Culpeper shooting

Grapeshot said:

IMHO - it is never reasonable nor responsible to assume.

There is not evidence that he was shooting to hit the driver at that point.

A vehicle is only a deadly weapon when it is pointed "at" someone? Then my handgun is not a deadly weapon.

I know it is argumentative and has no bearing, but how did he know she was unarmed? There is a good example of random, casual thought. The point of whether or not she was armed has not been introduced - do you know something that the rest of us do not?
Musing, declaration of "what ifs" as if fact IMO indicates a willingness to hear the case based on supposition.

Click to expand...

I'm not hearing the case. I'm just engaging in casual commentary, and am not insisting in anything nor calling for judgment. I'll try to desist in posting random casual thought.

I do think that if I were the prosecutor, I would be inclined to ask the officer if he was intending to shoot the driver and the window. If I were the defense, I would be sure I knew what the officer's reply would be beforehand.

Of course a handgun is not a deadly weapon, it is a tool, as some here consistently state.

Grapeshot said:

My recollection is that two (2) shots were fired to enable him to extract his hand. The 1st shot punched through the glass, the 2nd shattered the window thereby releasing his hand. His injuries and DNA evidence would seem to confirm that his hand was trapped.

Would respectfully point out that there is fundamentally no difference between defense of self ( first shots) and defense of others (remaining shots). In that the 2nd group of shots caused the death of the lady, it is logical that murder charges would be based on that aspect and being a "civilian" or not has nothing to do with it.

The law does not require that one wait until after actual occurrence (death or serious injury) before initiating action. Such would be self-defeating to the purpose.

We must be careful with the word "justified" in order to properly differentiate between a legal defense against the charges and lesser applications/uses.

Click to expand...

did i miss a report?
i've been watching the news outlets as reports have come out, but hadn't seen any mention of the officer's DNA in/on the window or track.

sawah said:

I'm not hearing the case. I'm just engaging in casual commentary, and am not insisting in anything nor calling for judgment. I'll try to desist in posting random casual thought.
.

Click to expand...

Well I like your musing over this case and in fact, everything you write on how to deal with violence.
I think your suggestions are very........ stylish!


And...if he had had a Buffy Dagger, he could have sliced off his arm, jumped out of the way, taken the license number and later retrieved and reattached his arm and no one would be hurt.

peter nap said:

Well I like your musing over this case and in fact, everything you write on how to deal with violence.
I think your suggestions are very........ stylish

Click to expand...

Are you abusing sarcasm?

sawah said:

Are you abusing sarcasm?

Click to expand...

Moi.....Never

Bought another new car yesterday. Yeah, yeah, why is this relevant to anything here?

Well, I was in Culpeper buying this car. I stayed as far away from church parking lots as I could!!! :monkey:

sawah said:

I read an online news site said so. I suppose there could have been a firearm in the car. I don't think the officer claimed she was armed.

Click to expand...

There is absolutely nothing in that link to support your claim that the officer thought she might be armed - nada. You made that assertion on your own w/o merit.

OC for ME said:

Of course a handgun is not a deadly weapon, it is a tool, as some here consistently state.

Click to expand...

Not so. A gun is a deadly weapon by design and by statute.
http://medvinlaw.com/alexandria-vir...sion-reckless-handling-firing-knife-offenses/

"Armed with a deadly weapon" means the possession of any weapon described in subsection A of 18.2-308 or any other instrumentality whatsoever that under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, would likely cause death or serious bodily injury to a human being.
http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/0/efb53246fcf5501a85256ea20046e98f?OpenDocument

Where the conflict comes in is that we contend that a properly holstered handgun carried for defensive reasons or as an expression of our 1A rights is not offensive (dbl entendre intended) in its purpose. It is a passive tool - but then you know distinction.

mk4 said:

did i miss a report?
i've been watching the news outlets as reports have come out, but hadn't seen any mention of the officer's DNA in/on the window or track.

Click to expand...

Supposedly......... the Virginia State Police found the cop's hair and DNA on the window weatherstripping.

Grapeshot said:

There is absolutely nothing in that link to support your claim that they officer thought she might be armed - nada. You made that assertion on your own w/o merit.

Click to expand...

What?? I said 'UNARMED'.

I didn't make an assertion I just reported what I read. Here's the very first article. Bolding mine.

Reports emerging from Culpeper paint a horrifying picture of the last moments in the life of unarmed Sunday school teacher Patricia A. Cook. The 54-year-old motorist was gunned down in her vehicle by a Culpeper Police officer in February.

