Culpeper shooting

[twoskinsonemanns]

Why do you think that a non-LEO would have made the follow-up shots? What would be their purpose?

Because the cop was a cop he had a whole additional set of issues to deal with that your average Joe Sixpack on the street would not. First there was the self-defense shooting (2 or 3 shots at/through the side window. Then there were additional shots fired in response to the list of felony offenses User has cataloged for us - which are the perview of a cop but not a "mere" citizen.

So, why do you think that a non-LEO would have made the follow-up shots? What would be their purpose?

stay safe.

As far as why a non-LEO would take the same actions the cop did, let assume the given reason is the same the cops may give in his defense.
Since you avoided answering my question I would take it that you probably feel the same as I do, that if it were not a cop the follow up shot could not be justified. My only point being that this is one of the reasons some people may instinctively come to the conclusion that the follow up shots were not justified. The cop may have shot the woman in furious retribution of her "assault" on him. And while he will probably be cleared of any wrong doing your average citizen would not. This type of realization adds to the reason of User's post on the natural reaction of people when cops kill unarmed women.

 

[skidmark]

Sorry if it seemed I was avoiding answering your question. That was not the intent. I just could not conceive of any reason for a non-LEO to have shot once the immediate threat was over. OK, I did consider anger and a desire to "get even with" or "teach a lesson to", but rejected them because in my mind all non-LEOs should be above that. I know it is not true, just as I know it to be not true for all LEOs. Buit for the sake of discussion we need to keep things clear and clean.

But the fact of the matter was/is that he was, as the attornies love saying, at all times relevant to and during the incident, a cop. That changes the dynamic because he has certain duties/obligations/expectations to fulfil that non-LEOs do not. Perhaps that is one of the things that will need to be stressed by the defense in order to overcome the "instinctive conclusion" you mention.

Strange, isn't it - a goood defense resting on the need to demonstrate that the cop refused to shirk his duty and obligations?

stay safe.

 

[BillB]

The question here won't be if he was justified in shooting to extract himself, rather...if the second burst of shots were necessary to stop a fleeing felon who was an immediate danger to others.

That's certainly the way it appears to me now as well. But I'll wait until I hear the prosecution's case in a lot more detail than has been publicly released so far to bank on it. I predict an interesting trial.

 

[peter nap]

I predict an interesting trial.

They are always interesting when User is involved.

This is unusual in that no matter which party we look at, the deceased or the man on trial, every one of us can say......"This could be me".

I predict an increased demand for Dan's seminars.

 

[Sheriff]

So, why do you think that a non-LEO would have made the follow-up shots? What would be their purpose?

stay safe.

This is easily a two way street......

The follow-up shots by the cop, what would be their purpose?

Mrs Cook had not become a fleeing felon who was an immediate danger to others until she was shot in the back and had magically become dead at the steering wheel. At the time of her death, the Jeep was still moving. Instead of hitting a telephone pole, it could have been a mother and a baby stroller.

 

[marshaul]

But the fact of the matter was/is that he was, as the attornies love saying, at all times relevant to and during the incident, a cop. That changes the dynamic because he has certain duties/obligations/expectations to fulfil that non-LEOs do not.

Hah hah!

So, when are we going to implement explicit policies that police are to shoot all drivers with fogged up windows, since they have a duty/obligation/expectation to do so?

You really think you and user can just declare something like that to be so?

Go ahead, user, try telling a jury that the cop had to shoot her because she was a fleeing felon, and it was his duty. :lol:

Then there were additional shots fired in response to the list of felony offenses User has cataloged for us - which are the perview of a cop but not a "mere" citizen.

Painstakingly crafted, by user, ex post facto. As any juror will see.

This is kind of starting to get funny. Or it would be, if it were on TV.

 

[skidmark]

Hah hah!

So, when are we going to implement explicit policies that police are to shoot all drivers with fogged up windows, since they have a duty/obligation/expectation to do so?

You really think you and user can just declare something like that to be so?

No, I think that the duty/obligation/expectation is contained in policy and procedure, as well as in his Work Performace Expectations document - a fairly standard form that lays out what behaviors and/or products one is supposed to do/produce in order to be said to be performing their assigned duties.

Go ahead, user, try telling a jury that the cop had to shoot her because she was a fleeing felon, and it was his duty. :lol:



Painstakingly crafted, by user, ex post facto. As any juror will see.

Let's start with that "crafted ex post facto comment - please tell me how you can determine the criminality of her behavior until she does that behavior?

