Culpeper shooting

[Maverick9]

“I yelled five or six times to ‘Stop or I’ll shoot,” Harmon-Wright told Shively on the video recording. “She starting rolling the window up on my [expletive] hand. Pardon my French. Pardon my language. I was trying to get my hand out. It wouldn’t budge. I felt like my life was in danger. So I shot her.”

~ Daniel Harmon-Wright's comments during interview with Investigator Shively of the VSP a few hours following the murder, and presented to the jury during trial.

It would seem Harmon-Wright shot the driver rather than the glass, if his own words have credibility.

Great find. I guess user was mistaken.

 

[Grapeshot]

That pretty well sums it up Marco!

It's gonna get harder though. One credible person has already told me he's had it with the petty guessing game and now a "I was there troll" and I wouldn't blame User for putting this thread on ignore. He tries to give as much of the case as presented as he can, and keeps getting pelted by a few of the neighbors kids.

Well as they say, "No good deed shall go unpunished."

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

Some have complained about an "anti-cop bias". I've been thinking about that. What I've seen is the same kind of assumptions and guesses that have been made in this context as would happen with any other criminal defendant. There is absolutely no question here that there's probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person who committed the crime happens to be a town police officer. He may well have a good defense, but that should be a matter for evidence at trial, in exactly the same manner as would obtain for anyone else.

This post from 2/2012 was changed by User in 4/2012 as we can see by the Quote by Marshaul in 2/2012,
I believe this 4/2012 date is AFTER User decided to represent te murder, H.W.!


Quote by Marshaul in 2/2012.

Originally Posted by user
Some have complained about an "anti-cop bias". I've been thinking about that. What I've seen is the same kind of assumptions and guesses that have been made in this context as would happen with any other criminal defendant. There is absolutely no question here that there's probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person who committed the crime happens to be a town police officer. He may well have a good defense, but that should be a matter for evidence at trial, in exactly the same manner as would obtain for anyone else.

But he isn't anyone else. The machinery of the State's power of prosecution can be friendly to him in a way it would not be friendly to anyone else. The complaints of "anti-cop bias" really reflect a failure to give the cop special status, not any particular bias against the man on account of his having been a cop. People are legitimately concerned that this guy, who would be sitting in jail right now on charges of murder if he hadn't been a cop, is getting a break merely because of his status as a cop.

I have to deal with this thing about how the police officer is entitled to a higher level of presumed credibility just because he's a police officer all the time. But the usual explanation for it is that he had no personal interest in the outcome, no particular animosity toward the defendant, and was an objective third-party observer. Well the witness in this case is the only person who satisfies those criteria. The cop is entitled to no extra credibility here, he's the prospective defendant, and presumptively facing a charge of second-degree murder.

And what about that missing video? Where have I heard that before?

Nailed it.

My point in this post is to show how many of the now murderer supporters, were against the murderer,
before Dan/User decided to represent H.W.!

I may come back to show Peter Nap, Citizen, Pro Shooter...

Most all of us has stayed with our initial position, Sawah, Marshaul, other and myself!

I am glad th H.W. was found guilty and will remain Guilty, unless and untill a possible appeal reverses the juries findings!

 

[Citizen]

SNIP I may come back to show Peter Nap, Citizen, Pro Shooter...

Most all of us has stayed with our initial position, Sawah, Marshaul, other and myself!

Wait a minute. How did I get mixed up in this?


(Psst. Staying with your initial position don't mean much. In his closing address to the constitutional convention, Ben Franklin remarks about having to change his mind when new information comes to light. If a fella changes his mind every time something new comes to light, at least he's paying attention.)

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

This post from 2/2012 was changed by User in 4/2012 as we can see by the Quote by Marshaul in 2/2012,
I believe this 4/2012 date is AFTER User decided to represent te murder, H.W.!


Quote by Marshaul in 2/2012.

Originally Posted by user
Some have complained about an "anti-cop bias". I've been thinking about that. What I've seen is the same kind of assumptions and guesses that have been made in this context as would happen with any other criminal defendant. There is absolutely no question here that there's probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person who committed the crime happens to be a town police officer. He may well have a good defense, but that should be a matter for evidence at trial, in exactly the same manner as would obtain for anyone else.

