Culpeper shooting

[sawah]

Even if your suggested facts were true, what difference would it make whether he was shooting at the glass or the suspect? And how do we get to the conclusion that a person who is not holding a firearm is not armed?

If this was a civilian, would that make a difference? If you shoot an 'unarmed' person who is aggressing against you, and then later you found he had something on his person that could be used as a weapon. Say he even had a bazooka strapped to his back and was storming toward you expressing malevolent intent ("I'm gonna punch you...."). If the weapon is not deployed, in essence you've shot an unarmed person, right?

Edit to add:

If you look around at the various forums and comments - people are being a lot harsher than we are here. Bear in mind that though I might ask a question or pose a comment that seems illogical, you're going to get all that and worse from the average juror who hates guns and doesn't like authority much.

Here's one: Citizens Top Cop (Chville) slam inquest

 

[Grapeshot]

If this was a civilian, would that make a difference? If you shoot an 'unarmed' person who is aggressing against you, and then later you found he had something on his person that could be used as a weapon. Say he even had a bazooka strapped to his back and was storming toward you expressing malevolent intent ("I'm gonna punch you...."). If the weapon is not deployed, in essence you've shot an unarmed person, right?

They were both civilians = non military.

Whether the lady was armed or unarmed does not factor into the event. It is not a difficult concept - the officers first two shots were to free himself. The remainder of the shots were taken in defense of others. I know of no prerequisite that the perpetrator be armed with a gun before lethal force may be justifiable or excusable.

Just because it is too tempting to pass up: If you shoot someone that has a weapon, but hasn't deployed it, "in essence you've shot an unarmed person, right?" Seriously wrong........they were armed! They had the capacity.

But yet and again, still - that has not one iota, not one scintilla, to do with this. It is a red herring, a false flag.

Just read your edit Sawah. We like to be, strive to be more responsible that most - yes?

 

[sawah]

They were both civilians = non military.

Whether the lady was armed or unarmed does not factor into the event. It is not a difficult concept - the officers first two shots were to free himself. The remainder of the shots were taken in defense of others. I know of no prerequisite that the perpetrator be armed with a gun before lethal force may be justifiable or excusable.

Just because it is too tempting to pass up: If you shoot someone that has a weapon, but hasn't deployed it, "in essence you've shot an unarmed person, right?" Seriously wrong........they were armed! They had the capacity.

But yet and again, still - that has not one iota, not one scintilla, to do with this. It is a red herring, a false flag.

Just read your edit Sawah. We like to be, strive to be more responsible that most - yes?

Are you seriously trying to tell me you can shoot a BG and then claim 'oh, he had a knife in his back pocket, he had a roll of quarters in his front pocket, he had a mousegun in an ankle holster under his pants leg, he was armed'. I mean maybe I've been laboring under a false apprehension. A guy with a thick leather belt and a heavy belt buckle is OK to shoot because he was advancing on you and had a flail. That's great. Or does it have to be in his hand? I don't know you tell me.

 

[Grapeshot]

Are you seriously trying to tell me you can shoot a BG and then claim 'oh, he had a knife in his back pocket, he had a roll of quarters in his front pocket, he had a mousegun in an ankle holster under his pants leg, he was armed'. I mean maybe I've been laboring under a false apprehension. A guy with a thick leather belt and a heavy belt buckle is OK to shoot because he was advancing on you and had a flail. That's great. Or does it have to be in his hand? I don't know you tell me.

Nope, I'm giving up on the interaction for now. You would seem to set a new standard for misinterpretation bordering on the ridiculous, surely not the sublime. This is not a game with me and frankly I have long since questioned your motivation - which is a shame because every now and then you exhibit of hint of continuity of thought.

 

[nuc65]

...Nevertheless, what's the answer to the question: whom would you believe?

I wish I could answer this question. I cannot in all fairness do so because I have heard only one side of the issue here.

Would I, as a juror, hold him to a higher standard as a police officer? Would I judge him more harshly or less harshly by the arbitrary standard of my innate prejudices? Based on the supposed facts of the case would it leave me in doubt of his actions being justified or not?

If I can accept that her actions were felonious, were they felonious enough to meet the standard that justified self-defense, or were they felonious enough that the justified the untoward actions of the police officer?

