Culpeper shooting

[Marco]

I do not believe he scared this woman. Based on my few encounters with young rookies since my leaving law enforcement totally a few years ago, they simply do not know how to talk to and deal with people in a civil manner any longer out here on the streets. I still believe he and she got into a dissing contest over whether she was doing anything wrong and whether he had the authority to even approach her. This questioning of authority was of course "contempt of cop" and his blood pressure went up rather quickly. After this act of "contempt of cop", she had gone from suspect to enemy. It was all downhill from there.

those weren't my words, the accused own lawyer said that.
Agreed, and the city and county cops at the recent C'ville area VCDL meeting stated this was a issue with many of their officers, they only blamed young officers 25yr of age and younger.

 

[user]

those weren't my words, the accused own lawyer said that.
Agreed, and the city and county cops at the recent C'ville area VCDL meeting stated this was a issue with many of their officers, they only blamed young officers 25yr of age and younger.

I assume you're talking about a different case; I never said anything like that. Testimony in court at the bond hearing established that this cop is unusually calm and secure under stress.

 

[peter nap]

Breaking my rule.

I truly believe the decision to hire User was done to gain support of many of his supporters/gun owners/freinds in the area along with the fact he's a capable attorney.

I guess it's possible but I doubt that's the reason. The gun Community really doesn't have a big dog in this fight. OC'ers are more interested because they know it could've been one of us.

It's the community at large, housewives, store owners...darn near everyone, that has it's hackles up about this.

Dan has a reputation of a serious business criminal defense attorney and I expect that's the reason he was hired.

Removing the posts is an understandable move after he as retained but I don't think he said anything other than the truth.

The big concern I have is that Dan has been very generous with his time and advice here and on other boards. That advice has always been very good, detailed and accurate.

I expect he'll be more conservative and reserved with his participation from this point on.

 

[Marco]

I assume you're talking about a different case; I never said anything like that. Testimony in court at the bond hearing established that this cop is unusually calm and secure under stress.

I was referencing this comment quoted comment:

What I want to know is what this cop did to frighten the woman so much.......

that Sheriff attributed to me but that was not mine but yours.


The quoted portions in post 1582 aren't your?

I guess it's possible but I doubt that's the reason. The gun Community really doesn't have a big dog in this fight. OC'ers are more interested because they know it could've been one of us.

It's the community at large, housewives, store owners...darn near everyone, that has it's hackles up about this.

Dan has a reputation of a serious business criminal defense attorney and I expect that's the reason he was hired.

Removing the posts is an understandable move after he as retained but I don't think he said anything other than the truth.

The big concern I have is that Dan has been very generous with his time and advice here and on other boards. That advice has always been very good, detailed and accurate.

I expect he'll be more conservative and reserved with his participation from this point on.

I presume mom and son picked User after visiting this site.. I have no evidence to support that.
I truly appreciate Dan's contrabutions to this forum. I stated the removing of some comments probably isn't nefarious more of a tactic.
User had his own presumptions about his now clients actions when this first happen, those comments showed he had similar views as many of us still hold.

 

[peter nap]

The quoted portions in post 1582 aren't your?




I presume mom and son picked User after visiting this site.. I have no evidence to support that.
I truly appreciate Dan's contrabutions to this forum. I stated the removing of some comments probably isn't nefarious more of a tactic.
User had his own presumptions about his now clients actions when this first happen, those comments showed he had similar views as many of us still hold.

I could only guess how he was contacted. I figured it was another LEO. They know who wins cases. Mom and User didn't exactly hit it off as I recall.

 

[Marco]

Since I introduced this OCDO thread to VAGT I''l the reverse:
http://www.vaguntrader.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/343774/1

Here is User's latest post in that thread and my reply.

