Culpeper shooting

[peter nap]

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:

Yeah, and if you read on instead of stopping there, you see where I swapped gears when Dan took the case....or maybe that was during the time you left, never to darken this door again.

 

[Sheriff]

Yeah, and if you read on instead of stopping there, you see where I swapped gears when Dan took the case....

That's the point. All the good ole boys switched sides.

Some of us didn't climb up into y'alls little clubhouse though.

 

[peter nap]

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.

We'll have to wait until showtime to see Bill.

 

[peter nap]

That's the point. All the good ole boys switched sides.

Some of us didn't climb up into y'alls little clubhouse though.

Good thing too unless you know how to fly:lol:

 

[KBCraig]

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

He could have a bright future at Las Vegas PD. They set a record in 2011, killing 12 citizens in a city of under 600,000 population.

 

[Sheriff]

I didn't actually make the remark. I was quoting Peter Nap.

When it first happened, he was all over this murder like flies on sh.....

 

[MAC702]

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

Interesting. Many times when mere citizens are on trial, this is used as evidence that we are cold-hearted killers.

I'm not saying this is the case, here. I'm merely saying: "Interesting..."

 

[user]

Interesting. Many times when mere citizens are on trial, this is used as evidence that we are cold-hearted killers.

I'm not saying this is the case, here. I'm merely saying: "Interesting..."

That's a really, really good point. I expect it to be used exactly the same way in this case.

That's why I tell people that you have to understand the law of personal defense and be doing things that are really appropriate. Then you can come into court and testify without a wrinkle in your conscience, and, when the Commonwealth cross-examines you with their usual ruthless attempts to make you look as bad as possible, such as by asking whether it's true that you're a cold-blooded killer who shot intentionally with the specific purpose of causing the horrible death of another human being, you can look him right in the eye, and say, "I shot with every intention of causing his death, because, while regrettable, it was necessary because..." (pick one or more from this list: stopping a serious felony in progress; defense of habitation from home invasion; self defense; defense of another innocent person).

I was talking to a prosecutor about rape cases, once, and she told me that if the victim's clothing was ripped, they argued that the defendant was a reckless and wanton aggressor intent only on defiling his victim; and if it had been cut, they'd argue that he was a ruthless, calculating, and intentional aggressor intent only on defiling his victim.

Same principle applies, as M. Ayoob has pointed out, to the use of skeletonized hammers, hollow point ammunition, reduced power springs, action jobs, nightsights, and laser grips. If you have any of these things, the Commonwealth may attempt to show by the fact that you were ready, willing, and able to take the life of another human being, that you wanted to do so and were merely waiting for a good excuse. You can't worry about stuff like that (unless of course you have a lawyer who doesn't understand personal defense law or who is a nonconfrontational person who simply shouldn't be doing litigation at all). Because all that really matters is that you shot the guy, and why you did it. If you have to kill someone, then by golly, do it. But if you don't have to, then don't even think about the gun - it's not a negotiating tool or an instrument of intimidation except in the movies. Necessity is what counts, and if it was necessary for one of the legally recognized reasons, then you have a good defense and cannot afford to be intimidated by the Power of The State.

 

[user]

I felt constrained to make a response, yesterday, to what I regarded as unwarranted personal attacks as a result of my having undertaken to defend the cop in this case. That happened on a different web-forum. But what I realized at that time is that there are a lot of people who simply cannot bring themselves to identify with the cop in this case, simply because he is (or was) a cop. They identify with the decedant in this case.

I think there are two phenomena at work in this process. First, we naturally distrust the cops, because they have a high degree of control and authority. The courts routinely assign credibility to what cops say, merely because they're cops. They get the benefit of the doubt where they shouldn't, and some of them misuse the power we've given them. And we can't really tell, from the outside looking in, which ones are good and which ones are bad. That uncertainty, along with the ability to abuse their positions of authority, cause us a good deal of healthy (and often justified) distrust. So when there's a controversy like this between a cop and "a citizen", we identify with the citizen, because we see ourselves as potential victims of petty tyranny. And lots of us have real experience with cops who are really just bullies dressed up in the authority of the state.

And, with respect to this case, the decedant gets what my wife calls, "the middle-aged white lady in a minivan dispensation". The decedant in this case is not a nineteen year old black kid with an excessively large gun shooting up the convenience store. Initially, the media reported her as having been a Sunday school teacher shot in the church parking lot, and it wasn't until much later that anyone knew that she hadn't been a Sunday school teacher for a long time, and that she had never had any relationship with the church whose parking lot she was in; or that she was, in fact, a trespasser in that parking lot. I see it as a romantic "mom and apple pie" idealism; people imagine what they want to be true about such a person, and believe the product of their own imagination as truth.

Having identified with the victim as against what might be the unjustified tyranny of a bully who happens to have the authority of The State, and then having identified the decedant with mom and apple pie, such people have erected a huge emotional barrier to truth, and cannot possibly be objective. I don't really care at this point whether people accept my view that there is exactly one set of facts and all of the witnesses on both sides are pretty consistent about what those facts are in all the important details. What I care about is that people understand that as citizens, they stand to be victimized as defendants in criminal cases, themselves, and ought to have more concern for fairness in the justice system.

I remember when O.J. Simpson "got off" in his criminal case. There was such public outrage because an obviously whacked-out jury got hoodwinked into letting that murderer go free, even though it was really clear that the prosecution had hoked-up the evidence. It didn't seem to occur to anyone that "there but for the grace of God go I". If your spouse winds up dead under suspicious circumstances, guess who's going to be arrested for the crime? Much of what "law enforcement" does by way of criminal prosecutions is that which is most convenient and easiest. Once they have a "suspect", they stop looking for "the real killer".

I think everyone should take a day off from work and go to their local courthouse and watch a day's worth of trials, both felony and misdemeanor. Although, as Von Bismarck observed in the late Nineteenth Century, "Those who love the law and sausages should not observe the process by which either is made."

 

[Sheriff]

Dan, needless to say, this is going to be a very long trial.

What do you anticipate? 2 weeks? 3 weeks?

 

[Citizen]

I felt constrained to make a response, yesterday, to what I regarded as unwarranted personal attacks as a result of my having undertaken to defend the cop in this case. That happened on a different web-forum. But what I realized at that time is that there are a lot of people who simply cannot bring themselves to identify with the cop in this case, simply because he is (or was) a cop. They identify with the decedant in this case.

Wait a second! You spend time on a different web-forum!?!

 

[user]

Wait a second! You spend time on a different web-forum!?!

Hah! No disloyalty intended.

My favorites outside of OCDO are VaGunTrader.com, VaGunForum.net, TheFirearmsForum.com, and Glocktalk.com. (I mostly pontificate about religious stuff on the latter and check their classified ads). OCDO is the only one I check at least once a day.

I'm also registered on a bunch of others, though I cancelled my registration on Smith-WessonForum.com and a few others because I hated having to "agree to terms" every time I visited, and SigForum.com cancelled my registration because they took offense at the user name, "user", after some years of participation.

 

[user]

Dan, needless to say, this is going to be a very long trial.

What do you anticipate? 2 weeks? 3 weeks?

At this point, I don't have a clue. The Commonwealth had forty-two witnesses testify in the grand jury proceedings. They've got eight "eye-witnesses" and four "ear-witnesses" (all of whom will say they heard two or three shots, a brief pause, and around five or so shots after that). I'm hoping we can stipulate to a lot of the facts, but the Commonwealth will often resist that because it's not as dramatic a show for the jury.

 

[Sheriff]

More likely than not, "user" ia available as a user name in almost any forum you attempt to sign up on. Strangely enough, the same is true of "Sheriff". But I still have a few people whine about my user name once in a while too. Somebody here on Open Carry was whining about it recently.

I would love to sit through the entire trial whether it takes 2 weeks or a month. But I can't sit still that long. I don't know how jurors sit still for 9 to 12 hours a day.

 

[peter nap]

More likely than not, "user" ia available as a user name in almost any forum you attempt to sign up on. Strangely enough, the same is true of "Sheriff". But I still have a few people whine about my user name once in a while too. Somebody here on Open Carry was whining about it recently.

I would love to sit through the entire trial whether it takes 2 weeks or a month. But I can't sit still that long. I don't know how jurors sit still for 9 to 12 hours a day.

There's a difference between whining and flat out saying it's stupid for someone who spends most of his time bitching about cops, using the name Sheriff...That's especially true since you were never a Sheriff, you were a Deputy.

But since you're spoiling for a ******* match today...let's have at it!

I see you're starting the same "Who, little ol me" routine Novacop used to use. What was that you said about OC'ers that record cops and get them in trouble....?

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

So when there's a controversy like this between a cop and "a citizen", we identify with the citizen, because we see ourselves as potential victims of petty tyranny. And lots of us have real experience with cops who are really just bullies dressed up in the authority of the state.

I think your very right about this.
Do you think a non LEO would be justified in the follow up shots after the car was driving away?

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by user --snip--

So when there's a controversy like this between a cop and "a citizen", we identify with the citizen, because we see ourselves as potential victims of petty tyranny. And lots of us have real experience with cops who are really just bullies dressed up in the authority of the state.

Indeed, that is from the text of Psychology 102.

It is because of this almost automatic response that I find myself have to slow down and let the smoke clear in order to maintain an objective, fact oriented state of mind.

 

[skidmark]

I think your very right about this.
Do you think a non LEO would be justified in the follow up shots after the car was driving away?

Why do you think that a non-LEO would have made the follow-up shots? What would be their purpose?

Because the cop was a cop he had a whole additional set of issues to deal with that your average Joe Sixpack on the street would not. First there was the self-defense shooting (2 or 3 shots at/through the side window. Then there were additional shots fired in response to the list of felony offenses User has cataloged for us - which are the perview of a cop but not a "mere" citizen.

So, why do you think that a non-LEO would have made the follow-up shots? What would be their purpose?

stay safe.

 

[peter nap]

Indeed, that is from the text of Psychology 102.

It is because of this almost automatic response that I find myself have to slow down and let the smoke clear in order to maintain an objective, fact oriented state of mind.

I think the "Hang-a-cop" syndrome was kicked into high gear with the Immediate and complete veil of silence Grape!
By the time facts started coming out, everyone was screaming coverup.

It's not uncommon for LEO's to shoot someone trying to hit them with a car. Not much is said about that.
The question here won't be if he was justified in shooting to extract himself, rather...if the second burst of shots were necessary to stop a fleeing felon who was an immediate danger to others.

While that is a legitimate question for us, he was a police officer at the time.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP So when there's a controversy like this between a cop and "a citizen", we identify with the citizen, because we see ourselves as potential victims of petty tyranny.

And, because its patriotic:

"They augur misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze." Edmund Burke, Speech in Parliament about the untractable colonists, Mar 22, 1775. Note the date. Lexington and Concord were just under a month away.