To my mind the only issue that is not yet been satisfactorily answered is: What was his hand/arm doing inside the vehicle, in violation of common sense and department policy?

 

[peter nap]

Nope, I'm giving up on the interaction for now. You would seem to set a new standard for misinterpretation bordering on the ridiculous, surely not the sublime. This is not a game with me and frankly I have long since questioned your motivation - which is a shame because every now and then you exhibit of hint of continuity of thought.

Thank You!!!

 

[user]

I'm not hearing the case. I'm just engaging in casual commentary, and am not insisting in anything nor calling for judgment. I'll try to desist in posting random casual thought.

I do think that if I were the prosecutor, I would be inclined to ask the officer if he was intending to shoot the driver and the window. If I were the defense, I would be sure I knew what the officer's reply would be beforehand.

I think I've already been quoted as to that last point. The officer ought to say, "Absolutely, I shot both the driver and the window, freeing myself and attempting to stop the threat. If I were in the same situation again, I'd do exactly the same thing, and I think that anyone in his right mind in the same situation would do that, too." Of course, Sawah, I don't mean to imply that you're not in your right mind, as you've already said you carry a gun merely to threaten and not to kill. Of course, that approach will probably end up in (1) your having been killed, yourself, or (2) charged with brandishing a firearm.

 

[user]

I wish I could answer this question. I cannot in all fairness do so because I have heard only one side of the issue here.

Would I, as a juror, hold him to a higher standard as a police officer? Would I judge him more harshly or less harshly by the arbitrary standard of my innate prejudices? Based on the supposed facts of the case would it leave me in doubt of his actions being justified or not?

If I can accept that her actions were felonious, were they felonious enough to meet the standard that justified self-defense, or were they felonious enough that the justified the untoward actions of the police officer?

To my mind the only issue that is not yet been satisfactorily answered is: What was his hand/arm doing inside the vehicle, in violation of common sense and department policy?

This answer wins my intellectual honesty award. I hope I can get a set of jurors who are as open-minded and flexible, and who will wait until they get all the evidence before making a decision.

As to the last point, there's no question that the officer was too trusting in sticking his arm into the vehicle to take the driver's license as it was offered to him. He should have demanded that she stick her arm out of the vehicle to hand it to him. I've never had a cop do that to me, and I've never stuck my driver's license out of a car window; I've always had cops reach in and take it. But I think we'll be seeing a bit more care on the part of cops after this, though I suspect the citizenry will rebel at that as well.

 

[user]

If this was a civilian, would that make a difference? If you shoot an 'unarmed' person who is aggressing against you, and then later you found he had something on his person that could be used as a weapon. Say he even had a bazooka strapped to his back and was storming toward you expressing malevolent intent ("I'm gonna punch you...."). If the weapon is not deployed, in essence you've shot an unarmed person, right?

Edit to add:

If you look around at the various forums and comments - people are being a lot harsher than we are here. Bear in mind that though I might ask a question or pose a comment that seems illogical, you're going to get all that and worse from the average juror who hates guns and doesn't like authority much.

Here's one: Citizens Top Cop (Chville) slam inquest

None of the people involved was in the military - each of them was a "civilian" and a citizen. And all citizens have the same rights and responsibilities - and defenses. So, in your example, a person is "aggressing" against me, and I have a reasonably held, good faith belief, that I am facing an imminent threat of serious bodily injury, then I couldn't care less what weapons he may have strapped to his back - I don't have to wait long enough to find out. Same rule applies to you as to Officer Wright.

And just because the guy who is the editor of "readthehook.com" is named Hawes Spencer doesn't mean he's a reliable source of information. I've just sent him an email, by the way, pointing out that he can be liable for republication of false statements made by the Commonwealth's Attorney - just because the CW has judicial immunity doesn't mean people repeating what he says do.

 

[user]

Are you seriously trying to tell me you can shoot a BG and then claim 'oh, he had a knife in his back pocket, he had a roll of quarters in his front pocket, he had a mousegun in an ankle holster under his pants leg, he was armed'. I mean maybe I've been laboring under a false apprehension. A guy with a thick leather belt and a heavy belt buckle is OK to shoot because he was advancing on you and had a flail. That's great. Or does it have to be in his hand? I don't know you tell me.

