Culpeper shooting

[user]

As to the fake cop scenario: the usual advice is to tell the officer that you're concerned about the fake cop problem, and that that you want him to follow you to the police station, where you will turn yourself in; get good directions from the cop about which way to go and ask him to follow you there. You don't need to roll down the window very far to do that. Cops are trained, nowadays, about doing so. You can call 911 on your cell phone on the way to tell them what's going on and why.

I suppose it is theoretically possible for someone to take a late model car just like a Culpeper town police car, paint it to look like a Culpeper police car, mount all the antennas, roof-top lighting, and searchlight stuff, dress up like a cop, and stop middle aged ladies in parking lots. Seems like an awfully expensive hobby to me.

 

[DocWalker]

As to the fake cop scenario: the usual advice is to tell the officer that you're concerned about the fake cop problem, and that that you want him to follow you to the police station, where you will turn yourself in; get good directions from the cop about which way to go and ask him to follow you there. You don't need to roll down the window very far to do that. Cops are trained, nowadays, about doing so. You can call 911 on your cell phone on the way to tell them what's going on and why.

I suppose it is theoretically possible for someone to take a late model car just like a Culpeper town police car, paint it to look like a Culpeper police car, mount all the antennas, roof-top lighting, and searchlight stuff, dress up like a cop, and stop middle aged ladies in parking lots. Seems like an awfully expensive hobby to me.

There are a lot of wierd people out there willing to go through some elaborate things to commit crimes.

Not a crime but a guy in N. Las Vegas Nevada made a replica with lights, antennas, and paint job of a real N. Las Vegas PD police car and there was nothing on their books to stop him. PD was pissed about it but it was his hobby and he broke no laws.

As for all the old cruisers being sold around the country, most have the black and white paint job and they have even left the spot lights on the cars in a lot of cases. Wouldn't take a lot to make it look like it was back in service.

Just saying maybe she said she got scared as he reached for her and took off. Why isn't it procedure in Culpepper to park as to record every encounter as it is in other departments. It is often argued that a cop never knows when an encounter will go bad, was it sloppy police work, lack of training, or bad policy for not parking as to record every encounter. When in doubt record isn't that why most of us carry a recorder?

 

[peter nap]

On both sides of the issue... or just those that present one particular viewpoint??

I think he is embarrassed by the lack of faith in "Innocent until proven guilty" theory.

I'll be honest, I don't like the Cop from everything I've read and heard. I won't be bothered if he gets life with a 6.5 foot homosexual named Bubba.

That has nothing to do with his innocence or guilt. I have to see all the evidence and facts before I can decide that.

We have seen Non Leo's go through the same thing and the attitude is different. One fellow shot a man breaking into his car 6 times in Richmond.

Because the theif had a screw driver (If I recall correctly) which he was trying to use on the car...the resounding cry was...But his life was in danger, but he had a right, but he could have killed him with the screwdriver.

I've seen numerous threads here where we thought it was fine to shoot an unarmed man because fists can be deadly weapons.

There are a lot of closed minds here

 

[Wolf_shadow]

I think he is embarrassed by the lack of faith in "Innocent until proven guilty" theory.

I'll be honest, I don't like the Cop from everything I've read and heard. I won't be bothered if he gets life with a 6.5 foot homosexual named Bubba.

That has nothing to do with his innocence or guilt. I have to see all the evidence and facts before I can decide that.

We have seen Non Leo's go through the same thing and the attitude is different. One fellow shot a man breaking into his car 6 times in Richmond.

Because the theif had a screw driver (If I recall correctly) which he was trying to use on the car...the resounding cry was...But his life was in danger, but he had a right, but he could have killed him with the screwdriver.

I've seen numerous threads here where we thought it was fine to shoot an unarmed man because fists can be deadly weapons.

There are a lot of closed minds here

+1

 

[DocWalker]

I think he is embarrassed by the lack of faith in "Innocent until proven guilty" theory.

I'll be honest, I don't like the Cop from everything I've read and heard. I won't be bothered if he gets life with a 6.5 foot homosexual named Bubba.

That has nothing to do with his innocence or guilt. I have to see all the evidence and facts before I can decide that.

We have seen Non Leo's go through the same thing and the attitude is different. One fellow shot a man breaking into his car 6 times in Richmond.

Because the theif had a screw driver (If I recall correctly) which he was trying to use on the car...the resounding cry was...But his life was in danger, but he had a right, but he could have killed him with the screwdriver.

I've seen numerous threads here where we thought it was fine to shoot an unarmed man because fists can be deadly weapons.

There are a lot of closed minds here

I agree and that is why he is out on bond and has the lawyer he does. I would have just felt better about the whole situation if the cop hasn't had such a checked past and the lady wasn't so sqeaky clean from what we know.

If the cop would have had a perfect record and the lady was an ex-con, bank robbing, armed, pedifile-murderer that was in the parking lot I wouldn't even think twice of this. I just don't see things adding up.

 

[Uber_Olafsun]

I don't envy User since there is some flak just because it is a cop involved which even I am guilty of thinking but the one thing we all seem to believe in is to wait for the trial to find out all the facts. I bet User has to hold his tongue because of legal reasons so all we can hope is justice is done.

 

[Grapeshot]

--snip--
If the cop would have had a perfect record and the lady was an ex-con, bank robbing, armed, pedifile-murderer that was in the parking lot I wouldn't even think twice of this. I just don't see things adding up.

Under those circumstances there would not be those demanding an immediate lynching. Possibly some would even suggest bestowing a medal on the officer and politicians wanting your vote might be giving speeches saying what a fine officer he is. Likely there wouldn't have been a Grand Jury hearing and the officer would have been assigned a desk job with pay until the process was completed.

Kind of sad isn't it. Who removed the blindfold from Lady Justice's eyes and clouded her vision in the process?

 

[MamabearCali]

I was truly worried when this story first came it that it would be swept under the rug and the facts would never come out. That was what pained me so much. However, It is going to trial, the facts will come out, Officer Harmon has an excellent defense lawyer, if he is justified in this it will be found out, if not it will be found out. I am satisfied that sunlight is the best disinfectant and I am glad to see it here. So I am content to wait for the trial, reserve judgement, and let justice be done.

 

[sawah]

If indeed it's true (and I don't see the VSP making it up) that hair and blood was found in the window channel and it was the officer's then this case is a slam dunk for the officer being innocent of murder.

All he needed to show was that he really had gotten caught in the window, she really did try to drive away and he is, imo, justified in shooting to break the window and free himself.

On the face of it, this is enough evidence to allege that a felony (assault on a police officer in the commission of his duties) had been committed, even if unintentional. And then this is enough to show that he might have had reason to stop her from fleeing. The use of so many bullets is an issue, but none of them apparently went wild so there is no collateral damage to answer for.

Now, I do suspect that the prosecution will offer a plea bargain and possibly plea it down to involuntary manslaughter (or voluntary, IANAL).

The only thing that gives me pause is that I don't understand why the Grand Jury brought back its opinion of murder if they knew blood and hair of the officer was found in the window channel. Perhaps User has a thought on that?

 

[Grapeshot]

--snip--
The only thing that gives me pause is that I don't understand why the Grand Jury brought back its opinion of murder if they knew blood and hair of the officer was found in the window channel. Perhaps User has a thought on that?

Evidence presented to the Grand Jury is the responsibility of the prosecutor - even when they investigate on their own they are subject to all that they have seen and heard. The pressure to "let the court sort it out" must have been immense.

The defense is not afforded the opportunity to present testimony.

 

[skidmark]

First, some technical information. Side windows and rear windows are generally made of tempered glass as opposed to sandwhiched "safety" glass. Tempered glass is supposed to shatter into hundreds of non-sharp bits when struck, although it is possible to simply knock a hole through it.

Now my main comment - While some folks are convinced that the cop is guilty, and others have flip-flopped between guilty and not-guilty, most of you seem to have completely bypassed the standard by which the decision is supposed to be reached - beyond a reasonable doubt.

I know full well that even with a reasonable doubt or three sitting out there it is possible that the cop will be found guilty on some combination of the charges levied against him. But I'm just a sucker for looking at and reminding folks of the standard we are supposed to be operating by.

As I was so often reminded by User, it is not that the defendant is determined to be innocent - they just need to be found not guilty. Yes, there is a huge difference between the two.

If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the cop is guilty of having committed any of the charges he is accused of, then I ask that you spend your time and energy shooting down the reasonable doubts that have been offered up by the folks on the other side. While I'm pretty sure User does not need us to act as a mock trial I'm also sure he would appreciate any reasoning that bolsters the absence of reasonable doubt, just as I'm sure the Commonwealth's Attorney would be grateful. But most importantly of all, I would be happy to see how you eliminated reasonable doubt.

stay safe.

 

[MamabearCali]

good reminder skidmark...he does not have to be found innocent, just "not guilty"

 

[Citizen]

I don't understand your point. Both Skidmark and I provided the citations to the Code in support of the point under contention. What's the problem, now?

Sorry, my revolver must be a little out of time; I seem to have caught you with some metal spray. I was aiming at Grapeshot.

 

[user]

I agree and that is why he is out on bond and has the lawyer he does. I would have just felt better about the whole situation if the cop hasn't had such a checked past and the lady wasn't so sqeaky clean from what we know.

If the cop would have had a perfect record and the lady was an ex-con, bank robbing, armed, pedifile-murderer that was in the parking lot I wouldn't even think twice of this. I just don't see things adding up.

