Culpeper shooting

DocWalker · Jun 25, 2012

skidmark said:
Sorry if it seemed I was avoiding answering your question. That was not the intent. I just could not conceive of any reason for a non-LEO to have shot once the immediate threat was over. OK, I did consider anger and a desire to "get even with" or "teach a lesson to", but rejected them because in my mind all non-LEOs should be above that. I know it is not true, just as I know it to be not true for all LEOs. Buit for the sake of discussion we need to keep things clear and clean.

But the fact of the matter was/is that he was, as the attornies love saying, at all times relevant to and during the incident, a cop. That changes the dynamic because he has certain duties/obligations/expectations to fulfil that non-LEOs do not. Perhaps that is one of the things that will need to be stressed by the defense in order to overcome the "instinctive conclusion" you mention.

Strange, isn't it - a goood defense resting on the need to demonstrate that the cop refused to shirk his duty and obligations?

stay safe.

correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the courts rule that LE has 'NO' duty to protect?

OC for ME · Jun 25, 2012

True, but the courts did not rule that a cop must not gun down in cold blood a armed and dangerous fleeing felon if they happen to see a armed and dangerous fleeing felon with their own eyes.

In fact, it is frowned upon for cops to not gun down in cold blood armed and dangerous fleeing felons. Now, whether or not the fleeing felon while being armed was actually dangerous is a matter for a jury.

DocWalker · Jun 25, 2012

user said:
No. That's one place where the rules really are different for cops. A cop is legally required to prevent the escape of a person who has committed felonious acts in his presence. Keep in mind that the operative word, "arrest", means "stop", and one way to stop a fleeing felon is to kill him.

So why do we have TV showes like "Wildest Police Chases". Of all these high speed chases we see on TV (and there are a lot of them) I rarely see the cops light up a car/truck that is speeding through traffic.

I also thought the courts ruled that an officer "doesn't" have the duty to protect.

This also raises the prospect cops can just kill people and say they made a felonious act and "had to shoot them".

The term slippery slop comes to mind if your client gets off using this argument. I also expect to never see bank robbers being chased by cops on the news anymore as they have a duty to stop them before they can hit another car in an intersection. If they don't go all Bonnie and Clide on "every" vehicle that runs then the LE is neglecting to do their jobs.

The cops can't have it both ways.

skidmark · Jun 25, 2012

DocWalker said:
correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the courts rule that LE has 'NO' duty to protect?

SCOTUS has on 5 different occassions ruled that the popo have no duty to protect any specific individual person, but that the popo have a duty to protect society/the community. You really must read the decisions to understand just how easy it is to understand the difference

stay safe.

Sheriff · Jun 25, 2012

OC for ME said:
.... armed and dangerous fleeing felons......

An armed and dangerous fleeing felon, for example, is a man who has just robbed a bank and shot 2 people and killed 1 person. A cop would easily be justified in ending this threat immediately.

An armed and dangerous fleeing felon can also be a man who has just kidnapped a 12 year old girl. But a cop had best not empty his weapon into the car knowing the 12 year old girl is still in the vehicle. This goes without saying (I hope).

An armed and dangerous fleeing felon is somebody who just cashed a $500 forged check at Walmart and is driving away (if we claim the car is a weapon). But you don't empty your weapon and kill a man over a $500 forged check.

An armed and dangerous fleeing felon can be a man who has just punched a cop, split the cop's lip open, and is driving away from the scene. I would never kill a man for something this simple even though he has technically committed a felony and is fleeing.

An armed and dangerous fleeing felon can include somebody who has just had a verbal disagreement with a cop and is driving off with the cop trapped in the door or window. But once the cop is free from entrapment, I would never empty a weapon into his/her vehicle, felonies or no felonies.

This is going to be an uphill battle all the way for Dan.

skidmark · Jun 25, 2012

DocWalker said:
So why do we have TV showes like "Wildest Police Chases". Of all these high speed chases we see on TV (and there are a lot of them) I rarely see the cops light up a car/truck that is speeding through traffic.

Because in those situations there are options open to the cops to stop the vehicle short of shooting at it. PIT maneuvers, spike strips, rolling roadblocks, etc. All of those are discretionary on the part of the police, as was the action of this police officer.

I also thought the courts ruled that an officer "doesn't" have the duty to protect.

Already answered.

This also raises the prospect cops can just kill people and say they made a felonious act and "had to shoot them".

Then it raises the prospect that Joe Sixpack can just kill people and say they made an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury and "had to shoot them". Pardon the attitude, but is that not why there are investigations made about the shooting and the circumstances leading up to it? (I realize there is a great and often real assumption that an investigation of a police officer may in fact be a whitewash. But the same could be said for some of the SD events we read about.)

The term slippery slop comes to mind if your client gets off using this argument. I also expect to never see bank robbers being chased by cops on the news anymore as they have a duty to stop them before they can hit another car in an intersection. If they don't go all Bonnie and Clide on "every" vehicle that runs then the LE is neglecting to do their jobs.

The cops can't have it both ways.

This black or white, all or nothing argument is disappointing. Each incident is unique and thus offers its own list of options or limitations. And since most bank robbers 1) do not go shooting up the place like the criminals of yore and 2) do not go recklessly speeding and weaving down Main Street while shooting wildly to dissuade a citizen posse from giving chase, your argument is busted as a failed appeal to emotion. I almost feel like I'm piling on when I remind you that most of the time nowadays the cops are nowhere to be seen when the bank is robbed and only arrive on the scene well after the perp has walked out of the bank, across the parking lot, around the corner and disappeared from sight. Who would they chase? I almost feel like it would be piling on, but I just for the life of me can't see any reason not to pile on anyhow.

stay safe.

DocWalker · Jun 25, 2012

skidmark said:
Because in those situations there are options open to the cops to stop the vehicle short of shooting at it. PIT maneuvers, spike strips, rolling roadblocks, etc. All of those are discretionary on the part of the police, as was the action of this police officer.

Already answered.

Then it raises the prospect that Joe Sixpack can just kill people and say they made an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury and "had to shoot them". Pardon the attitude, but is that not why there are investigations made about the shooting and the circumstances leading up to it? (I realize there is a great and often real assumption that an investigation of a police officer may in fact be a whitewash. But the same could be said for some of the SD events we read about.)

This black or white, all or nothing argument is disappointing. Each incident is unique and thus offers its own list of options or limitations. And since most bank robbers 1) do not go shooting up the place like the criminals of yore and 2) do not go recklessly speeding and weaving down Main Street while shooting wildly to dissuade a citizen posse from giving chase, your argument is busted as a failed appeal to emotion. I almost feel like I'm piling on when I remind you that most of the time nowadays the cops are nowhere to be seen when the bank is robbed and only arrive on the scene well after the perp has walked out of the bank, across the parking lot, around the corner and disappeared from sight. Who would they chase? I almost feel like it would be piling on, but I just for the life of me can't see any reason not to pile on anyhow.

stay safe.

What was preventing this officer from calling it in for pursuit? What was preventing this officer from taking chase? Why did this officer have to "jump" to the most extreme force if he like other have all these options you speak about. Most of these people only get a couple years after a high speed chase not the death penalty.

I used bank robbery as an example but you can put down any situation a cop feels to be felonious.....If you are alive after the cop is done with his/her choosen form of stoppage you can argue in court. This is why it is in the best interest for ALL LE to use the most extreme force available and silence any disending options about the events. Now what to do about any whitnesses....hmmmm

As shown in the Travon Martin case if there is enough pressure then they will find something to pin a charge on you even if you are justified. If Zimmerman was a cop then the whole Martin issue would be for not since he was unarmed and assalted Zimmerman. The only problem is Martin was in continuous attack mode and The church lady was just trying to get away from the guy that just shot her.....

Cop can kill someone that is trying to get away from the guy that just shot her but a guy that has someone on top of him beating his head into the pavement can't defend himself.

Zimmerman shoots someone in the chest/stomach area that is on top of him.....

Cop shoots lady in the back while trying to get away from someone that just shot her......

The only answer this concludes is if you shoot someone you had better be a cop.

KBCraig · Jun 25, 2012

user said:
A cop is legally required to prevent the escape of a person who has committed felonious acts in his presence.

Okay, I'll bite... what are the legal consequences for a cop who fails to do so, or fails to even attempt to do so? Is he fined? Sent to jail?

