Culpeper shooting

[peter nap]

Im with Marshual,
Riverrat,
Doogie, and
Mommabearcali...

Then comes Peter Nap,,, citing a first class MISDEMEANOR Trespassing law!
Is that cite here in order to Justify SHOOTING a CITIZEN?

Marshaul said there wasn't a cite. I provided it.

I'm not defending the guy. I'm just trying to get the real story about what happened and I haven't heard it yet.

Why are you asking ME if it justifies shooting her. I'm not a Judge or on the jury.

Don't blame me because I'm keeping quiet until the facts start coming out in the trial. Hell, if you want to rant about gossip and speculation...let's go with the alien abduction theory:lol: It's probably more interesting....or maybe someone else shot her from the grassy knoll.

 

[peter nap]

I have yet to see a church with a no trespass sign, most churchs are places of sanctuary and welcome strangers and are there to help the community.

Of course we have to wait for the system to run its course before we find out what really happened.

I see a lot of the churches in the City Posted Doc, and yeah, it's wrong.

We don't have to wait until the system runs it's course for everything. BLK is checking on the Posted signs today. That at least gives some insight into it.

 

[MamabearCali]

our church does not have a sign...I would find it quite unusual if it did have a sign. Really the sign is beside the point entirely. She was not shot for trespassing. Why she was shot, I don't know. If as User says the Officer's was not caught and was not being dragged then I don't know why she was shot. I hope for Officer Harmon's sake he does know. The trespassing bit is interesting web chat, but probably had little to do with the case.

 

[DocWalker]

I see a lot of the churches in the City Posted Doc, and yeah, it's wrong.

We don't have to wait until the system runs it's course for everything. BLK is checking on the Posted signs today. That at least gives some insight into it.

auhhh..nice church "trespassers will be procecuted and then will go to where satin lives....."

 

[peter nap]

auhhh..nice church "trespassers will be procecuted and then will go to where satin lives....."

Yep!

 

[mk4]

i'm going to need to be more observant of signs from now on.

i routinely pull off the road into parking lots to take cell calls, or look up directions, etc. since i refuse to do so while driving. most of the time it's a grocery store or fast food place, but occasionally it's a house of worship parking lot. in fact, on the way to the last richmond oc dinner at the bbq place on south side, i pulled into a church lot to be sure of the directions. there was an event going on and a few people looked me over. i wouldn't have liked to get called on a possible trespass. i had an oc handgun on my strong side along with 2 long guns and 3 pistols in the back of my car. not sure how south side leo would have reacted... :uhoh:

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

Marshaul said there wasn't a cite. I provided it.

I'm not defending the guy. I'm just trying to get the real story about what happened and I haven't heard it yet.

Why are you asking ME if it justifies shooting her. I'm not a Judge or on the jury.

Don't blame me because I'm keeping quiet until the facts start coming out in the trial. Hell, if you want to rant about gossip and speculation...let's go with the alien abduction theory:lol: It's probably more interesting....or maybe someone else shot her from the grassy knoll.

our church does not have a sign...I would find it quite unusual if it did have a sign. Really the sign is beside the point entirely. She was not shot for trespassing. Why she was shot, I don't know. If as User says the Officer's was not caught and was not being dragged then I don't know why she was shot. I hope for Officer Harmon's sake he does know. The trespassing bit is interesting web chat, but probably had little to do with the case.

Mommabearcali words are highlighted here..
I didnt really mean that Perter Nap was Trying to Justify this shooting.
I was poiting to the thread drift that distorted the uses of forces, and
their possible causes of coming in to being.

this 1000 post thread waited 100 days for the cop to be charged for his actions.
we all, for the most part were against the cop and felt the woman had been unjustly killed.
Now since User has decided to represent the cop against a murder or manslater charge,
the Polarity of the Click of many board members has been reversed by 180 degrees!

Now it seems that many have decided that some how the woman must have done,
A THING that some how Justifiably led to her Justifiable murder or homicide.

So far the THING has been boiled down to a case of mistameanor trespassing!

 

[Xulld]

i'm going to need to be more observant of signs from now on.

i routinely pull off the road into parking lots to take cell calls, or look up directions, etc. since i refuse to do so while driving. most of the time it's a grocery store or fast food place, but occasionally it's a house of worship parking lot. in fact, on the way to the last richmond oc dinner at the bbq place on south side, i pulled into a church lot to be sure of the directions. there was an event going on and a few people looked me over. i wouldn't have liked to get called on a possible trespass. i had an oc handgun on my strong side along with 2 long guns and 3 pistols in the back of my car. not sure how south side leo would have reacted... :uhoh:

Yes indeed. I was charged with trespassing for being parked in a private driveway my car was acting up and I spent maybe 20 minutes letting it cool down before checking the fluids, as I was about to leave the police showed up apparently a neighbor called. Three hours later they wrote me up, it was adjudication withed 200 dollar fine.