Well, let's consider that "checked past". What the Commonwealth argued in the bond hearing was 1) when the cop was a young Marine stationed in Okinawa, he and his buddies went out and he got drunk from time to time; 2) he is still not completely abstinent from alcohol; 3) he minimized an injury during academy training so that he could finish the training, and he did so with honors (this was treated by one of his superiors as "falsification" that resulted in the cop being identified on a "brady list"); and 4) he has had two complaints against him as a cop, one of which had to do with a miscommunication about the seriousness of the suspect he was chasing, and the other involved a person who gets drunk and disorderly fairly frequently and has filed complaints against most of the officers in that department. Notice that most of the exhibits in the Commonwealth's response were commendations.

 

[Grapeshot]

Sorry, my revolver must be a little out of time; I seem to have caught you with some metal spray. I was aiming at Grapeshot.

You missed as usual. Maybe you should wear a full face shield. :lol:

 

[MAC702]

...She escalated the situation when she could have simply handed over her driver's license. ...

We must read that a hundred times on OpenCarry.org!

 

[sawah]

Originally Posted by user
...She escalated the situation when she could have simply handed over her driver's license. .!

I would beg to differ. IMO, HE escalated the situation. He could have simply said 'Ma'am, this parking lot is posted and the admin wants you to move along. Please park elsewhere where it's legal'.

I bet he wishes he'd have done that very thing. AND, imo, all cops should strive to use calmative methods for very minor potential infractions, because you do not know how someone's day has gone such that they might decide to be dramatic and take it out on you.

I had a situation where someone was being very aggressive and I went up and shook his hand and said 'I didn't mean to upset you' and we parted with a smile. So there's a lot to be said about defusing before trying to write someone up. You get the same result, i.e. they move on and do not need to be ticketed.

After all there's no danger to parking in a restricted zone. It's not like a MOVING violation. And if the person's CAR had just been parked there, he'd have written her a ticket and put it on the windowshield at most. But he decided to be a bit officious and ask for a license and kind of got aggressive (possibly).

===
Edit to add: I don't disagree with User, because had she been polite and pleasant, he might have just looked at the license and determined she had no warrants and said 'ok, don't park here, have a nice day'. But, he has more control to end it early with the same result and less risk, so IMO, he messed up (in retrospect).

 

[Grapeshot]

Second guessing and "he might haves" all aside.

The officer did absolutely nothing wrong in asking to see her license. Should it be policy/procedure to forgive the requirement of law lest someone become aggravated or offended?

Had he not requested her license but moved her on and she subsequently caused someone harm, the officer would have been severely criticized for not checking her out properly. I see that he was doing his job.

 

[nuc65]

Is the perp, suspect, a fleeing felon? Her charge if any would have been trespass which in all counts that I have read about trespass on this board it is a misdemeanor. So the misdemeanor miscreant in some arguments is now a fleeing felon requiring execution because she acted in an uncharacteristic manner. I am still not convinced that the actions of the officer were warranted whether all his bullets hit the mark or not is a red herring, his bullets should probably never have left the gun. The arguments earlier in this thread have indicated that the officer is on trial but the last threads under review have subtly made the case once again about the actions of the suspected 'felon' rather than the actions of the officer. The officer erred in gross judgment in his actions and I still have not read anything that changes my mind on that account. In fact my mind is further cemented in that as the arguments subtly trend toward making the trespasser a fleeing felon.

Another red herring is the demand for license which an officer can request but at the initial point of contact it can only be a request, nothing says she has to provide it other than the officer wanted it. There is no cite as to the point at which she had committed a moving violation and would be required to produce a license to operate a motor vehicle. The sun shade being in the window would counter the argument that she was intending to go anyplace and once again it isn't about her, but his actions as pointed out early in the thread. Ultimately in trial I believe that it will become more about focusing the defense on her actions and making the jury forget about the officer's actions.

"Department policy is to check out anyone we have contact with." That is a quote I heard before from an officer. I said have a nice day, department policy notwithstanding, there isn't always a reason to produce a DL just because of department policy.

 

[Grapeshot]

Is the perp, suspect, a fleeing felon? Her charge if any would have been trespass which in all counts that I have read about trespass on this board it is a misdemeanor. So the misdemeanor miscreant in some arguments is now a fleeing felon requiring execution because she acted in an uncharacteristic manner. I am still not convinced that the actions of the officer were warranted whether all his bullets hit the mark or not is a red herring, his bullets should probably never have left the gun. The arguments earlier in this thread have indicated that the officer is on trial but the last threads under review have subtly made the case once again about the actions of the suspected 'felon' rather than the actions of the officer. The officer erred in gross judgment in his actions and I still have not read anything that changes my mind on that account. In fact my mind is further cemented in that as the arguments subtly trend toward making the trespasser a fleeing felon.

The actions of the two, hence the conversations, are inexorably connected.

Is assault on a police officer not a felony? I realize alleged, but that is all any of this is.