If you think I was being sarcastic, I was not.
To me, it seemed as if you implied there were witnesses to the conversation between the cop and the victim. I'm asking directly if that is that case, and apologizing if it is and I missed it.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Culpeper shooting
- Thread starter TFred
- Start date
If you think I was being sarcastic, I was not.
To me, it seemed as if you implied there were witnesses to the conversation between the cop and the victim. I'm asking directly if that is that case, and apologizing if it is and I missed it.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
The first party would have to desist in order to claim self-defense for shooting the second. It's hard to argue that the officer in question did so.
Because, you know, police never abuse their authority. And, when they do, they never do so during otherwise appropriate encounters.
Yeah. Keep trying.
I tend to lean towards Zimmerman's innocence.
First of all, police should be held to a higher standard than non-police. That they are held to a lesser one is reprehensible.
Secondly, there is a difference between being on top of someone and slamming their head into the ground, and scraping someone's arm (I got an owie!) or driving 10 mph with a sunscreen somewhat obstructing one's view.
The suggestion that the second two are worthy of lethal force is nothing but unremitting apologia. I would never draw a firearm on someone for either of the two latter offenses. I'm a man, not a little boy who becomes afraid for my life whenever I get a scratch.
Get real, skid.
Incidentally, the accusations levied at my person by yourself and Grape are beyond merely ironic. If you think I have any tolerance for passive-aggressive hypocrisy, or am likely to be easily cowed by such, think again. And, please don't pretend you don't know exactly what I'm talking about. What a waste of time that would be.
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
Z was not and is not a cop. So, his use of force justification is different. As in that if Martin decided to flee, disengage, drive away, Z would not and could not claim a justification as can a cop. That cop has envoked a justification to stop a unarmed (except for the Jeep) and highly dangerous felon.
A cop gets a pass many times via a 'internal review', 'no policy violation' as it were. prosecutors rarely antagonize the cops on their professional internal review. A jury trial, as we would be subjected to, is the very rare exception for a cop.
nuc65
Activist Member
I think you mean "with impunity." ?
DocWalker
Regular Member
Thank you I stand corrected; it was early and I should really wait until my second cup of coffee before getting on the computer.....
So you are going to hang this guy because "all the other cops" get off?
And you are going to hold cops to a higher standard than the rest of us because they are cops and because they have a history of "getting off" when us mere citizens would not? I guess that is just moving from one extreme of "more equal" to the other. At least I know why cops are given some leeway for stuff that will get the rest of us under the jail - not that I agree with it, but I know why.
You know that if you are not happy with judicial decisions you can ask for legislation to override that, don't you? Just look at what the folks in Indiana did when their Supreme Court said plain citizens could not resist illegal entry into the home by cops.
You and I are free to speculate all we want. But writing things as if they were true is a tactic reserved for the CA as he draws up the indictment. Elsewhere good manners requires you to actually speculate instead of accuse.
stay safe.
I guess I cannot get over a career of investigating allegations of failure to follow law/policy/procedure. All that "assemble all the available facts before making a determination" is a hard habit to break.
I guess everyone else missed that compare the cognitive process vs results part.
stay safe.
Understand that there were other witnesses who saw some parts which seems to have included when conversation was being exchanged between the officer and the lady - don't think/know that any were privy to what was said.
Originally Posted by skidmark
Well, absent any other information the answer is "Probably." You can figure out why I said that - as in you are intelligent enough and sufficiently versed in the law to understand why.
The first party would have to desist in order to claim self-defense for shooting the second. It's hard to argue that the officer in question did so.
In the instant case I challenge you to indicate where/how any presumed arrest of Mrs. Cook for any activity even remotely related to her supposed trespass would have been unlawful, thus triggering the excusable/justifiable use of lethal force in resisting the same. If you are, instead, going for a "heat of the moment" behavior triggered/driven by a sincerely held fear of police in general it is quite a stretch to arrive at a reasonably held apprehension (as in "knowing" as opposed to "fearing") of an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury and I would dearly like to see how you connect the dots to get there.