IMHO it was stupid. They tried to claim I was casing the joint becuase I had a flashlight in the back seat, they spent a couple hours searching around the house, and claimed they saw foot prints on the back side. I went to take off my shoe and give it to them to compare and the cop just about drew down on me.

Needless to say I pay a lot more attention to where I park.

Ive been silently keeping tabs on this thread, and just wanted to say I appreciate the dialog here on this site.

 

[peter nap]

I understand Defender but I don't see one person here who has changed his/her mind. There has been a shift but only to wait and see what the evidence is.

That is unusual here:lol: and you're right again, it is a result of Dan Hawes taking the case. I was mostly responsible for the shift and I'm not going to apologize for it.

I don't remember the first time I met Dan but I had conversed with him here for a while. My impression was that he was the most knowledgeable lawyer I'd ever met. Further, he had common sense which is almost unheard of in legal circles....in other words, I liked the way he did things.

When Skidmark was charged in Surry I met with him at the regular Saturday Breakfast, looked over the papers and listened to the story and said "You need to hire Dan and I'll kick in some for the Fee".

The rest of that is history and is in the video.

Instead of being the typical blood sucking lawyer or useless assembly lie defense, Dan went in swinging and didn't stop for a year when he won the case.

I have no idea how many people here have consulted Dan and been helped. Many at no charge. When there is a fee, it's reasonable.

He has offered to be on retainer for any of us at no charge.

He has started a non profit foundation to defend gun owners at no or reduced fees.

He spends a lot of time on this board educating us.

He gives the best self defense seminars around.

To cut this short, Dan is a damn good friend to all of us and there is a lot you don't know about that he's done.

I don't see where it's a complete reversal of attitude to extend the same courtesy to Dan that he has given every single one of us.....and simply wait until there are hard facts for us to judge his client.

 

[Blk97F150]

I took a rain soaked ride over to the church where this incident originated. Its not what you might expect... its not one large church in the center of a big parking lot. There are actually several church/school buildings scattered about on adjacent streets, etc.... each with its own smaller (in some cases, very small) parking lot. I'm not sure exactly which parking lot Ms Cook may have been in, but they all seemed to have signs present at the entrance to the lot. (Edit: With the exception of one.. what appears to be the 'main entrance'.). I did not take a pic of each individual sign, as they were all the same. The signs states: 'Private Property' at the top, 'Church Parking Only' in the middle and 'No Trespassing' at the bottom. A pic is attached.

I also noted that in one or two areas there were signs further back towards the buildings that said 'No Loitering' (and something else... that could have been 'no trespassing'). These appeared to be directed more towards a fenced area, then the parking lot.

I agree with the comments in the later part of this thread, that the mere presence of signs does nothing to justify the officer shooting Ms. Cook. It may give some insight into why she was stopped in the first place (key word 'may')... but I don't see a direct connection to 'trespassing' and 'deadly force'. And I really don't think anyone is trying to make that connection.

Going further with that thought process, and based on what has been previously posted.... even if she was in the parking lot behind the posted signs, I'm not convinced that constitutes 'trespassing' by itself.... as EVERY visitor or guest to the school, expected or not, would have to pass behind the 'no tresspassing' signs. For example, if I wanted to stop and inquire about enrolling my children, you'd have a hard time convincing me that I was 'trespassing' as soon as I parked into their lot.

Ultimately... I think its just another piece to a puzzle, that is still going to take a very long time to put together (and even then... it may not ever have all the pieces).

 

[mk4]

thanks for checking and posting, Blk.

 

[skidmark]

Too much other stuff has been put into electrons to go back, quote specific posts by others, and give point-counterpoint responses. I'll just say that, from the beginning, it has been my personal contention that not enough information was available for me to formulate a personal opinion as to whether or not this was a bad shoot. I continue to hold that thought.

I also am aware of the disparity and unfairness of the legal system as it exists in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. But since I, unlike some others, cannot change that reality, I must proceed based on what is and what might be reasonably expected from the justices there. As to my displeasure with their present and historical stance - I wonder how many others engage in a campaign to have legislation passed that would reverse or obviate the current holdings of that august body. I do not feel that I am merely wasting time and annoying the barnyard animals, but I am aware of how lonely it feels out here in this particular garden patch.

There are others who, apparently, are just as convinced as I am, except that their conclusion is that beyond any reasonable doubt the information currently available is sufficient and appropriate to begin digging that hole under the jail. I do envy their certainty.

Again, for the sake of clarity, I do not insist that sufficient information be available to be certain beyond all reasonable doubt before making a decision. I just see some reasonable doubt at this time. And I'm aware that that is because there are gaping holes that need some filling in if not completely closing. I'll hang around and see how much of that is possible to do.

stay safe.

 

[Marco]

Dan is a damn good friend to all of us and there is a lot you don't know about that he's done.

I don't see where it's a complete reversal of attitude to extend the same courtesy to Dan that he has given every single one of us.....and simply wait until there are hard facts for us to judge his client.

1+..
Personally, I think Dan has an uphill battle, based on the info that has been released.
I know how I would have reacted if anyone had stuck their hand/arm inside my vehicle for whatever reason against my wishes or killed my loved one that wasn't violating any laws and that wasn't a danger to society
That is the standard I'll be using to determine if the arrestee's actions are legal/justified..It's probably a good thing I'm not on the jury...

I think I could be objective but the officers word is mud (especially in light of his mother's actions) and the fact his dash cam was off/broken sways me more to guilty than not guilty.... He had enough in his file that his mother thought she needed to hide it...
That tells me he's learned/been told not run his dash cam to help cover up this incidents..

Either way Mrs Cook is dead and the arrestee will most likely be broke till his dying day when this is all said and done.


Edit:
The trespass is a non issue for me as Mrs Cook wasn't charged with it and she might have well be there for a lawful reason.. ie thought about applying, wanted to find the places because she wanted to attend services, was looking to for hrs of operation...
The place is open to the public and she was there during normal business hrs.

 

[peter nap]

Thanks Blk!

The reason the signs came up is someone said it was an illegal contact.

The signs just fill in a little of the blank spot. She could well have been under arrest and not free to leave.

That doesn't justify shooting her either but it gives something real to put in the puzzle. She was on posted property.

 

[john-galt]

Speculation and innuendo have no place in such as this. We prefer to deal in facts, not trial by what maybe, coulda, might have happened.

I would love to have all the facts. If you know them, please provide them. Until then, I will just express my opinion on the information I have. At first reading, I don't like the way it sounds..but I am more than willing to change my view based on any facts provided.

 

[BillB]

Thanks Blk!

The reason the signs came up is someone said it was an illegal contact.

The signs just fill in a little of the blank spot. She could well have been under arrest and not free to leave.

This article suggests that signs would be moot:

“One of the school staff noticed a woman circling the building,” said Michael J. Donohue, spokesman for Diocese of Arlington. “That seemed odd to staff. One of the staff asked her to leave and she refused, so they called police.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...hool-teacher/2012/05/31/gJQAHQYb5U_story.html

 

[sawah]

Interesting account in the Post.

But the attorney contends that it went beyond that. He said Cook was depressed and looking to take her own life via a confrontation with police.

I don't know how you can make that allegation based on 30 seconds of encounter, if it was that much. The article says it was over in 3 seconds.

Also it says the officer's fingers were trapped and he shot using his 'free hand'. Huh? Fingers? You catch fingers in the door, maybe but not in a window with a manual crank. You might catch your -hand- near the wrist where it narrows in an automatic window. This sounds stranger by the second.

 

[sawah]

Reading further it says the officer was 'dispatched' to the scene. If that was the case why didn't he have his flashers on? Why did he have the camera turned off. He'll no doubt have to answer these questions convincingly.

Then one account says he was jogging along side, another says he jumped up on the running board. It says he reached inside the car to 'grab the identification'. Officers are taught not to reach inside the car. Still how do you get from her handing him the ID to him having fingers trapped. I hope they'll ask for a demonstration of how it happened. Reaching inside for ID, window going up, fingers trapped, somehow gun drawn and put in 'free hand' (assuming it was the non-dominant hand or there wouldn't be a specific comment about 'free hand'). It all seems like too much. Were the fingers trapped palm down or palm up? Where was the ID found - on the floor of the car?

I kind of get a sense as to why it took so long - it appears they were trying to reconstruct an almost impossible situation. Yet, after having done so they returned the indictment for murder and several other offenses. This does not look good for the officer. However, if he was indeed in fear, I don't want to see him railroaded.

 

[BillB]

Interesting account in the Post.

I thought so too - I'm surprised it has not shown up in this thread before now.

 

[peter nap]

I thought so too - I'm surprised it has not shown up in this thread before now.

We were too busy arguing about if he should be hung before the chair...or after.:lol: