Culpeper shooting

[peter nap]

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?

Did Doug Huffman write that question for you?

I mean that no matter what his background is, what happened it those minutes leading up to and including the shooting are all that's important.

A jury will take the facts and decide how to interpret them. For instance, he had is arm in the window. There doesn't seem to be any question about that. She drove off, there doesn't seem to be any question about that.

The Jury needs to decide if he could have gotten his arm out without shooting her, then decide if she was a genuine threat to the immediate public when he shot again to stop her.

This is one of those rare instances were "The law" doesn't necessarily rule, and the Jury can interpret the facts as they please. Jury Nullification works both ways. People technically guilty are freed by Juries and innocent people are found guilty.

Roll the dice, flip a coin and get lots of popcorn.

 

[DocWalker]

Did Doug Huffman write that question for you?

I mean that no matter what his background is, what happened it those minutes leading up to and including the shooting are all that's important.

A jury will take the facts and decide how to interpret them. For instance, he had is arm in the window. There doesn't seem to be any question about that. She drove off, there doesn't seem to be any question about that.

The Jury needs to decide if he could have gotten his arm out without shooting her, then decide if she was a genuine threat to the immediate public when he shot again to stop her.

This is one of those rare instances were "The law" doesn't necessarily rule, and the Jury can interpret the facts as they please. Jury Nullification works both ways. People technically guilty are freed by Juries and innocent people are found guilty.

Roll the dice, flip a coin and get lots of popcorn.

Yep,

Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson are two that got off scott free and neither of them had a badge.

 

[riverrat10k]

snip

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.snip

.

I have been avoiding commenting on this thread.

Marshaul has always been consistent in his message above, regardless of the thread.

Position of the drivers side window, if properly forensically preserved, should tell us much about what happened. I won't speculate as to all the possibilities.

If anyone can successfully represent a defendant, it is Dan.

MY OPINION is the officer is guilty of the use of excessive force, at a minimum. The jury will decide.

Rember the thread about the U of R cop who shot at a fleeing vehicle? The driver was suspected of smoking pot and pulled away. The cop shot his own car and who knows what else. The U of R officer should be prosecuted as would any other citizen for unlawful discharge of his firearm. Police should have to justify every discharge, with criminal charges pressed if it is unjustified.

See Marshauls quote.

 

[Sheriff]

June 21, 2012

Effective June 19, Daniel Harmon-Wright’s employment with the Culpeper Police Department was terminated. This termination occurred after the completion of an Internal Affairs investigation into the matter of the shooting of Patricia Cook. Earlier this month, Harmon-Wright pleaded not guilty.

The Town would like to thank the community for its patience throughout this process.


http://www.newsplex.com/home/headli...ted_as_Culpeper_Police_Officer_159914065.html

 

[peter nap]

June 21, 2012

Effective June 19, Daniel Harmon-Wright’s employment with the Culpeper Police Department was terminated. This termination occurred after the completion of an Internal Affairs investigation into the matter of the shooting of Patricia Cook. Earlier this month, Harmon-Wright pleaded not guilty.

The Town would like to thank the community for its patience throughout this process.


http://www.newsplex.com/home/headli...ted_as_Culpeper_Police_Officer_159914065.html

I can't say that surprises me. They started covering their butts from the first day and considering the fact that they hired him against the recommendation of the interviewers...they got some splainin to do.

Add momma Raven to the mix and They have a canteen full of hemlock and no water to be found.

 

[BlueRidgeTrapper]

June 21, 2012

Effective June 19, Daniel Harmon-Wright’s employment with the Culpeper Police Department was terminated. This termination occurred after the completion of an Internal Affairs investigation into the matter of the shooting of Patricia Cook. Earlier this month, Harmon-Wright pleaded not guilty.

The Town would like to thank the community for its patience throughout this process.


http://www.newsplex.com/home/headli...ted_as_Culpeper_Police_Officer_159914065.html

Saw this on our evening news and came to find that you beat me to the punch...what an unfortunate mess.

 

[Grapeshot]

Saw this on our evening news and came to find that you beat me to the punch...what an unfortunate mess.

Strange that they have done this when there is a trial pending and he was already on unpaid leave. Whether the officer was right or wrong, will be found guilty or not, this action is tantamount to throwing him to the wolves.

If he is found innocent, I suspect that they town has just incurred some serious potential liability. They would have been better advised IMO to have waited it out patiently.

 

[skidmark]

Strange that they have done this when there is a trial pending and he was already on unpaid leave. Whether the officer was right or wrong, will be found guilty or not, this action is tantamount to throwing him to the wolves.

If he is found innocent, I suspect that they town has just incurred some serious potential liability. They would have been better advised IMO to have waited it out patiently.

+1. In addition to everything else I think the Town has just contaminated the jury pool from Tidewater to at least Charlottesville. They might have had a good case for termination based on false statements on the application but to say "This termination occurred after the completion of an Internal Affairs investigation into the matter of the shooting of Patricia Cook" is just as clear a statement of "We think he's guilty and are looking for any way to get out of being held liable in any manner" as could ever be made. The Town Attorney and HR Manager will be very sorry they allowed this to happen when and in the manner they did.

stay safe.

 

[OC for ME]

Did Doug Huffman write that question for you?

I mean that no matter what his background is, what happened it those minutes leading up to and including the shooting are all that's important.

A jury will take the facts and decide how to interpret them. For instance, he had is arm in the window. There doesn't seem to be any question about that. She drove off, there doesn't seem to be any question about that.

The Jury needs to decide if he could have gotten his arm out without shooting her, then decide if she was a genuine threat to the immediate public when he shot again to stop her.

This is one of those rare instances were "The law" doesn't necessarily rule, and the Jury can interpret the facts as they please. Jury Nullification works both ways. People technically guilty are freed by Juries and innocent people are found guilty.

Roll the dice, flip a coin and get lots of popcorn.

Thanks. It was a honest question. I'm a little fuzzy on the arcane workings of law vs. facts/facts vs. law when it comes to a courtroom. Sometimes it is more about the 'dance moves' than the 'music'.

I do not know who Doug Huffman is.

As to the cop getting fired, it is likely (obviously?) a 'business decision/PR decision' by the city/department, rightly or wrongly, it is what it is. If he is a member of a police union there may be recourse for him via his union reps. Though this cop may be to toxic to support, the union has a image to care for also.

It is unlikely that the cop will regain a position on that force when the force and the town are concerned for their public image.

Most citizens trust cops to do the right thing at the right time and the vast majority of cops do exactly that. The history of this cop appears to make him toxic and the city does not apparently want to have to clean up a potential future mess involving this cop.

I will concede, in the cops defense, he could not have been all that 'bad' because he had been on the force for five years. Was he a 'high maintenance' employee? Did his daily interactions at the station house have some bearing on the termination of employment?

The trial will be interesting theater.

 

[peter nap]

+1. In addition to everything else I think the Town has just contaminated the jury pool from Tidewater to at least Charlottesville. They might have had a good case for termination based on false statements on the application but to say "This termination occurred after the completion of an Internal Affairs investigation into the matter of the shooting of Patricia Cook" is just as clear a statement of "We think he's guilty and are looking for any way to get out of being held liable in any manner" as could ever be made. The Town Attorney and HR Manager will be very sorry they allowed this to happen when and in the manner they did.

stay safe.

From what I've seen Skid, the town, including the PD, have done everything wrong from day one... and the cloak and dagger games during the investigation only enraged people more.

This is going to get very messy.

I don't think he should have ever been in law enforcement in the first place.....but

Based on what I've seen so far, I also don't think he's guilty of the charges and I think he will be found not guilty.

As you said, if found not guilty, he has a dandy chance of winning a lawsuit against the town.

 

[user]

Strange that they have done this when there is a trial pending and he was already on unpaid leave. Whether the officer was right or wrong, will be found guilty or not, this action is tantamount to throwing him to the wolves.

If he is found innocent, I suspect that they town has just incurred some serious potential liability. They would have been better advised IMO to have waited it out patiently.

I believe that the correct, technical term is, "throwing him under the bus". Purely politically motivated nonsense. There was no complete investigation, and I got a call from a captain who told me they intended to fire him unless he waive his rights and submit to interrogation without the presence of counsel. He admitted at the time that they had no questions they wanted to ask him. I asked him to suspend their investigation until the conclusion of the litigation, but he was absolutely clear that it had to be done right now. The fact that they have distributed a press release about that issue is, to me, evidence of what the law terms, "actual malice".

 

[Sheriff]

....just as clear a statement of "We think he's guilty and are looking for any way to get out of being held liable in any manner" as could ever be made.

His termination does exactly the opposite in my opinion.

 

[BillB]

Oh come on! Is anyone in this thread surprised by his employment termination?

 

[MAC702]

A police officer need not be GUILTY of murder to be fired. If he is unexemplary to his community, he should. EVEN IF he could not avoid shooting this woman to death, his firing keeps the police force cleaner as an organization.

Even if he is found justified in this shooting, can he honestly continue to perform his duties as a Culpeper policeman without hindrance or tarnish?

He SHOULD lose his job, whether the shooting was justified or not. He clearly made mistakes that escalated the situation, and even if justified in his final solution, the community is better without him as one of their policemen.

As for "the matter of Patricia Cook," didn't this investigation also uncover matters from his hiring and personnel records?

Even though the fate of this officer needs to still be heard by a jury to determine level of guilt, the town is making the right call, the eloquence of his defense attorney not withstanding.

 

[peter nap]

Thanks. It was a honest question. I'm a little fuzzy on the arcane workings of law vs. facts/facts vs. law when it comes to a courtroom. Sometimes it is more about the 'dance moves' than the 'music'.

I do not know who Doug Huffman is.
Consider yourself fortunate...and it wasn't a serious question.

.

Sometimes the courtroom antics are like a dance routine and that's where you can separate the hacks from the really good lawyers.

In this case the Officer has a really good lawyer. Law is like instructions in Chinenglish.

It has no meaning when you read it. I have a Chinese tractor and it took me 6 months to figure out that "Butter Nozzles" were grease fittings.

Dan Hawes is like a You Tube tutorial. After his presentation....it makes perfect sense. As you watch this move along...you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

[peter nap]

Oh come on! Is anyone in this thread surprised by his employment termination?

The timing and the press release are very inappropriate Bill.

No, I'm not surprised and I doubt I'd be surprised by anything in this case. I do consider it poor judgment to announce it now rather than after the trial.

 

[Sheriff]

Firing a police officer in Virginia is not as easy as some of you may think. They have a Bill of Rights, located in the Virginia Code sections 9.1-500 thru 9.1-507. Deputy sheriffs in Virginia on the other hand, they can be fired at any time, with or without cause.

And whatever they call their Bill of Rights, the postal service has a pretty good package too. We have one girl locally who has been fired and re-hired about 6 times because they never seem to do the termination(s) by the book.

 

[Marco]

attorney removes damaging remarks about his client after taking the case

A police officer need not be GUILTY of murder to be fired. If he is unexemplary to his community, he should. EVEN IF he could not avoid shooting this woman to death, his firing keeps the police force cleaner as an organization.

Even if he is found justified in this shooting, can he honestly continue to perform his duties as a Culpeper policeman without hindrance or tarnish?

He SHOULD lose his job, whether the shooting was justified or not. He clearly made mistakes that escalated the situation, and even if justified in his final solution, the community is better without him as one of their policemen.

As for "the matter of Patricia Cook," didn't this investigation also uncover matters from his hiring and personnel records?

Even though the fate of this officer needs to still be heard by a jury to determine level of guilt, the town is making the right call, the eloquence of his defense attorney not withstanding.

Breaking my rule.
emphasis mine
1+
IIRC, he lied on his LE app so why wouldn't he lie about that days events.....
One is just a job the other could mean yrs behind bars...
I don't believe the officer version, period.

While I don't believe this is anything nefarious.
I also would like to draw your attention to the fact that 23+ pages have been deleted from this thread, and the killers attorney removed all his damaging remarks about his now client on 4/25/2012.

Luckily others quoted some of those comments and nothing on the net is truly lost.

Originally Posted by user Pet grammatical peeve alert!!!

Actually, where the antecedant is undefined as to gender, then the neuter gender pronoun, "he" is appropriate. The problem is that people get confused because it's the same in form as the masculine pronoun. But what defines the grammatical gender is use, not form. It drives me nuts when someone says, "one who ... she...", and I have to go backtracking because I've missed the mention of the specific female person they're making reference to, only to find that it's a grammatically political correctness.

Back to the main thread: What I want to know is what this cop did to frighten the woman so much that she felt she had to hit the gas to get away from him. Was he already brandishing (holding, pointing, or brandishing the gun in such a way as to cause fear in the mind of the victim)? Or had he done something else to make her think her life was in danger?

My thinking is that a cop who would shoot a motorist for failure to stay put is a cop who would have already done something crazy. Why did he have his hand inside the window or on the door handle anyway? Clearly an assault and battery.

Assuming, of course, that it was a traffic stop and that he didn't have an active felony warrant on the woman.

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?

I'm sure he had a reason. Most of the time, people who kill others have a reason. The question is, does his reason fall under the category of "privilege, excuse, or justification"? There is a legal presumption that what he did was second-degree murder. He may well have a very good defense to that charge. I hope we'll have the chance to find out.

I truly believe the decision to hire User was done to gain support of many of his supporters/gun owners/freinds in the area along with the fact he's a capable attorney.

 

[Grapeshot]

I believe that the correct, technical term is, "throwing him under the bus". Purely politically motivated nonsense. There was no complete investigation, and I got a call from a captain who told me they intended to fire him unless he waive his rights and submit to interrogation without the presence of counsel. He admitted at the time that they had no questions they wanted to ask him. I asked him to suspend their investigation until the conclusion of the litigation, but he was absolutely clear that it had to be done right now. The fact that they have distributed a press release about that issue is, to me, evidence of what the law terms, "actual malice".

I reached back further in time for my descriptive phrase. It was well recognized - I should know, I was there.

Another more recent variant is "feeding him to the sharks," think feeding frenzy.

 

[Sheriff]

What I want to know is what this cop did to frighten the woman so much.......

I do not believe he scared this woman. Based on my few encounters with young rookies since my leaving law enforcement totally a few years ago, they simply do not know how to talk to and deal with people in a civil manner any longer out here on the streets. I still believe he and she got into a dissing contest over whether she was doing anything wrong and whether he had the authority to even approach her. This questioning of authority was of course "contempt of cop" and his blood pressure went up rather quickly. After this act of "contempt of cop", she had gone from suspect to enemy. It was all downhill from there.