But he isn't anyone else. The machinery of the State's power of prosecution can be friendly to him in a way it would not be friendly to anyone else. The complaints of "anti-cop bias" really reflect a failure to give the cop special status, not any particular bias against the man on account of his having been a cop. People are legitimately concerned that this guy, who would be sitting in jail right now on charges of murder if he hadn't been a cop, is getting a break merely because of his status as a cop.

I have to deal with this thing about how the police officer is entitled to a higher level of presumed credibility just because he's a police officer all the time. But the usual explanation for it is that he had no personal interest in the outcome, no particular animosity toward the defendant, and was an objective third-party observer. Well the witness in this case is the only person who satisfies those criteria. The cop is entitled to no extra credibility here, he's the prospective defendant, and presumptively facing a charge of second-degree murder.

And what about that missing video? Where have I heard that before?




My point in this post is to show how many of the now murderer supporters, were against the murderer,
before Dan/User decided to represent H.W.!

I may come back to show Peter Nap, Citizen, Pro Shooter...

Most all of us has stayed with our initial position, Sawah, Marshaul, other and myself!

I am glad th H.W. was found guilty and will remain Guilty, unless and untill a possible appeal reverses the juries findings!

It should be noted that 38 posts have been deleted from this thread. Now that the trial is over, I don't see how reposting those deleted posts could do any harm, and may reveal the reasons some have made such drastic changes in opinion on this incident. It might help clear up what appears to be inconsistencies and contradictions.

 

[peter nap]

My point in this post is to show how many of the now murderer supporters, were against the murderer,
before Dan/User decided to represent H.W.!

I may come back to show Peter Nap, Citizen, Pro Shooter...

Most all of us has stayed with our initial position, Sawah, Marshaul, other and myself!

I am glad th H.W. was found guilty and will remain Guilty, unless and untill a possible appeal reverses the juries findings!

Uh...what's the point Defender? I've stated many times I'm supporting User, not the cop.

Interesting you included yourself with Sawah...AKA Badger Johnson and a number of other names. Badger is a gender confused Doctor (His claim) which most here snicker about, disabled karate man who hurt his back saving a man who fell 80 feet and he caught him, he doesn't OC because he knows the Police will "Take him down to the pavement and disable him for good".

Marshaul's good company though. He's radical and argumentative.....but he isn't a drooling nut case like Sawah.:banana:

 

[OC for ME]

It's one of those....."Yell, you are here, now, so you must be involved.....some how.....I just gotta prove your involvement."

 

[peter nap]

It's one of those....."Yell, you are here, now, so you must be involved.....some how.....I just gotta prove your involvement."

If you mean involved in the cops defense.....knock yourself out. I'm involved in to many other things.

If you mean involved in looking at the circumstances, jury reaction, prosecution and defense of the shooting. No need to prove it, I freely admit it.

 

[OC for ME]

If you mean involved in the cops defense.....knock yourself out. I'm involved in to many other things.

If you mean involved in looking at the circumstances, jury reaction, prosecution and defense of the shooting. No need to prove it, I freely admit it.

Ooops.....sorry. Wuz responding to Citizen.

 

[OC for ME]

Ooops.....sorry. Wuz responding to Citizen.

I wuz in the process of single-finger-pecking on my keyboard and your post was up before my post gots posted. I wuz hoping to be right there under Citizen's post......dagnabbit.

 

[peter nap]

I wuz in the process of single-finger-pecking on my keyboard and your post was up before my post gots posted. I wuz hoping to be right there under Citizen's post......dagnabbit.

That makes us even for my last misquote:lol:

 

[OC for ME]

That makes us even for my last misquote:lol:

Deal!

 

[Citizen]

I wuz in the process of single-finger-pecking on my keyboard and your post was up before my post gots posted. I wuz hoping to be right there under Citizen's post......dagnabbit.

That's one of those terms where the exact sequence of the syllables is really, really important.

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,,

I have stepped on many toes in my posts here.
I am sorry for those that didnt deserve it
Many of my posts seem like BS of a one sided dork!

Soooo many edits and deletions have happened, we cant keep up with.

Some of my posts, look like I just stood in the street yelling the moon,

How can posts just disapear,,, soooo noody knows????

 

[Grapeshot]

Culpeper Police Chiefs name in civil suit:

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/s...cle_69749364-dcaa-11e2-a89c-0019bb30f31a.html

 

[marshaul]

Culpeper Police Chiefs name in civil suit:

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/s...cle_69749364-dcaa-11e2-a89c-0019bb30f31a.html

As has been established, these are the real bad guys.

Let's hope they're taken for everything they're worth.

 

[user]

.... What I've seen is the same kind of assumptions and guesses that have been made in this context as would happen with any other criminal defendant. There is absolutely no question here that there's probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person who committed the crime happens to be a town police officer. He may well have a good defense, but that should be a matter for evidence at trial, in exactly the same manner as would obtain for anyone else.
...

I have to deal with this thing about how the police officer is entitled to a higher level of presumed credibility just because he's a police officer ...
...

My position has not changed; I still think people ought to stop making assumptions about whether a person charged with a crime (e.g., a criminal defendant, or one who is in the position of defending against a charge of criminal misconduct), is guilty of whatever the charge may be. I believe in the presumption of innocence, and the issue is not whether the defendant is a sinner or a bad person, but whether he engaged in specific behavior proscribed by law as charged in the warrant or indictment. Half-baked nonsense from the media redigested by people who don't understand the society they live in is not evidence of anything. All I'm asking is that people suspend judgment unless and until they have personal knowledge of the facts.

The police officer isn't specifically entitled to a higher level of credibility, but he is entitled to the presumption that he was acting lawfully in the service of the Commonwealth. Don't get me started on GDC judges who have said to me, "But I've got to believe my officers, don't I?", when I complained about the failure to employ the "reasonable doubt" standard, and the fact that cops are trained to be professional courtroom witnesses. I don't think my client needed enhanced credibility in this case, because, with the exception of the many adverse witnesses who contradicted each other, there was no significant controversy as to the evidence.

 

[Citizen]

My position has not changed; I still think people ought to stop making assumptions about whether a person charged with a crime (e.g., a criminal defendant, or one who is in the position of defending against a charge of criminal misconduct), is guilty of whatever the charge may be. I believe in the presumption of innocence, and the issue is not whether the defendant is a sinner or a bad person, but whether he engaged in specific behavior proscribed by law as charged in the warrant or indictment. Half-baked nonsense from the media redigested by people who don't understand the society they live in is not evidence of anything. All I'm asking is that people suspend judgment unless and until they have personal knowledge of the facts.

The police officer isn't specifically entitled to a higher level of credibility, but he is entitled to the presumption that he was acting lawfully in the service of the Commonwealth. Don't get me started on GDC judges who have said to me, "But I've got to believe my officers, don't I?", when I complained about the failure to employ the "reasonable doubt" standard, and the fact that cops are trained to be professional courtroom witnesses. I don't think my client needed enhanced credibility in this case, because, with the exception of the many adverse witnesses who contradicted each other, there was no significant controversy as to the evidence.

I'm reminded of the movie My Cousin Vinny. After Joe Pesci's character dissassembles the first prosecution witness, the other defendant fires his public defender, points to Pesci, and loudly tells the judge, "I want him!"

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Appeal denied in Pat Cook slaying by Culpeper cop

http://www.dailyprogress.com/starex...cle_01f078be-68d4-11e3-9ae8-0019bb30f31a.html


"A police officer 'cannot kill unless there is a necessity for it, and the jury must determine upon the testimony of the existence or absence of the necessity ..." the court said, and, "Here, the record supports the jury's conclusion that (Harmon-Wright) acted unlawfully when he shot into Cook's vehicle, killing her. Accordingly, we find no error with the trial court's actions."

Discuss.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Appeal denied in Pat Cook slaying by Culpeper cop

http://www.dailyprogress.com/starex...cle_01f078be-68d4-11e3-9ae8-0019bb30f31a.html


"A police officer 'cannot kill unless there is a necessity for it, and the jury must determine upon the testimony of the existence or absence of the necessity ..." the court said, and, "Here, the record supports the jury's conclusion that (Harmon-Wright) acted unlawfully when he shot into Cook's vehicle, killing her. Accordingly, we find no error with the trial court's actions."

Discuss.

I would rather not discuss a case where USER is involved. But I am willing to discuss other instances that are either on trial or coming up for trial. We have a detention officer that we should be hearing verdict on. I have mixed feelings on it, because when the confrontation started IMO the officer was justified. But the problem is after he disabled the inmate he dropped him a second time. If I can find the video clip I will post it.