation would require that the officer would need to know for whom it was being written...hmm?

Further, if one doesn't wish to ID themselves, when properly requested, for an infraction then they may be taken into custody.

Cite, please.
 
Top