Culpeper shooting

[TFred]

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.

Does this look like a jury nullification of the law allowing police officers to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon? Or did the jury simply not believe the account that the officer used to frame the situation as stopping a fleeing felon?

TFred

 

[peter nap]

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.

Me too WW.
Everything that could be said in this case.....has been said.

 

[skidmark]

"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."

The court of Appeals does not look to see if the jury's verdict was right or wrong*. They look to see if there was misinterpretation or misapplication of statute and/or case law. Imma gonna need time to read the decision to see if they even did thaty, as the quote above does not address the issues.

* - The CoA will look at the verdict if it was unsupportable by the facts. That does not mean jury nullification could never happen - it just means it's hard to accomplish.

stay safe.

 

[marshaul]

Does this look like a jury nullification of the law allowing police officers to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon? Or did the jury simply not believe the account that the officer used to frame the situation as stopping a fleeing felon?

Maybe a little of both.

I used to support the legal "standard" of the "fleeing felon" until this case, and user's ridiculous arguments in defense of his client, impinged upon my consciousness.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Interesting that you have access to a transcript that I haven't been able to obtain.

By the way, and this is the only news here, I have been authorized to note my client's appeal in the case. So we may have another year or so to go for a final resolution.

Appears the wheels turned faster in this case. Only took six months to get a "no".

 

[TFred]

The court of Appeals does not look to see if the jury's verdict was right or wrong*. They look to see if there was misinterpretation or misapplication of statute and/or case law. Imma gonna need time to read the decision to see if they even did thaty, as the quote above does not address the issues.

* - The CoA will look at the verdict if it was unsupportable by the facts. That does not mean jury nullification could never happen - it just means it's hard to accomplish.

stay safe.

I would also observe that a case of jury nullification resulting in a conviction - and thus providing the option for appeal - is exceedingly rare!

TFred

 

[skidmark]

I would also observe that a case of jury nullification resulting in a conviction - and thus providing the option for appeal - is exceedingly rare!

TFred

The judge/jury disregarding the law and returning a guilty verdict is a common reason for appeal. As in "law says the prohibition against X does not apply in A, B, or C exceptions and both A & B exceptions were shown beyond a reasonable doubt but the verdict was "guilty" anyhow. Lots more fun than one side claiming guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt and the other saying "Nuh-uh".

Not quite as common as procedural error (the standard/usual reason for appeal) such as invalid jury instruction or charge was for crime A when in fact crime B (not a lesser included offense) was committed.

stay safe.

 

[user]

My opinion hasn't changed - I don't think anyone is entitled to heightened credibility merely because of their status - I wouldn't believe a physician more than a homeless person merely on account of status. That's not what this case was about, because the testimony and physical evidence that was material and relevant was consistent throughout the trial. The Commonwealth's evidence proved the guy's hand got trapped in the window channel. There's no question that he shot and killed the woman. This really is a matter of legal interpretation, not of facts.

And, by the way, there never was any video, and I don't understand why anyone would keep harping about "missing video" when there never was any.

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!

 

[Maverick9]

Just throwing around legalese, but IMO, he killed her with malice aforethought. You don't -have- to kill someone to prevent them from committing a 'potential' crime (of driving into traffic) by SHOOTING into cross traffic as a backstop.

You don't have to shoot someone in the neck to free your (allegedly) trapped arm.

There's no PROOF that he had a trapped arm; there's some evidence. Proof would be video, witness statements to back up the allegation. There are suspicious knuckle abrasions and some blood. Easily fabricated.

IMO, justice may not have been served, but a person with 'issues' is now, no longer on the police force.

Be interesting to see the procedurals from the trial as to how long certain events took. Time from the last shot to the time backup arrived, for example.

Thanks for posting here, Dan.

 

[marshaul]

And, by the way, there never was any video, and I don't understand why anyone would keep harping about "missing video" when there never was any.

Are you now asserting that Harmon-Wright's vehicle was not equipped with a dash cam?

"Forgetting to turn it on" indicates guilt to an identical degree as "losing it". I'm well beyond the point of zero sympathy when it comes to those games.

If cops want us to buy wild stories well outside of any reasonable doubt, they should utilize video recording devices which are standard equipment. Or, they can not shoot people.

Or they can go to prison.

Better yet, they can obtain productive employment in the first place and obviate these issues entirely.

 

[Grapeshot]

If I recall correctly, his vehicle was facing in a direction that did not capture the event in question.

 

[peter nap]

Ain't that horse dead yet?

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

If I recall correctly, his vehicle was facing in a direction that did not capture the event in question.

Hard to believe the direction the car was facing had anything to do with the incident not being captured.

"Harmon-Wright did not have his dash camera on during the incident, according to Hawes, because “he didn’t expect a violent confrontation or any need to preserve evidence.” Earlier reports indicated the dash cam was inoperable."

http://www.dailyprogress.com/starex...cle_e1970f44-03e8-5c8b-aac6-e437c87317b9.html

It would appear you don't recall correctly?

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Ain't that horse dead yet?

No.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Patricia-Cook/405709186116293

http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/27/how-facebook-helped-a-small-town-fight-b

 

[marshaul]

If I recall correctly, his vehicle was facing in a direction that did not capture the event in question.

Same difference.

 

[Grapeshot]

Hard to believe the direction the car was facing had anything to do with the incident not being captured.

"Harmon-Wright did not have his dash camera on during the incident, according to Hawes, because “he didn’t expect a violent confrontation or any need to preserve evidence.” Earlier reports indicated the dash cam was inoperable."

http://www.dailyprogress.com/starex...cle_e1970f44-03e8-5c8b-aac6-e437c87317b9.html

It would appear you don't recall correctly?

Apparently so, but the result is the same and it is not something that I dwell on at this point.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Apparently so, but the result is the same and it is not something that I dwell on at this point.

Me either. I do dwell on being alert to ongoing inconsistencies and contradictions.

 

[Maverick9]

He allegedly didn't turn his flashers on either, leading one to believe that he was not detaining the 'suspect'. She was legally within her rights to drive away, and some might agree had reason to fear this out of control LEO who had been reprimanded for not being truthful.

Culpeper and the Staties wanted to flush this one, but public opinion and a GJ had other ideas. Gotta wonder why they were standing behind this very suspicious shooting with a brush dipped in white-wash. Knee-jerk thin blue-lining?

 

[Grapeshot]

He allegedly didn't turn his flashers on either, leading one to believe that he was not detaining the 'suspect'. She was legally within her rights to drive away, and some might agree had reason to fear this out of control LEO who had been reprimanded for not being truthful.

Culpeper and the Staties wanted to flush this one, but public opinion and a GJ had other ideas. Gotta wonder why they were standing behind this very suspicious shooting with a brush dipped in white-wash. Knee-jerk thin blue-lining?

While I don't see what "flashers" has to do with it - that is not a requirement for "detaining", I also so no reason to beat this very dead horse.

Though I do not agree that she was within her rights to drive away, I will not belabor the point.

Unless someone has heretofore unposted/undisclosed new information, we are continuing to beat that poor horse.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Does this look like a jury nullification of the law allowing police officers to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon? Or did the jury simply not believe the account that the officer used to frame the situation as stopping a fleeing felon?

TFred

That's a very good question. You may have brought to light something far more significant that was overlooked by others here at the time of conviction. Jury Nullification. Maybe not by intent, however, the end result might have some roots in JN.

Personally, I think the jury leaned more towards the latter in their decision. The BS story just didn't fly. Not to say they didn't engage in what an observer might consider Jury Nullification.