Interesting reading. So y'all figure that in matters of personal defense law, I don't know what I'm doing, if I'm representing a cop. As opposed to one of y'all who's just been arrested for shooting Badguy in your living room. Or on your front porch. You figure it's a different body of law, I reckon, if it involves a cop as the person defending against Badguy.
A lot of criticism as well for talking openly about the case. What some folks seem to have missed is that the facts as stated by witnesses and the physical evidence are entirely consistent with the client's view of what happened. As I've told many of you in my Deadly Force Seminars, I don't want cases in which I have to dance around who shot whom, or whether there was a shooting, or try to prove my client didn't do the shooting. I want (and I take on) cases in which my client was right in doing what he did. So my theory of the case is not going to be a surprise to the Commonwealth; it's already been pretty well laid out in public documents filed with the Court.
And you don't seem to recognize that you've been snowed by certain agents of the Commonwealth about all the supposed character flaws and prior misconduct.
The officer's "substance abuse problem" is a characterization of the fact that he truthfully reported on his application for employment with the CPD that he had gotten drunk on a few occasions while "out on the town" with his fellow Marines while stationed in Okinawa, many years ago.
Or the fact that "the woman he pushed out of a window" was actually in her front yard screaming obscenities at her also-drunk husband through the open window, it was the man who was leaning out of the window, no one got pushed, and the neighbor whose children were playing nearby called the police because of the woman's tirade in the presence of her children; or that that couple has been the subject of many such complaints in the past and that they have filed complaints on just about every police officer who has had to respond to their house for a domestic disturbance.
How about that "AKA" stuff, as if he used more than one name. He sometimes goes by the nickname, "Dan", and doesn't always use his middle name, and even that has been the subject of character attack, as if we didn't all do the same thing. And when he went through a legal name change, along with his wife, in order to record his name as consistent with his parentage, as opposed to his former name which was not actually derived from any blood relationship, a Virginia circuit court approved the change, and one day his true name was one thing, and when the order was entered by the court, his true name was something else. He has never gone by more than one name, or used any fictitious names.
And how about that recent firing. True, he was fired, but the CPD did not do a complete investigation. I got a call from a captain there who told me that unless the client give up his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, given the nature of the litigation he is already facing, he would be fired summarily and that he would not be allowed to have an attorney present with him during interrogations. He declined to waive his rights, so they fired him. Then they issued a press release saying they'd done an "internal investigation". I suppose that means they sat around and talked about how to word the letter of termination in order to cover their own arses. They refused to wait until the Court has its say before conducting their "investigation", which to me means that this is just another political ploy.
Each and every such attack has a similar explanation. And it amazes me that the people who complain about a cover-up or corruption in the office of the Special Prosecutor don't recognize when they're getting snowed by hogwash perpetrated for political reasons.
Anyone who doesn't like what I do or how I do it, should call someone else when they get stopped by the cops for carrying, or worse yet, have to pull a gun on someone. If you don't approve of the application of Virginia personal defense law in some cases, you shouldn't rely on those defenses yourself. Just plead guilty and argue sentencing. Don't call me.

I'll reply to this as I think some of it is directed at me.
First, prior to this case I considered User/Dan a friend and still do, time will tell if he's changes he's views about me.

I couldn't care less about the accussed job title, however I did feel that his dept would try to cover things up... probably not possibly with outside dept's looking into things....his Mom is accussed of trying to cover things up...
If the facts/witness testimony gets the accussed killer off so be it, but I don't believe the accussed with regards to this matter.
No matter the outcome I believe he is at least partially criminally and civililly responsible.
Heck, OJ was found not guilty and I believe he did it, same with Casey Anthony.
All those accussed are entitled to the best defense available, that doesn't mean I like the tactics or have to like the tactics... as long as those tactics are legal fine by me.

When this is all said and done we still won't know if the shooting was justifiable as I believe or current justice system doesn't care... it's about winning for most if not all.

Now back to my self imposed no posting in this thread.

 

[BillB]

The timing and the press release are very inappropriate Bill.

Matter of opinion - those not involved or invested in the accused defense may think it's quite appropriate.

 

[peter nap]

Matter of opinion - those not involved or invested in the accused defense may think it's quite appropriate.

That's entirely true. It is a matter of opinion and since I'm neither invested or involved in the defense, my opinion is it was inappropriate timing!

 

[BillB]

That's entirely true. It is a matter of opinion and since I'm neither invested or involved in the defense, my opinion is it was inappropriate timing!

Some might think you and some others here are vicariously invested as a Dan supporter - that too is a matter of opinion though.

 

[peter nap]

Some might think you and some others here are vicariously invested as a Dan supporter - that too is a matter of opinion though.

There's a big difference between being invested or involved...and being a supporter Bill.

I guess you missed the post a while back when I said I was the juror Dan would strike. I'd probably vote guilty even though I don't think he is.

 

[Sheriff]

Testimony in court at the bond hearing established that this cop is unusually calm and secure under stress.

A bond hearing isn't the best place to capture truth. For example, if the commonwealth had known such testimony was going to take place, he could have had 5 witnesses there to say this simply isn't true. I bet the "cool, calm and collected" testimony actually took the commonwealth by surprise.

 

[BillB]

There's a big difference between being invested or involved...and being a supporter Bill.

I'd probably vote guilty even though I don't think he is.

Odd logic Peter. I can't begin to imagine why you say such a thing.

Nothing wrong with being a Dan fan, but I submit that those who are real Dan fans will hope he is successful in his defense of this guy and therefore, they are, at least vicariously, invested in the defense. They are rooting for Dan - not the accused, in fact they may despise the accused. Going back to the beginning of this thread and noting some folks posts' tenor, tone and content both before and after Dan announced that he would be representing the accused is, well, interesting...

 

[Sheriff]

.....but I submit that those who are real Dan fans will hope he is successful in his defense of this guy and therefore, they are, at least vicariously, invested in the defense. They are rooting for Dan - not the accused, in fact they may despise the accused. Going back to the beginning of this thread and noting some folks posts' tenor, tone and content both before and after Dan announced that he would be representing the accused is, well, interesting...