If there are no legal consequences, how can one really be "legally required"?

DocWalker · Jun 25, 2012

KBCraig said:
Okay, I'll bite... what are the legal consequences for a cop who fails to do so, or fails to even attempt to do so? Is he fined? Sent to jail?

If there are no legal consequences, how can one really be "legally required"?

This is something nobody has clearified yet.

If a cop has a "duty" to stop a felon from escaping then why is there ever ever a police chase? They should fill every vehicle that they are chasing with lead so as to stop the vehicle from injuring an anyone. To do anything less i.e. pit manuver, spike strips and other means to stop a vehicle with a fleeing felon have all been found to be less than 100% effective as demonstrated in the videos of criminals driving around stop sticks, recovering from pit manuvers and so forth.

If it is a cops 'legal' duty to stop a fleeing felon then it is not unreasonalble for them to shoot fleeing criminals in the back as they try to get away. If this is the argument for this cop then every other cop that doesn't use deadly force should be charged and punished for not doing their jobs to protect the innocent.

MamabearCali · Jun 25, 2012

I am glad this cop has User for a lawyer--cause he will need him.

Two things....first off WHY DID THE CITY FIRE HIM RIGHT NOW!!!! Sorry for the shouting, but really, he is on unpaid leave. All this does is muddy the waters for the trial. Thanks...as a citizen of Virginia we did not need that. They really could have waited on that. When this goes to trial we need as much clarity as possible. This is a painful difficult case and the mud in the waters does not help.

Secondly, I am still, even with all the arguments about police stopping a fleeing felon, extremely skeptical of the follow up shots. This was not a person shooting up a neighborhood (a situation where I can see shooting into a car), this was a woman trying to escape from a cop. Why? I really don't know, but when the threat to the officers life had ended (breaking the window glass) the shooting should have too. I am not an expert in the law, just an ordinary common American woman. Those follow up shots sit real poorly with me. Does not mean he is guilty, he could still be not guilty, but those follow up shots bother me quite a bit.

Sheriff · Jun 25, 2012

MamabearCali said:
..... when the threat to the officers life had ended (breaking the window glass) the shooting should have too.

Exactly. And User will never convince a jury otherwise.

The dangerous fleeing felon foolishness will never fool a jury in this case.

marshaul · Jun 25, 2012

user said:
...the Sovereign's subjects...

How revealing.

marshaul · Jun 25, 2012

user said:
Here's another way to look at it. When I do something on behalf of a client as his attorney, it's as if he did it for himself. I can legally do anything for another person that he might lawfully do for himself; the word, "attorney", means, "substitute", etymologically. Similarly, when a cop acts on behalf of us, the Sovereign, it's as if we ourselves were doing the act. He's our agent and our substitute.

We're sort of like the villagers who hire killers to protect us from the bandits, as in "The Seven Samurai", or its derivative, "The Magnificent Seven". If we want the samurai/gunslingers to kill the badguys for us, then we have to recognize that they're entitled to use their own tactics to do so on our behalf. We have to be able to distinguish, however, between those who are truly acting on our behalf, and those who are "on a lark of their own."

OK. First of all. Is this what you tell yourself?

The alternative would be to live in Maryland, where there is no law, only status, and where the cops are legally constrained and the citizens cannot carry their own means of defense.

Click to expand...

Can you find the non sequitur and the false dilemma in this statement?

marshaul · Jun 25, 2012

MamabearCali said:
Secondly, I am still, even with all the arguments about police stopping a fleeing felon, extremely skeptical of the follow up shots. This was not a person shooting up a neighborhood (a situation where I can see shooting into a car), this was a woman trying to escape from a cop. Why? I really don't know, but when the threat to the officers life had ended (breaking the window glass) the shooting should have too. I am not an expert in the law, just an ordinary common American woman. Those follow up shots sit real poorly with me. Does not mean he is guilty, he could still be not guilty, but those follow up shots bother me quite a bit.

User is going to seriously damage his and his client's credibility if he brings his hyperbolic comparison of the kinetic energy of a slow-moving car and a bullet, or statements like the following:

My take on the present case is that the fleeing felon was armed and dangerous; she had just tried to kill or seriously injure the cop, and was obviously bent on destruction...

Those who want the world to be perfectly safe are in for a frustrating and disappointing life. The car prior to the shots was headed down a public street on the wrong side of the street toward the most heavily trafficked area in town. The cop successfully stopped the threat with minimal collateral damage (the utility pole must have gotten scratched up a bit).

lol.

I would suggest that the proper approach should be to argue that this is what was going through the officer's mind, not that it represents objective truth in hindsight. Because, in hindsight, it's ridiculous.

nuc65 · Jun 26, 2012

user said:
No. That's one place where the rules really are different for cops. A cop is legally required to prevent the escape of a person who has committed felonious acts in his presence. Keep in mind that the operative word, "arrest", means "stop", and one way to stop a fleeing felon is to kill him. And a police officer, unlike a sheriff's deputy, has all of the powers of a high constable at common law, which is a pretty heavy load. There is a recent U.S.Sup.Ct. civil case (wrongful death) that held that it is a per-se violation of a person's right to due process of law to shoot to kill where the cop had no reasonable basis for belief that the fleeing felon did not represent a continuing threat of danger to himself or the community. This "community caretaker" doctrine imposes a duty upon a cop, a duty flowing from him to the state (and not to any particular person), to take action when the Sovereign's subjects are being threatened by a fleeing felon. Just plain folks have no such duty.

If, on the other hand, there is a present basis for a "reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact" that there is an "imminent threat of serious bodily injury" to another person who is himself innocent of having any part in starting the conflict, then anyone observing the threat can take action to stop the threat. But that's a defense, not a duty, and it has to be specific as to the person threatened.

I would like to educate myself a little bit could you please provide the US Supreme Court Case cite and some more details regarding the difference between a Sheriff's deputy and a police officer. I thought they were essentially the same thing.

nuc65 · Jun 26, 2012

MamabearCali said:
I am glad this cop has User for a lawyer--cause he will need him.

Two things....first off WHY DID THE CITY FIRE HIM RIGHT NOW!!!! Sorry for the shouting, but really, he is on unpaid leave. All this does is muddy the waters for the trial. Thanks...as a citizen of Virginia we did not need that. They really could have waited on that. When this goes to trial we need as much clarity as possible. This is a painful difficult case and the mud in the waters does not help.

Secondly, I am still, even with all the arguments about police stopping a fleeing felon, extremely skeptical of the follow up shots. This was not a person shooting up a neighborhood (a situation where I can see shooting into a car), this was a woman trying to escape from a cop. Why? I really don't know, but when the threat to the officers life had ended (breaking the window glass) the shooting should have too. I am not an expert in the law, just an ordinary common American woman. Those follow up shots sit real poorly with me. Does not mean he is guilty, he could still be not guilty, but those follow up shots bother me quite a bit.

The prosecution is not above using any tactics to public smear the defendant in order to sway the jury pool. This much is obvious.

Grapeshot · Jun 26, 2012

nuc65 said:
The prosecution is not above using any tactics to public smear the defendant in order to sway the jury pool. This much is obvious.

We have a winner !!

OC for ME · Jun 26, 2012

nuc65 said:
The prosecution is not above using any tactics to public smear the defendant in order to sway the jury pool. This much is obvious.

And the defense is not above using any tactics to publically smear the dead Church Lady in order to sway the jury pool. This much is obvious.

DocWalker · Jun 26, 2012

OC for ME said:
And the defense is not above using any tactics to publically smear the dead Church Lady in order to sway the jury pool. This much is obvious.

Didn't you know she wasn't an innocent church lady she was a mean and visous felon that was just out to try and kill a cop that morning using her jeep as a missle to run over the poor officer and then drive out into the public street to find some puppies to squash......

OC for ME · Jun 26, 2012

user said:
<snip> 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?

Who is available to believe is a better question. As to the facts, what facts are there beyond the word of the cop? We may not have any video or audio, to my knowledge, we only have the word of a cop.

It may very well be that Church Lady was some dangerous yet unconvicted felon, just one step ahead of the law, the community at large may be safer for her being removed from the community by this brave and selfless cop.

Then again, she may have been 'pure as the wind driven snow' and now she will be portrayed as 'yellow snow'.

Culpeper shooting

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Activist Member

Activist Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member