Click to expand...

Grapeshot said:

There is absolutely nothing in that link to support your claim that they officer thought she might be armed - nada. You made that assertion on your own w/o merit.



Not so. A gun is a deadly weapon by design and by statute.
http://medvinlaw.com/alexandria-vir...sion-reckless-handling-firing-knife-offenses/

"Armed with a deadly weapon" means the possession of any weapon described in subsection A of 18.2-308 or any other instrumentality whatsoever that under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, would likely cause death or serious bodily injury to a human being.
http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/0/efb53246fcf5501a85256ea20046e98f?OpenDocument

Where the conflict comes in is that we contend that a properly holstered handgun carried for defensive reasons or as an expression of our 1A rights is not offensive (dbl entendre intended) in its purpose. It is a passive tool - but then you know distinction.

Click to expand...

Interesting reads. Though I wonder if a 'fast one' was pulled. The bold above is contained in a apparent administrative directive to the Crime Commission but I could not find that wording in any VA Code. 18.2-308 certainly does not contain that 'or' statement.

Not arguing the obvious, just pointing out that a cite to where those words are contained in the VA Code would be nice. A lawyer web site states the obvious but not the law. Providing 'cites' that claim the obvious is not necessarily a cite to statute.

A gun is a firearm by design as defined in VA code. A motor vehicle is not a deadly weapon (AFAIK or could find) according to the VA Code. If a motor vehicle is defined in the code as a deadly weapon I stand corrected.

I do not know how VA Code and the 'law' are applied to achieve 'justice' in VA, where as user does.

OC for ME said:

<snip>

Click to expand...

Even a stationary object can be a deadly weapon if the victim is impelled into or against it.
MEDVINLAW

Click to expand...

Really? That lawyer site needs to rethink that one IMHO. Don't want to give cops any silly ideas.

Originally Posted by Grapeshot
There is absolutely nothing in that link to support your claim that they officer thought she might be armed - nada. You made that assertion on your own w/o merit.

Click to expand...

sawah said:

What?? I said 'UNARMED'.

I didn't make an assertion I just reported what I read. Here's the very first article. Bolding mine.

Reports emerging from Culpeper paint a horrifying picture of the last moments in the life of unarmed Sunday school teacher Patricia A. Cook. The 54-year-old motorist was gunned down in her vehicle by a Culpeper Police officer in February.

Click to expand...

Actually you did make the assertion: "He knew the woman was unarmed." See post #1441. The officer was not privy to that article at the time of the event - therefore the claim of such knowledge was yours.

Grapeshot said:

Actually you did make the assertion: "He knew the woman was unarmed." See post #1441. The officer was not privy to that article at the time of the event - therefore the claim of such knowledge was yours.

Click to expand...

You're splitting hairs. The officer was standing next to the window, the woman was in the seat, both hands visible, obtaining her license, so he knew her not to be holding a firearm (thus not armed).

He was not shooting at an armed person, he was shooting at an unarmed person.

So let me correct it. He was not shooting at an armed person pointing a gun at him.

He was shooting (supposedly) at a window and was possibly also trying to shoot the driver (who had one hand on the window crank and one hand held her license,) at the same time, because we've learned he's a crack shot and he hit her both times. If I were the prosecutor, I would consider asking 'were you shooting the woman or shooting out the window?', just to get his response.

Is that better?

user said:

She became a felon in the next few seconds after the arrest. Attempted capital murder (§18.2-31(6) and §18.2-25); assault on a police officer (§18.2-57(C)); abduction (§18.2-47(A) and (C)); malicious wounding (§18.2-51, §18.2-53); escape from lawful detention by means of force (§18.2-478); obstructing justice (§18.2-460(C)); and disregarding order of police to stop vehicle (§46.2-817(B)). All felonies. She could have simply handed over her license.

Click to expand...

I guess this implies that one becomes a felon in action without trial or charge or arrest. I think this goes toward the affirmative defense but to say she became a felon is a mis-construction of the our constitutional system. Too my mind one does not 'become' a felon until after trial or plea.

user said:

So, you disagree because you have a recollection of the event? My client recalls it differently. The woman who gave him permission at the time was not aware that the suspect was her son. After she found out what was going on, the story changed. Whether or not he had his gun drawn at the time of the request (It was drawn, per department policy regarding "clearing" a house), has nothing to do with the request to enter; she could have said, "no", in which case he'd have had to call in for a search warrant.



So it's your opinion that if someone is robbing you at gunpoint and a police officer sees what's happening, he ought to let Badguy kill you, because Badguy was no special threat to himself? And if he were to shoot Badguy to protect you, that he should be charged with murder?

There are other defenses defined by Virginia law than self-defense. You might like to read my summary at www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com, scroll down to the link marked, "Castle Doctrine", which is really an attempt at a comprehensive look at personal defense law in Virginia, as it is now.

Click to expand...

My recollection is from laziness in reading this forum, I only 'recollect' from past reading of posts. My recollectin' is not based on fact or hearsay. So it would be something I would wonder about. If I were a juror it would create some doubt as to actions unless it was clarified at some point in the trial. I am not a juror, and probably won't be on this case but I offer my thoughts on it.


As to the second it has been strongly pointed out that the police have no duty to protect. If he let badguy kill me his position and standing case law would probably protect him. But I didn't say anything about somebody robbing me at gunpoint I only offered that I wondered if the continuation of shooting was 'justified' in the circumstances. Did continuation of shooting stop the supposed bad guy any sooner than giving chase would have? As I consider this, I think it stems from the belief that in the LEOs mind she was now a badguy as you pointed out, she was now a commited felon so deadly force and action was legitimate.

As a juror how would I feel about the characterization of the dead person. Who will I believe more in this, the prosecutor or the defense?

sawah said:

You're splitting hairs. The officer was standing next to the window, the woman was in the seat, both hands visible, obtaining her license, so he knew her not to be holding a firearm (thus not armed).

He was not shooting at an armed person, he was shooting at an unarmed person.

So let me correct it. He was not shooting at an armed person pointing a gun at him.

He was shooting (supposedly) at a window and was possibly also trying to shoot the driver (who had one hand on the window crank and one hand held her license,) at the same time, because we've learned he's a crack shot and he hit her both times. If I were the prosecutor, I would consider asking 'were you shooting the woman or shooting out the window?', just to get his response.

Is that better?

Click to expand...

I've recited the chronology so you know perfectly well that the proposition stated in the first paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with the fourth. Even if your suggested facts were true, what difference would it make whether he was shooting at the glass or the suspect? And how do we get to the conclusion that a person who is not holding a firearm is not armed?

Say, would you let me crush your hand in the window of my car and start driving erratically while you're pinned to the side of MY car? I'll do it "unarmed", in order to guarantee your safety. How about that?

nuc65 said:

I guess this implies that one becomes a felon in action without trial or charge or arrest. I think this goes toward the affirmative defense but to say she became a felon is a mis-construction of the our constitutional system. Too my mind one does not 'become' a felon until after trial or plea.

Click to expand...

Depends on the situation. If the decedant were on trial for being a felon in possession of a firearm, then it's important whether she'd been convicted. For present purposes, what's important is that she committed the felony in the presence of the police officer. If someone robbed you with a knife at some time when you were vulnerable to such robbery, and the cops asked you what happened, would you say that you'd been robbed? That's a felony, you'd be saying that the person who robbed you is a felon. If it happened to you, as it happened to this cop, you'd be in a position to know. Secondly, the question is what the cop had reason to believe at the time he fired the second group of shots, not whether or not the person could have been convicted of all seven felonies.

user said:

I've recited the chronology so you know perfectly well that the proposition stated in the first paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with the fourth. Even if your suggested facts were true, what difference would it make whether he was shooting at the glass or the suspect? And how do we get to the conclusion that a person who is not holding a firearm is not armed?

Say, would you let me crush your hand in the window of my car and start driving erratically while you're pinned to the side of MY car? I'll do it "unarmed", in order to guarantee your safety. How about that?

Click to expand...

Officers response. "Well that would be acceptable thank you!"


I have the basics of this case. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

nuc65 said:

...As to the second it has been strongly pointed out that the police have no duty to protect....

As a juror how would I feel about the characterization of the dead person. Who will I believe more in this, the prosecutor or the defense?

Click to expand...

True, you can't sue a cop for wrongful death because he allowed badguy to blow away your spouse without shooting the badguy first. The cops owe no duty to any specific member of the public. But they do owe a duty to the public, generally, a doctrine called "the community caretaker" doctrine.

It is a problem, having to refer to a dead person in a way that shows their faults - people don't like that. Best way to deal with that is head-on, let the jury know that's what you're doing, it's distasteful, and no one likes it. But the facts are the facts. Nevertheless, what's the answer to the question: whom would you believe?