Agreed 100%. Had I been a member here longer and chit chatted with Dan more, I would possibly be in the same boat.

No attorney on the face of the earth is going to get a man accused of shooting an unarmed person in the back off the hook. I actually have a little bit of sympathy for "The Suck", but he's not getting off this time.

 

[Uber_Olafsun]

Can we root for Dan because of all the work he ha done on here but still wait for the trial to decide if the cop is guilty or not?

The firing is so badly timed and saying it was because of an internal investigation. If they would have said because he should never been hired in the first place ok but this makes it look like they tried, found guilty, and sentenced him in their court.

 

[peter nap]

Odd logic Peter. I can't begin to imagine why you say such a thing.

Nothing wrong with being a Dan fan, but I submit that those who are real Dan fans will hope he is successful in his defense of this guy and therefore, they are, at least vicariously, invested in the defense. They are rooting for Dan - not the accused, in fact they may despise the accused. Going back to the beginning of this thread and noting some folks posts' tenor, tone and content both before and after Dan announced that he would be representing the accused is, well, interesting...

The logic's pretty simple. I don't like the guy...but since I'm not on the jury, it really doesn't matter.

I am a Dan fan and I want him to do his usual great job.

The truth is in this case, I said I was going to keep an open mind as to his guilt or innocence until the facts were in, and that's what I'm going to do. So in this instance...I'm neither rooting for or against Dan.

I've listened to what he said and looked at what the Commonwealth put out and if I had to make a call right now, I'd say it was lawful. That may change when everything gets put on the table and that's what Dan has to do, take a jury of people who have already at least made some sort of judgment, and convince them that the facts warrant a not guilty verdict.

Dan is very, very good at that.

 

[Sheriff]

The firing............. makes it look like they tried, found guilty, and sentenced him in their court.

Maybe they have.

Every step of the way..... this has been a strange case.

 

[BillB]

I've listened to what he said and looked at what the Commonwealth put out and if I had to make a call right now, I'd say it was lawful. That may change when everything gets put on the table and that's what Dan has to do, take a jury of people who have already at least made some sort of judgment, and convince them that the facts warrant a not guilty verdict.

Dan is very, very good at that.

The Commonwealth has not put out anything publicly since the bond hearing to my knowledge and the press has been relatively quiet as well. But we have heard fairly frequently from Dan in this thread. As of late, we are really just getting one side of the story.

 

[peter nap]

The Commonwealth has not put out anything publicly since the bond hearing to my knowledge and the press has been relatively quiet as well. But we have heard fairly frequently from Dan in this thread. As of late, we are really just getting one side of the story.

The Commonwealth put out pretty much the whole thing in the bond hearing...then tried to take some of it back.

There aren't a lot of facts that aren't public. It's just a matter of determining if they're black or white.

 

[BillB]

The Commonwealth put out pretty much the whole thing in the bond hearing...

I seriously doubt that. They have the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial and I'm pretty sure there is more to come from the prosecution.

 

[Sheriff]

The truth is in this case, I said I was going to keep an open mind as to his guilt or innocence until the facts were in, and that's what I'm going to do.

I don't recall you saying that when the murder took place. As a matter of fact you said:

1- Hitting the gas instead of the brake and bumping the Mayors car is a mistake...
Shooting a middle age woman in the head then giving her 5 more for good measure is a tad more.

2- Oh well, if he doesn't get much time he can come to work for Hanover.
He's their kind of cop!

3- Hopefully the husband has already hired a GOOD attorney!

4- If (Cook's) lawyer is any good, there will be several suits.
The Officer, the Chief, the town, maybe more.

5- Has anyone heard that this person may be involved somehow?

6- Actually assaulting a police officer is a felony...shouldn't be, but it is... but so far the only one that says he was assaulted is the State Police and a witness says he was not being assaulted.

The lengths the police have gone to discredit the witness, including sending that limber wristed twit here, throw up a BIG red flag!

7- Actually assaulting a police officer is a felony...shouldn't be, but it is... but so far the only one that says he was assaulted is the State Police and a witness says he was not being assaulted.

The lengths the police have gone to discredit the witness, including sending that limber wristed twit here, throw up a BIG red flag!

8- ((( (a) His arm was never inside the vehicle, he was never dragged, and never in danger and he murdered a lady in cold blood.
(b) His arm was never SUPPOSED to be inside the vehicle, but it was, he was dragged, freed himself, and then murdered a lady in cold blood.
Either way I bet it turns out he get 6 months of paid leave and then a desk job when he gets done with his vacation.)))

I agree based on what's been released so far.

9- Yeah, the media has dropped it and it's looking worse for them and more like a coverup, every day.

--------------------------------------------------------------

And all of this was just in the first 10 pages. You had the cop tried, convicted and hung from the nearest tree. :lol: