• 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

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
That and free refills........for which you've already paid.

Thanks for the clarification on Rules of Criminal Procedure vs "trial by ambush" in Virginia courts. :uhoh:



Skid has provided that and more; however, if something is commonly known though, a cite is not necessary. Showing DL when requested and when operating a vehicle is common knowledge. That's my story.

Anything in this section to the contrary notwithstanding, if any person is believed by the arresting officer to be likely to disregard a summons issued under the provisions of this subsection, or if any person is reasonably believed by the arresting officer to be likely to cause harm to himself or to any other person, a magistrate or other issuing authority having jurisdiction shall proceed according to the provisions of § 19.2-82.

I guess what I don't understand is why all the argument and evasion? And, you're a moderator. Why not just provide the cite without the argument?

For the record, Forum Rule #5 doesn't say a damn thing about "commonly known." I've worn out my fingers typing cites and links to Terry, Brown, Mendenhall and so forth for all the new guys for whom it is not common knowledge. I'm sure others can do it.


(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.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
You mean at the time that she was a fleeing felon accelerating down a public street with a sunscreen completely covering her windshield towards the most densely trafficked part of Culpeper? That is, while there was one pedestrian who's been identified to the Commonwealth as an eyewitness approaching the scene and two cars coming up the road according to another? Let's see, now: assaulting a police officer; abduction; escape from lawful detention by force; malicious wounding; attempted capital murder; obstruction of justice; and disregarding an order by a police officer to stop the vehicle; seven felonies in all, some of them pretty serious, and obviously intentionally or recklessly endangering the lives of the public. You must mean those shots. The ones that stopped her from killing someone.

I think there's must be a reason why we pay money to issue guns to cops in order to do their law-enforcement duties. It's not just about self-defense. Because if it were about the lives of the cops themselves, we taxpayers wouldn't pay money for that. We pay money to have them protect us from people like this felon. That's what this cop did, proving the old adage, "no good deed goes unpunished."


IMHO the idea that is was necessary to shoot someone because they were endangering the public by slowly drive away with the sunshade is a tough one to swallow.

Depending on what really happened the first shot might be justified. The follow up shots I'm not sure .
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
IMHO the idea that is was necessary to shoot someone because they were endangering the public by slowly drive away with the sunshade is a tough one to swallow.

Depending on what really happened the first shot might be justified. The follow up shots I'm not sure .

Just to play the Devils advocate...The idea of shooting someone (Justifiably as opposed to a gangland execution) is to stop them. If the first shot doesn't stop them from committing whatever they are doing, you shoot them again. Repeat as needed.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
IMHO the idea that is was necessary to shoot someone because they were endangering the public by slowly drive away with the sunshade is a tough one to swallow.

Depending on what really happened the first shot might be justified. The follow up shots I'm not sure .

How fast must a vehicle be moving to cause serious injury or death to a pedestrian or for that matter someone in another vehicle?

"Among the most serious traffic incidents that can occur are those which involve pedestrians. Lacking any protection whatsoever, a pedestrian is completely vulnerable to serious injuries when struck by a moving vehicle. Even a relatively slow-moving vehicle can cause fractures and other major injuries to a pedestrian due to the significant mass of the vehicle and the hardness of the outside surfaces in comparison to human flesh."
http://www.autoaccident.com/lawyer-attorney-1077031.html
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
As quoted on TV (DC channel 9 - CBS), I pointed out that a four thousand pound vehicle moving at five to ten miles per hour has a lot more kinetic energy than a bullet. When one of those hits you, you don't stand much of a chance. And she'd begun accelerating once she got out onto East Street.

Peter Nap's observation about firing enough to stop the threat is consistent with the officer's training. That's why there were still eight rounds in the magazine when the VSP took the gun.

Sawah's observation about the question of whether or not the officer's hand was actually and irretrievably pinned by the side window glass is interesting. Is that a crucial point for the entire episode, or only for the first part, prior to his having shot out the glass?
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
I guess what I don't understand is why all the argument and evasion? And, you're a moderator. Why not just provide the cite without the argument?