So you don't like the way the law is, now? I've recited the rule over and over, and well before this particular case: "If you have a reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact, that you or another innocent third party is faced with the imminent threat of serious bodily injury, then you may use whatever degree of force may be necessary, up to and including deadly force, to quell the threat." I've referred you to my summary of personal defense law on my website. So I figure you do know what the law is on that point, you just don't like it.

 

[SouthernBoy]

I think I've already been quoted as to that last point. The officer ought to say, "Absolutely, I shot both the driver and the window, freeing myself and attempting to stop the threat. If I were in the same situation again, I'd do exactly the same thing, and I think that anyone in his right mind in the same situation would do that, too." Of course, Sawah, I don't mean to imply that you're not in your right mind, as you've already said you carry a gun merely to threaten and not to kill. Of course, that approach will probably end up in (1) your having been killed, yourself, or (2) charged with brandishing a firearm.

It's been some time that I have looked at this thread however, I couldn't help but notice the above bolded text. Without picking on the originator, which I won't do, this sort to mental approach to going armed is very dangerous and I would caution someone who believes this way to not go armed at all.

Sorry gentlemen for the intrusion.

 

[skidmark]

Are you seriously trying to tell me you can shoot a BG and then claim 'oh, he had a knife in his back pocket, he had a roll of quarters in his front pocket, he had a mousegun in an ankle holster under his pants leg, he was armed'. I mean maybe I've been laboring under a false apprehension. A guy with a thick leather belt and a heavy belt buckle is OK to shoot because he was advancing on you and had a flail. That's great. Or does it have to be in his hand? I don't know you tell me.

Well, yes, I can legally claim that the BG was "armed". Now, that roll of quarters and the belt buckle are red herrings and you know it. But as for the rest of those - yes, he is armed.

Let me try to put it in very basic language - having a weapon is the very essence of "being armed".

If the guy was known to have a roll of quarters in a sock in his pocket, or if the guy with the heavy belt buckle had taken the belt off his pants and started swinging it, then they too would be "armed". Just as if you took your keys out of your purse to have ready to scratch the face of some sketchy-looking person in the parking garage at VCU (because you respected the law and did not bring your gun with you) makes you an "armed" person.

As for shooting the BG - you have intentionally left out the need to be reasonably convinced you are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. I've stood next to a seriously unsavory and known violent person with a knife in their back pocket, a roll of quarters (or equivalent, and in a sock!) in their front pocket, a mousegun in an ankle holster under his pants leg, and wearing a thick leather belt with a heavy buckle. At no time did they present even a remote, much less an imminent threat and so I would have no justification under the law to shoot them. (In case you are wondering about who that unsavory, known violent character was - just a guy at Lobby Day. We exchanged stories and caught up on folks we found out we knew mutually - he from arresting them and me from dealing with them in the prison system.)

As for your

I mean maybe I've been laboring under a false apprehension. A guy with a thick leather belt and a heavy belt buckle is OK to shoot because he was advancing on you and had a flail. That's great. Or does it have to be in his hand? I don't know you tell me

- what can I say about the level of thought and understanding that is absent in a question such as this? You can wave that red flag in front of our faces all day long. Nobody is going to be fooled. But since you asked the question and have also stated on more than one occassion that your questions are serious, I'll give you my answer -

Yes, you must wait - not only until it is in his hand and not only until he causes you to reasonably believe it is a weapon that could cause death or serious bodily injury but until the threat of death or serious bodily injury from that flail is imminent. In other words, he has to be not only expressing (and you know darned well that does not only mean speaking) a threat but has to be close enough to carry out the threat imminently. If he's 10 yards away it would be difficult to show the threat was imminent.

Unlike Grapeshot who has a significant level of patience and an unwillingness to play semantics, I have little patience and a love of playing semantics. "Would you like to play a game?"

stay safe.

 

[sawah]

I regret the level of sarcasm in that post and apologize. I try to post respectfully and thoughtfully and am not trying to create dissent or red herrings. I appreciate all patience and help in sorting out this case.

 

[Grapeshot]

--snip--
As to the last point, there's no question that the officer was too trusting in sticking his arm into the vehicle to take the driver's license as it was offered to him. He should have demanded that she stick her arm out of the vehicle to hand it to him. I've never had a cop do that to me, and I've never stuck my driver's license out of a car window; I've always had cops reach in and take it. But I think we'll be seeing a bit more care on the part of cops after this, though I suspect the citizenry will rebel at that as well.

