Culpeper shooting

OC for ME said:

Doubt what? How a witness is discredited is not the issue. The issue is getting a jury to not believe a witness's recounting of the event. The accuracy of the witness's account is irrelavent. Plant any doubt in the mind of the jury re the witness's capacity to be truthful or reliable and the defense has a far greater chance to be successful. Discovering the truth is a noble cause but the truth is neither friend nor foe. If there is a chance that the truth is the defenses' foe then the truth can be sacrificed. Or, a excuse (justification) is sought to mitigate the defendant's actions. It appears that the defense is seeking a excuse (justification) to the defendant's acts.

Hyperbole: "Yes, my client did shoot the decedant, this is fact. He was justified because he wanted to protect the public."

Click to expand...

Whether you intended to or not, you have hit precisely the point.

There are only two (2) exceptions to other than a guilty verdict: excuseable or justified.
http://www.self-defender.net/virginia-self-defense-laws.htm
http://www.virginia1774.org/Dodson.html

It is therefore most consistant that Mr. Hawes would persue one of these in defense of his client.

OC for ME said:

Doubt what? How a witness is discredited is not the issue. The issue is getting a jury to not believe a witness's recounting of the event. The accuracy of the witness's account is irrelavent. Plant any doubt in the mind of the jury re the witness's capacity to be truthful or reliable and the defense has a far greater chance to be successful. Discovering the truth is a noble cause but the truth is neither friend nor foe. If there is a chance that the truth is the defenses' foe then the truth can be sacrificed. Or, a excuse (justification) is sought to mitigate the defendant's actions. It appears that the defense is seeking a excuse (justification) to the defendant's acts.

Hyperbole: "Yes, my client did shoot the decedant, this is fact. He was justified because he wanted to protect the public."

Click to expand...

Doubt this:

How on earth can anyone believe a habitually drunk tradesman. Who is likely some redneck union thug who has got a history of run-ins with the law which then predisposes him to be anti-cop and likely a threat to national security. It works on TV.

Click to expand...

Dan isn't much of a Gerry Spence showman.
When he discredits a witness, he isn't planting a doubt, there's no doubt whatsoever.

An example:

You stated you are a combat veteran but you have never been as frightened as you were during this encounter.

Yes!

The truth is, you were a supply Sargent and never saw any combat, isn't it.

No answer.

Click to expand...

Absolute verifiable with the documents in his hand, fact... that discredits the entire statement the man had sworn to earlier.

Dan is actually kind of dull most of the time. A lot like a set steel trap....until it snaps shut.

peter nap said:

--snip--

Dan is actually kind of dull most of the time. A lot like a set steel trap....until it snaps shut.

Click to expand...

Crushing analogy.

Methodically bides his time too.

Witnesses contradict Harmon-Wright’s version of the shooting

http://www.dailyprogress.com/starex...cle_a23c378a-664c-11e2-b39a-001a4bcf6878.html

Justified or not, found guilty or not guilty...........he will always have to live with the fact that he took here life. Depending on how justified he feels, he will always have to live with that. While I can't speak to how difficult that may be for him, I believe that in a fully justified shooting, I would always wonder if there was any other way to have resolved the situation.

As a follow up, I'm sure life for him has already been quite torturous which would be terrible to endure in a fully justified situation. I've heard the saying that shooting the bad guy is the easy part, the hard part comes after!

ryan7068 said:

While I can't speak to how difficult that may be for him, I believe that in a fully justified shooting, I would always wonder if there was any other way to have resolved the situation.

Click to expand...

In this case, not shooting her would seem to have been a perfectly acceptable resolution. Especially once he was "free" of the car.

Every time I think about this shooting, and the literally ridiculous arguments which have been and will be advanced in its defense, it makes my blood boil.

ryan7068 said:

Justified or not, found guilty or not guilty...........he will always have to live with the fact that he took here life. Depending on how justified he feels, he will always have to live with that. While I can't speak to how difficult that may be for him, I believe that in a fully justified shooting, I would always wonder if there was any other way to have resolved the situation.

As a follow up, I'm sure life for him has already been quite torturous which would be terrible to endure in a fully justified situation. I've heard the saying that shooting the bad guy is the easy part, the hard part comes after!

Click to expand...

Either way, it is likely his life will never be as it was.

If I were a juror, I would be more likely to believe that a driver would floor it and try to drive away from a man threatening to shoot her, especially after he has already shot her twice, even with a sun shade obscuring the windshield, than I would to believe that the officer analyzed that she was a threat to the public because of the sun shade to such a degree that he was justified to shoot her in the back.

KBCraig said:

If I were a juror, I would be more likely to believe that a driver would floor it and try to drive away from a man threatening to shoot her, especially after he has already shot her twice, even with a sun shade obscuring the windshield, than I would to believe that the officer analyzed that she was a threat to the public because of the sun shade to such a degree that he was justified to shoot her in the back.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Just let me wave my hand a little over here....

Presto! Fleeing felon!

(Remember when I said "ridiculous"?)

KBCraig said:

If I were a juror, I would be more likely to believe that a driver would floor it and try to drive away from a man threatening to shoot her, especially after he has already shot her twice, even with a sun shade obscuring the windshield, than I would to believe that the officer analyzed that she was a threat to the public because of the sun shade to such a degree that he was justified to shoot her in the back.

Click to expand...

This very succinctly summarizes my thoughts.

How does the sunshade constitute a greater threat than a dead driver with her foot on the gas pedal?

MAC702 said:

This very succinctly summarizes my thoughts.

How does the sunshade constitute a greater threat than a dead driver with her foot on the gas pedal?

Click to expand...

Exactly. If/when Hawes actually made/makes this defense (and I were on the jury) I would likely guffaw in response.

You'd have to try very, very hard to find any sort of dangerous driving where shooting at the driver would improve the situation. And this isn't it.

Grapeshot said:

Whether you intended to or not, you have hit precisely the point.

There are only two (2) exceptions to other than a guilty verdict: excusable or justified.
http://www.self-defender.net/virginia-self-defense-laws.htm
http://www.virginia1774.org/Dodson.html

It is therefore most consistent that Mr. Hawes would pursue one of these in defense of his client.

Click to expand...

I wrote it, therefore it was intentional.

peter nap said:

Doubt this:

Dan isn't much of a Gerry Spence showman.
When he discredits a witness, he isn't planting a doubt, there's no doubt whatsoever.

An example:

Absolute verifiable with the documents in his hand, fact... that discredits the entire statement the man had sworn to earlier.

Dan is actually kind of dull most of the time. A lot like a set steel trap....until it snaps shut.

Click to expand...

The witnesses are not in any way analogous to your example. The defense must discredit another church lady and possibly a redneck union thug.....who may or may not be a habitual drunk. Or, the defense must rely on the law to prove that the defendant was justified under the law. The defendants own words do not lend credibility to his justification.

Grapeshot said:

Either way, it is likely his life will never be as it was.

Click to expand...

At this point the defendant's emotional well being is of no concern to me, or the state (of VA that is) if truth be told.

This crime is a another example of how our justice system has been contorted to permit those in LE to be held outside the law. It matters not that his former LEA threw him under the bus. That was obviously nothing more than PR damage control. The question anyone here on OCDO must ask themselves is why. I am well convinced if it was a "good shoot" in the eyes of his LEA he would be employed to this day.

The citizenry is becoming less tolerant of LE abuses and LE is starting to get that message.

BillB said:

Witnesses contradict Harmon-Wright’s version of the shooting

http://www.dailyprogress.com/starex...cle_a23c378a-664c-11e2-b39a-001a4bcf6878.html

Click to expand...

I really, really, really hate to comment adversely on Dan's theory of the case, but there is something in this news story that is bigger than this case.

The news story reports that Harmon-Wright (HW)said his hand was trapped in the window. The story also reports the window was manual. Both pieces of information have been reported multiple times before.

Lets say both data are true, for the sake of argument. If both are true, it seems to me HW would have had plenty of time to remove his hand, but didn't. Why didn't he?

I have seen one video where a cop deliberately placed himself in front a car that wasn't moving; his thigh against the front of the car on the driver's side, his gun pointed at the driver. It was too obvious that the cop was setting it up so he could justify using lethal force on the driver. The cop had plenty of room to place his body beside the car, etc--not directly in front.

There is a helicopter video of several cops on foot shooting the driver of an SUV or truck (I forget) in a parking lot. This was on one of these cop shows. Its hard to say for sure from what I recall of the video that the cops were deliberately placing themselves in jeopardy so they could shoot the driver; but for sure they had time to get well out of the way. It was obvious in the run up that the driver was just trying to evade the police; he wasn't trying to run down any cops earlier when he clearly had the chance. It was clear the cops had the chance to avoid being in deadly danger.

There is another video where a cop dramatically kneels on the hood of a car and pumps lead into the driver through the windshield, when he could have just rolled off the side.

My point to all this is that I think some cops have figured out how to create the situation where they can get away with shooting some one.

If Harmon-Wright's hand was genuinely trapped in Patricia Cooper's hand cranked window, why didn't he pull his hand out when he had the chance? Even an electric window does not move up so fast you can't get your hand out of the way.

Prosecution Rests in Ex-Culpeper Police Officer's Murder Trial

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...r-Police-Officers-Murder-Trial-188281261.html

A whole bunch of "blah blah blah" about how cops place themselves in harms way for the purpose of shooting citizens and then...

Citizen said:

If Harmon-Wright's hand was genuinely trapped in Patricia Cooper's hand cranked window, why didn't he pull his hand out when he had the chance? Even an electric window does not move up so fast you can't get your hand out of the way."

Click to expand...

Did you really just spend 10 minutes typing all that junk up to ask that silly question at the end??? :lol:

I think you answered your own question!

See look, the teasing now continues well past the Starbucks!!

OC for ME said:

The citizenry is becoming less tolerant of LE abuses and LE is starting to get that message.

Click to expand...

I, for one, agree with every word of your post, except for these. I sincerely wish it were the case, but my observations indicate things are trending in the opposite direction.

As for the apparent defense strategy in the case, if that is all Dan has to work with, he isn't exactly going to be able to put up the Taj Mahal.

This whole case stinks.

Cop shoots unarmed woman in the back.

Dan has a deep row to hoe.

IanB said:

A whole bunch of "blah blah blah" about how cops place themselves in harms way for the purpose of shooting citizens and then...



Did you really just spend 10 minutes typing all that junk up to ask that silly question at the end??? :lol:

I think you answered your own question!

See look, the teasing now continues well past the Starbucks!!

Click to expand...

I was wondering if you saw that comment.


I spent the time typing it because its been on my mind ever since I saw that first video I mentioned above. It was so freaking obvious the cop was creating the circumstance to "justify" using lethal force.

Police are not allowed to create an exigency just so they can claim exigent circumstances to justify not getting a warrant. They can't possibly be justified in creating the circumstances that "justify" lethal force.

OC for ME said:

...
This crime is a another example of how our justice system has been contorted to permit those in LE to be held outside the law. ...

Click to expand...

It is my opinion and limited experience that says that there is no justice in our legal system. There is only [supposedly] the law and legalities, technicalities and a pervasive sense of he/she must be guilty or he/she wouldn't be here, unless you are a LEO then generally you get a pass, an excuse or an 'under color of law' so it was ok.

Citizen said:

...Police are not allowed to create an exigency just so they can claim exigent circumstances to justify not getting a warrant. They can't possibly be justified in creating the circumstances that "justify" lethal force.

Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Just who is going to stop the World's Largest Gang from doing such or having training procedures that advocate such action in order to "control the situation?"