You claim "illegal and aggressive actions" but have never explained how they were illegal. The aggressiveness of the actions will forever be open to debate even if there had been audio and video recording evidence to review - so we will just ignore that emotion-laden term if that will be OK with you.Originally posted by Marshaul
Because, you know, police never abuse their authority. And, when they do, they never do so during otherwise appropriate encounters.
So, are you saying that the encounter was otherwise appropriate?
Originally posted by Mashaul
Yeah. Keep trying.
I have been, but seem to be going up against an unassailable preconceived notion. Then again, I like :banghead: because it feels so good when I stop,
Why? Just because in the past there were procedures and decisions that you disagree with? Going from one extreme of "more equal" to the pther helps just how?
Explain, please. Seems you are leaving out a few details that tend to suggest that there was an imkinent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the cop and to other innocents.
Immediately preceeding comment repeated here. Along with an invitation to let me trap your hand inthe window of a Jeep and drive off erratically with you attached.
"Doody-head" hurted you feewings? I withdraw the appelation and comparison. I am most humbly and truely sorry your feewings were hurted.
stay safe.
While this is a most volatile issue and nerves get rubbed raw a bit, it may be that you are taking things too much to heart. Don't see that there has been any insult or attack on yourself personally. No pretense, I know what you are claiming, but do not see it that way.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
The mere fact of its existence was not inappropriate. However, I have a suspicion that it was carried out in a way which was not, although of course there will never be any evidence to prove me wrong or right.
The "unassailable preconceived notion" is, I would argue, rather a fundamental disagreement on the significance of certain facts as well as the way the system ought to operate. It is far less what you think it to be, a result of "anti-cop bias" and failure to reserve judgment.
I am not a jury (nor a juror), and am well aware of this. The standard of judgement when discussing an issue on the internets is vastly different from that required in a courtroom where a man's life and freedom hang in the balance.
If facts are revealed which change my assessment, then so be it. I've (publicly) changed my assessments in the past on many occasions. However, my present assessment is based not on a "preconceived notion" but on my appreciation of the known facts, that which is and is not plausible, and the insufficiency of the proffered defense. I am, as it happens, also aware that there may be (and likely are) better defenses, as yet unrevealed. I will judge them on their own merit at such a time.
Because, like it or not, police are not merely acting as free agents/individuals who happen to have employment. They are, as it happens, presently empowered well beyond that which is allowed to the average citizen in order to carry out their duties. The represent the state, and the full potential of the state to enforce its will, including the ability to kill (and there is no self-defense allowed against the state any longer). Additionally, they are trained at state expense to be capable and professional in their enforcement of the law. None of these things applies to a citizen forced to defend himself against a common criminal.
Like it or not, there is a conflict of interest in the current state of affairs, as well as a slippery slope leading to what looks scarily like police-statism.
I submit: either a police officer has no powers beyond those held by the average citizen, or he is held to a higher standard.
I might ask why or how one might disagree with this (unless of course the individual regularly posts on officer.com or is a member of the FOP).
I'm doing nothing of the kind. I'm operating under the assumption, derived from an explicitly stated and defended premise (see above), that neither of the pointed-to actions constitute an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, reasonably perceived or in actual fact. (I might add that I feel especially strongly in this regard about the second action, which it is argued lead to the second string of shots which actually causes Mrs. Cook's death. Nobody should be held to a standard which allows the shooting of people for something which is no more dangerous than driving before your car windows have defrosted, lest we condone the state-sponsored killing of motorists for doing just that. They key word here is "imminent".)
Speaking of leaving out a few details... For instance, that pesky second string of shots, ridiculously defended on tenuous and painfully obviously ex post facto grounds.Indeed. I cried and even called my parents. It was traumatic.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Let me clarify. I do not take what has been said as a personal insult, merely a much repeated mantra of prejudgement on my part which, I argue, lacks truth or merit. And is becoming a little tiresome.
My arguments and positions are not intended to take the place of a trial with all that entails. Within the purview of this sort of public debate (which I consider to be aimed at influencing perception and, hopefully, public policy rather than, say, individual trials), I consider the degree of judgement reservation I have displayed to be more than fair.
One might take the view that these arguments are not centered around the facts as they actually occurred (as is the utmost concern in a trial), but rather the response to the facts as they appear. That is to say, I'm not arguing the unassailable fact of this officer's guilt. Rather, I'm arguing that, based on what we know, an officer who did what he did appears guilty. The conclusion I reach from this is not that the officer needs to be criminally convicted – this I leave to a jury – but that we as a society need additional bulwarks to guard against such occurrences. To this end, I've offered several suggestions, as I've always done with some regularity. No free society should ever have to wonder as to the legitimacy of government agents' actions with the regularity that we face. At the very least, we deserve a little transparency to dispel the persistent ambiguity that leaves us pretty certain that government acts inappropriately in many cases – even though we can't prove or know exactly which cases those are. Hence my constant cry for mandating police recording of encounters they put themselves into.
It may be that, at trial, evidence will come out which would render the officer, in my view, innocent. Such evidence or defense has not been forthcoming, but that is incidental. Its materialization would not change my previously noted conclusion one iota. It is the broken nature of the system which makes each ambiguous event the poster child for an endless parade of government misconduct intentionally lost in the sea of legitimate conduct through lies, coverups, and plain old bad policy. In fact, if the officer turns out to be innocent (or is factually), that further underlines the merit of my concern, as the officer should not be forced to bear the burden of decades of abuses covered up by the façade of legitimate propriety, and by policies designed to allow the easy hiding of needles of abuse in a haystack of appropriate conduct (or, cynically, vice versa).
For example, if the officer is guilty, he benefits from his failure to record to encounter. If he is innocent, he suffers from the same. In neither case does he get what he deserves. Why do we, by policy, continue to permit such omissions, when their only conscious object can be the intentional confusion of the legitimate with the illegitimate so as to disguise and facilitate the latter?
Last edited:
nuc65
Activist Member
It is my belief that both should apply. However, time and time again I believe that the courts and the legislatures move the bar lower for the police and higher for the citizen. It seems that the truth is highly skewed. The police do not appear to be held to much standard and do not even need to know the law in some cases. The arrest (or action) based merely on 'a belief' that such a law must exists justifies actions that may seem unconscionable. However the average citizen will be told that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
The only way to remedy this is to fix it through political activism such as VCDL or another organization from the grass roots on up. Hard to do because advertising dollars seem to decide who wins which election and career politicians remain in office.
The other option is to act as a juror and to vote as you see fit, not only as the judge instructs but as one must based on belief of what is right or wrong.
Laws that create 'special' classes of people, such as LEO, must be rescinded such that all people hold the same rights and privileges. No special classes of people.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
You're preaching to the choir, but good luck on that front. We have a hard enough time getting one of the two what with the horde of apologists insistent that police ought to both be held to a lower standard and possess greater powers (as if that makes any sense).
SAvage410
Regular Member
It's called "being Zimmermaned"...
Originally Posted by Grapeshot
Is there a word for guilty by innuendo and assumption?
Ding, ding - we have a winner!
Best newly minted phrase of the month too.
Sheriff
Regular Member
I've been saying this since Day 1 of this Culpeper murder.
Rookies have no idea whatsoever how to talk to and deal with citizens out on the street.
OC for ME
Regular Member
I believe Harmon is a five year veteran of that LEA.
That and he was a MP before so he's hardly a rookie. He is one of those people who should not be a cop, but unfortunately the type that gets hired most often.
None of that really has anything to do with determining if the shooting was justified or not. The facts are pretty well laid out. It's just determining how to apply them.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Do you mean to state that the/a law has to be applied to the facts? Or, will the facts be made to fit to the/a law?