Interesting thoughts regarding a normal action given little consideration as a rule.

In review of my own past actions, I find that I offer the documents to the officer much the way I present tickets in a theater -between my thumb and index finger. The exchange is made over the center line of the door - maybe slightly outside the vehicle by fractions of an inch. Why? Am I being courteous and meeting in neutral territory or making an unconscious attempt to protect my personal space? I think that it is probably equal parts of all three.

 

[skidmark]

I regret the level of sarcasm in that post and apologize. I try to post respectfully and thoughtfully and am not trying to create dissent or red herrings. I appreciate all patience and help in sorting out this case.

The use of indicators of sarcasm

[sarcasm][/sarcasm]

and other ways of indicating that there is a meaning other than the one a literal reading would convey is called a "convention" for a reason. While the use of smilies is limited to 5 per post here on OCDO, there are many other ways to convey your meaning. Fail to use those indicators and you will be taken at your literal word. Violate the convention and you can expect to be treated as the social pariah you are by doing so.

I am this close >< to violating Rule 18. And for those of you too lazy to go look it up -

(18) PRIVATE MESSAGES: The content of private messages are NOT completely private in that they may be reported to the administrator should the private messaging function be used to harass or spam another user. However, the content of private messages should not be posted publicly on the forum in an attempt to embarrass or discredit another member.

stay safe.

 

[nuc65]

Interesting thoughts regarding a normal action given little consideration as a rule.

In review of my own past actions, I find that I offer the documents to the officer much the way I present tickets in a theater -between my thumb and index finger. The exchange is made over the center line of the door - maybe slightly outside the vehicle by fractions of an inch. Why? Am I being courteous and meeting in neutral territory or making an unconscious attempt to protect my personal space? I think that it is probably equal parts of all three.

The last time I was stopped the officer was unwilling to place his hand near my window, and the second remained at a respectful distance from the passenger side window. My passenger has big teeth (GSD) and usually is very aware of his surroundings. I have not been stopped prior to that in a very long time so I can't recall my actions as to space but I seem to prefer the 'neutral' territory at the door.

 

[peter nap]

I regret the level of sarcasm in that post and apologize. I try to post respectfully and thoughtfully and am not trying to create dissent or red herrings. I appreciate all patience and help in sorting out this case.

I think you've said that several times now.....sawah.....:uhoh:

I also believe you are one of the safest people on earth without a gun. I am reminded of "The Ransom of Red Chief" reading your posts is this and other threads.:banana:

 

[sawah]

I am this close >< to violating Rule 18. And for those of you too lazy to go look it up -


stay safe.

You're welcome to post any and all PMs I've sent to you if that's your wish. I'm at a loss to understand the appellation of 'pariah' here. Maybe I'm being taken the wrong way? I'm usually quite surprised when my comments are taken to task, because they're almost all posted in a light-hearted way. I try to be analytical, to look at multiple angles (in this shooting case) and try to be fair in my comments about the officer, for whom I have empathy. I feel I've shown the ability to be instructed in the points of law by User and have thanked him (and you, Skid) for your erudition here.

 

[sawah]

I think you've said that several times now.....sawah.....:uhoh:

I also believe you are one of the safest people on earth without a gun. I am reminded of "The Ransom of Red Chief" reading your posts is this and other threads.:banana:

Now, that's funny. Are you guys gonna take up a collection to send me to Summer camp?

 

[DocWalker]

Depends on the situation. If the decedant were on trial for being a felon in possession of a firearm, then it's important whether she'd been convicted. For present purposes, what's important is that she committed the felony in the presence of the police officer. If someone robbed you with a knife at some time when you were vulnerable to such robbery, and the cops asked you what happened, would you say that you'd been robbed? That's a felony, you'd be saying that the person who robbed you is a felon. If it happened to you, as it happened to this cop, you'd be in a position to know. Secondly, the question is what the cop had reason to believe at the time he fired the second group of shots, not whether or not the person could have been convicted of all seven felonies.

It all goes to our "current" system of "Guilty until proven innocent"; I thought it was the other way around but I was wrong.