For the record, Forum Rule #5 doesn't say a damn thing about "commonly known." I've worn out my fingers typing cites and links to Terry, Brown, Mendenhall and so forth for all the new guys for whom it is not common knowledge. I'm sure others can do it.


(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.

I don't understand your point. Both Skidmark and I provided the citations to the Code in support of the point under contention. What's the problem, now?
 

roscoe13

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,134
Location
Catlett, Virginia, USA
Skid has provided that and more; however, if something is commonly known though, a cite is not necessary. Showing DL when requested and when operating a vehicle is common knowledge. That's my story.

Is it required when operating the vehicle on private property? If you actually provided a cite, the answer to that question should be clear...

Roscoe
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
IMHO the idea that is was necessary to shoot someone because they were endangering the public by slowly drive away with the sunshade is a tough one to swallow.

Depending on what really happened the first shot might be justified. The follow up shots I'm not sure .

That's sort of a subordinate point. It wasn't "necessary" in the sense that the officer was required to shoot to save the life of some other identified person. In fact, he couldn't have gotten sued for failure to act, if he'd simply stood by and watched the car go crashing into people. One thing I worry about in this case is that this is the lesson that police officers will take away from generally. If the rule is that the only way to avoid being charged with a crime for pulling the gun is if one's one life is threatened, then why in the world would they act to protect other people? No one in his right mind, with a starting salary of about thirty-five thousand dollars a year, would risk what this cop is going through, if he's going to be punished for doing what we usually think of as his duty in protecting the public from badguys. If this case succeeds either civilly or criminally, that's going to tell every police officer in Virginia that they will be punished if they act to protect other people, and all they should do is apprehend the criminal after the damage is done, other than looking out for themselves.

The law of Virginia at present holds that a police officer is required to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon, including the use of deadly force to effect the stop. That has been modified by a U.S. Sup. Ct. ruling (Garner v. Tennessee, if I recall correctly) that says that shooting a fleeing felon who does not represent any threat to the officer or the public, is a violation of that felon's right to due process of law. It is still a crime in Virginia for the officer to negligently permit the fleeing felon to escape when that person has already been detained. The officer in this case acted under compulsion of law in a way that is consistent with Virginia law; hence the shooting was justified, and not unlawful or illegal. The possible counter-defense that the fleeing felon did not represent a threat of danger to the community is untenable. All that matters is that the officer had a good-faith reason at the time, based on objective fact, to believe the fleeing felon posed a threat to himself or the public, then it was not a violation of the felon's right to due process of law.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I guess what I don't understand is why all the argument and evasion? And, you're a moderator. Why not just provide the cite without the argument?

For the record, Forum Rule #5 doesn't say a damn thing about "commonly known." I've worn out my fingers typing cites and links to Terry, Brown, Mendenhall and so forth for all the new guys for whom it is not common knowledge. I'm sure others can do it.


(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.

Hardly any argument or evasion - the cite was provided. It is redundant to provide multiple cites for the same primary/basic law in the same thread - besides which it was already accomplished before you even called for clarification.

The rules in general are not so restrictive and nor so demanding as you imply - they are open to interpretation and modification by the administration. We have had this conversation before have we not.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Is it required when operating the vehicle on private property? If you actually provided a cite, the answer to that question should be clear...

Roscoe

As a technical matter, no. However, if one is operating a motor vehicle and has the license with him, then he is required to produce it on demand - two separate paragraphs in Section 46.2-104, one requires a driver to have the license with him while on the highways, the other requires the production on demand. So this suspect was not required to have her license with her while trespassing in the church parking lot, but she was required to identify herself and, having the license with her at the time, to produce it for that purpose.

Here's a question for you, though: why does that matter? Do you think that she's not a felon, after all, if she wasn't required to produce her driver's license?
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
You mean at the time that she was a fleeing felon accelerating down a public street with a sunscreen completely covering her windshield towards the most densely trafficked part of Culpeper? That is, while there was one pedestrian who's been identified to the Commonwealth as an eyewitness approaching the scene and two cars coming up the road according to another? Let's see, now: assaulting a police officer; abduction; escape from lawful detention by force; malicious wounding; attempted capital murder; obstruction of justice; and disregarding an order by a police officer to stop the vehicle; seven felonies in all, some of them pretty serious, and obviously intentionally or recklessly endangering the lives of the public. You must mean those shots. The ones that stopped her from killing someone.

I think there's must be a reason why we pay money to issue guns to cops in order to do their law-enforcement duties. It's not just about self-defense. Because if it were about the lives of the cops themselves, we taxpayers wouldn't pay money for that. We pay money to have them protect us from people like this felon. That's what this cop did, proving the old adage, "no good deed goes unpunished."

Wouldn't you calling her a felon even though she hasn't ever been convicted or even charged with a crime be like us saying your client is obviously guilty of murder even though he hasn't been convicted yet?

I know emotions are high but we shouldn't make people guilty until proven innocent or your client would have been strung up by now. I'm as guilty as the next person for making my mind up about his guilt or innocents. I have my feelings but I retract my calls saying he murdered her in cold blood and decided to wait for all the facts.

If he said he was going to kill her and she was afraid for her life the "fight or flight" would have kicked in and since she wasn't armed or in a position to fight she took flight and ran for her life. I'm not saying this is what happened but it is a plausable explination to what appears to be a flight of panic.

As for the street she was headed toward, it is a good things none of his bullets ended up in the busy street. Isn't that the direction he was firing in....into the busy street?
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Wouldn't you calling her a felon even though she hasn't ever been convicted or even charged with a crime be like us saying your client is obviously guilty of murder even though he hasn't been convicted yet?

I know emotions are high but we shouldn't make people guilty until proven innocent or your client would have been strung up by now. I'm as guilty as the next person for making my mind up about his guilt or innocents. I have my feelings but I retract my calls saying he murdered her in cold blood and decided to wait for all the facts.

It gets to be tiring to type "alleged" - just ask the 4th Estate.:uhoh:

If he said he was going to kill her and she was afraid for her life the "fight or flight" would have kicked in and since she wasn't armed or in a position to fight she took flight and ran for her life. I'm not saying this is what happened but it is a plausable explination to what appears to be a flight of panic.
But once commanded by a police officer to stop she must cease the flight-ing. Even if he allegedly said "Stop or I'll shoot!" or words to that alleged effect, allegedly.

As for the street she was headed toward, it is a good things none of his bullets ended up in the busy street. Isn't that the direction he was firing in....into the busy street?

No, he was obviously firing at the vehicle, because that's where all of his bullets went. :banghead: We get a cop who beats the 70% miss rate by the proverbial country mile, landing all his shots at a moving target inside the moving target, and someone comes along and wonders what might have happened if he had managed to miss the target he was shooting at. :banghead:

But to respond to the comment about shooting towards the street as opposed to the vehicle - there was a 50-50 chance that someone would have been in the path of the bullet, and a 50-50 chance that they would have been killed by the bullet as opposed to being merely wounded if they were actually struck by the bullet. And if no person was struck by the bullet it would have continued on until it struck something, or fallen to the earth due to air resistance & gravity.

And I'm willing to bet that in any of those events the officer would be entitled to qualified immunity.

stay safe.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Wouldn't you calling her a felon even though she hasn't ever been convicted or even charged with a crime be like us saying your client is obviously guilty of murder even though he hasn't been convicted yet?

I know emotions are high but we shouldn't make people guilty until proven innocent or your client would have been strung up by now. I'm as guilty as the next person for making my mind up about his guilt or innocents. I have my feelings but I retract my calls saying he murdered her in cold blood and decided to wait for all the facts.

Nope. The decedant is not on trial. My client is in possession of the facts as he saw them, and was present when the felonies occurred; as to those that are serious crimes of violence, he was the victim. The question of whether he's shooting at a fleeing felon has to do not with whether she's been convicted of a crime, but whether he was justified in firing.

If he said he was going to kill her and she was afraid for her life the "fight or flight" would have kicked in and since she wasn't armed or in a position to fight she took flight and ran for her life. I'm not saying this is what happened but it is a plausable explination to what appears to be a flight of panic.

Could well be; on the other hand, when he said, "stop or I'll shoot", she could have stopped and rolled down the window so that he could free his hand. It was after having given that warning that she tried hardest to kill him, from his perspective, and before there were any shots fired. I reckon that's the reason we have the phrase, "fleeing felon" as a standard part of our vocabulary - once someone engages in such egregious misconduct, they do get scared and they do want to get away. Does that have anything to do with any issue in this case, other than the fact that she was a fleeing felon?

As for the street she was headed toward, it is a good things none of his bullets ended up in the busy street. Isn't that the direction he was firing in....into the busy street?

Yes, and there are lots of cases saying that police officers who are firing in the course of their duties are immune from legal action resulting from damages caused thereby. Fortunately, this guy has a passion for firearms and is an awfully good marksman - three of the five bullets went through the back of the seat, even though he couldn't actually see the seat, and two of those struck and killed the fleeing felon. I think all five (of the thirteen rounds still in his gun) shots he fired hit the car. In contrast, according to the FBI, over 80% of the bullets fired by cops in emergency situations go unaccounted for, and of the remaining twenty percent, fewer than two percent actually hit the intended target. This guy should be doing firearms training for other people.

Fact is, though, he stopped the threat with almost no collateral damage (the telephone pole probably got scratched up). Pretty good work, I'd say.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
It gets to be tiring to type "alleged" - just ask the 4th Estate.:uhoh:

If he said he was going to kill her and she was afraid for her life the "fight or flight" would have kicked in and since she wasn't armed or in a position to fight she took flight and ran for her life. I'm not saying this is what happened but it is a plausable explination to what appears to be a flight of panic.
But once commanded by a police officer to stop she must cease the flight-ing. Even if he allegedly said "Stop or I'll shoot!" or words to that alleged effect, allegedly.



No, he was obviously firing at the vehicle, because that's where all of his bullets went. :banghead: We get a cop who beats the 70% miss rate by the proverbial country mile, landing all his shots at a moving target inside the moving target, and someone comes along and wonders what might have happened if he had managed to miss the target he was shooting at. :banghead:

But to respond to the comment about shooting towards the street as opposed to the vehicle - there was a 50-50 chance that someone would have been in the path of the bullet, and a 50-50 chance that they would have been killed by the bullet as opposed to being merely wounded if they were actually struck by the bullet. And if no person was struck by the bullet it would have continued on until it struck something, or fallen to the earth due to air resistance & gravity.

And I'm willing to bet that in any of those events the officer would be entitled to qualified immunity.

stay safe.

Ok I get the "alleged" part. But with all the recent "cop impersonators" we have had in the past where ladies where told to call 911 if a cop was trying to pull them over if they didn't feel safe and keep driving to a "safer spot". One would think this would give the cops an excuss to use deadly force to stop a vehicle that won't stop, even better if they don't have a cell phone and just keep going as they are affraid.

So if a cop tells you to do something even if you are afraid he might kill you if you do what he says then that is ok.

If a cop tells you to jump off a cliff I suppose you have to do it.

Just because someone wears a badge doesn't make everything they say gospil so to speak. You would have to admit there are crooked cops, criminal cops, and cop impersonators. Only the defendent and the dead lady really know what was said and what happened. That is one reason cop cars have dash cams.....thats right he didn't have his on. Real convient now he is truely the only one that knows.

I feel better already...not safer but better.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
Nope. The decedant is not on trial. My client is in possession of the facts as he saw them, and was present when the felonies occurred; as to those that are serious crimes of violence, he was the victim. The question of whether he's shooting at a fleeing felon has to do not with whether she's been convicted of a crime, but whether he was justified in firing.



Could well be; on the other hand, when he said, "stop or I'll shoot", she could have stopped and rolled down the window so that he could free his hand. It was after having given that warning that she tried hardest to kill him, from his perspective, and before there were any shots fired. I reckon that's the reason we have the phrase, "fleeing felon" as a standard part of our vocabulary - once someone engages in such egregious misconduct, they do get scared and they do want to get away. Does that have anything to do with any issue in this case, other than the fact that she was a fleeing felon?



Yes, and there are lots of cases saying that police officers who are firing in the course of their duties are immune from legal action resulting from damages caused thereby. Fortunately, this guy has a passion for firearms and is an awfully good marksman - three of the five bullets went through the back of the seat, even though he couldn't actually see the seat, and two of those struck and killed the fleeing felon. I think all five (of the thirteen rounds still in his gun) shots he fired hit the car. In contrast, according to the FBI, over 80% of the bullets fired by cops in emergency situations go unaccounted for, and of the remaining twenty percent, fewer than two percent actually hit the intended target. This guy should be doing firearms training for other people.

Fact is, though, he stopped the threat with almost no collateral damage (the telephone pole probably got scratched up). Pretty good work, I'd say.

Thanks for your insight but I wouldn't sit there and be exucuted by a dirty cop or someone I thought was a cop impersonator without either putting up a fight or fleeing.

I do commend him on his marksmenship but to say the only collateral damage was a scrach on the telephone pole seems a little cold considering an unarmed middleaged, church going lady is dead. But I guess you have to detach yourself and pait her in the worst possiable light, like it was Charles Mansion fleeing the parking lot.

If his arm wasn't caught in the window as some witnesses have said before he fired then I do believe he was overeacting and could have called her in. She might not have even heared him say stop or I will shoot as her perception field would have been almost zero as she was trying to flee for her life from what she obviously though was a life or death situation.
 

1911 Enthusiast

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
77
Location
Heart of Appalachia
<snip>

As for the street she was headed toward, it is a good things none of his bullets ended up in the busy street. Isn't that the direction he was firing in....into the busy street?

Were there any wayward bullets fired? I've seen reported that three hit the Jeep in fairly close proximity as it headed down the street with the sun visor blocking the driver's forward view, including the two fatal bullets. But I don't recall reading about the other two. Did they also hit the Jeep? If Wright was able to keep five shots in a decent grouping on a departing vehicle considering what Dan claimed in his motion happened before, that wasn't bad shooting. Which makes me think there must have been some really adverse circumstances going on when the first two shots were fired at nearly point blank range through the driver's door window. Otherwise at least one if not both of those shots would likely have been fatal looking at the group Wright put down on a vehicle driving away at, what was it, 15mph? So maybe there's more to this hand stuck in the window and dragging claim than I initially gave the defendant credit for.

BTW, what's the authorized department ammo? Looked like good penetration from that Glock .40 S&W...through the back hatch sheet metal, rear window lowering mechanism, two seats and still impacted the driver with enough force to be instantly fatal. Somebody here on the forum has a signature saying his EDC is the .40 S&W. I can see why that would be a good defensive round.
 

Marco

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
3,905
Location
Greene County
Real convient now he is truely the only one that knows.
1+

I truly appreciate Dan's input (I'd call him if I needed his services) but so far Dan posts have yet to convince me this wasn't contempt of cop gone way over board. The fact of the matter is Dan's words in this thread cause me to believe it was contempt of cop and nothing more. Good thing I'm not on the jury....
 

sawah

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Virginia
I was discussing this with a friend and again I'm drawn back to his reported comments when other officers arrived. He didn't say 'I had to kill/stop her, she was driving into traffic, tried to run me over...'. He said (allegedly) 'I'm going to lose my f-ing job over this'.

I'm not sure what his state of mind was but any normal person, even one who just had to do what he did, would have said the above (I had to stop her...).

I really feel for him, his family and I have no doubt if he had it to do over he'd have just said 'Ma'am this is a posted area, you're going to have to move on...', and let that be the end of it.
 
Top