Now, for your suggestion (it is your suggestion, is it not?) that she was not a fleeing felon:

step by step -

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-852

§ 46.2-852. Reckless driving; general rule.
Irrespective of the maximum speeds permitted by law, any person who drives a vehicle on any highway recklessly or at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person shall be guilty of reckless driving.
(Code 1950, § 46-208; 1958, c. 541, § 46.1-189; 1983, c. 380; 1989, c. 727.)
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-864
§ 46.2-864. Reckless driving on parking lots, etc.
A person is guilty of reckless driving who operates any motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person:
1. On any driveway or premises of a church, school, recreational facility, or business or governmental property open to the public; or
2. On the premises of any industrial establishment providing parking space for customers, patrons, or employees; or
3. On any highway under construction or not yet open to the public.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-868
§ 46.2-868. Reckless driving; penalties.
A. Every person convicted of reckless driving under the provisions of this article shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
B. Every person convicted of reckless driving under the provisions of this article who, when he committed the offense, (i) was driving without a valid operator's license due to a suspension or revocation for a moving violation and, (ii) as the sole and proximate result of his reckless driving, caused the death of another, is guilty of a Class 6 felony.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-817
46.2-817. Disregarding signal by law-enforcement officer to stop; eluding police; penalties.
A. Any person who, having received a visible or audible signal from any law-enforcement officer to bring his motor vehicle to a stop, drives such motor vehicle in a willful and wanton disregard of such signal or who attempts to escape or elude such law-enforcement officer whether on foot, in the vehicle, or by any other means, is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of a violation of this subsection if the defendant shows he reasonably believed he was being pursued by a person other than a law-enforcement officer.
B. Any person who, having received a visible or audible signal from any law-enforcement officer to bring his motor vehicle to a stop, drives such motor vehicle in a willful and wanton disregard of such signal so as to interfere with or endanger the operation of the law-enforcement vehicle or endanger a person is guilty of a Class 6 felony. It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of a violation of this subsection if the defendant shows he reasonably believed he was being pursued by a person other than a law-enforcement officer.
C. If a law-enforcement officer pursues a person as a result of a violation of subsection B and the law-enforcement officer is killed as a direct and proximate result of the pursuit, the person who violated subsection B is guilty of a Class 4 felony.
D. When any person is convicted of an offense under this section, in addition to the other penalties provided in this section, the driver's license of such person shall be suspended by the court for a period of not less than thirty days nor more than one year. However, in any case where the speed of such person is determined to have exceeded the maximum allowed by twenty miles per hour, his driver's license shall be suspended by the court trying the case for a period of not less than ninety days. In case of conviction and suspension, the court or judge shall order the surrender of the license to the court, which shall dispose of it in accordance with the provisions of § 46.2-398.
E. Violation of this section shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. If the acts or activities violating this section also violate another provision of law, a prosecution under this section shall not prohibit or bar any prosecution or proceeding under such other provision or the imposition of any penalties provided for thereby.

Q.E.D.

This is kind of starting to get funny. Or it would be, if it were on TV.

I agree - unfortunately you do not seem to see that it is your disregard for what the law actually says that is providing the amusement.

stay safe.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Sorry if it seemed I was avoiding answering your question. That was not the intent. I just could not conceive of any reason for a non-LEO to have shot once the immediate threat was over. OK, I did consider anger and a desire to "get even with" or "teach a lesson to", but rejected them because in my mind all non-LEOs should be above that. I know it is not true, just as I know it to be not true for all LEOs. Buit for the sake of discussion we need to keep things clear and clean.

But the fact of the matter was/is that he was, as the attornies love saying, at all times relevant to and during the incident, a cop. That changes the dynamic because he has certain duties/obligations/expectations to fulfil that non-LEOs do not. Perhaps that is one of the things that will need to be stressed by the defense in order to overcome the "instinctive conclusion" you mention.

Strange, isn't it - a goood defense resting on the need to demonstrate that the cop refused to shirk his duty and obligations?

stay safe.

I have a really hard time with allowing for the idea that a cop can be justified shooting unarmed people in any instance where anyone else shooting them would not be justified. In my mind, and perhaps that of other potential jurors, if any armed citizen would not be justified then a cop wouldn't either. This may not jive with the laws, I don't know that laws well enough. This thread has gone so long I can't remember if User posted something that showed it is okay for cops to shoot some one committing a felony, where as a non cop wouldn't be justified doing it.

I do know it doesn't sit right for me. If I was a juror, I feel I would need to be shown that ANY reasonable person would feel the need to pump all that lead into the unarmed woman as she drove away to feel it was justified.

I don't want to seem like a cop hater. I don't WANT to jump right to the conclusion that cop-involved shootings are automatically unjustified.
In fact I saw a video of a scene where this idiot was walking out of a restaurant after breaking a bunch of windows with what looked to be a pipe bender. After a cop tasered him he made like to strike the cop with the pipe bender (maybe) and cops shot him many many times. I thought it was completely justified even though the majority of comments disagreed.

 

[marshaul]

Q.E.D.

lol, is that what you tell yourself?

Seriously, skid. Do you really think I missed all that the first time?

I will amend my suggestion, however: When are we going to implement an explicit policy of responding to driving with fogged windows with "stop or I'll shoot!"? Because, obviously, that's why all these laws were enacted. There's no way you're stretching your interpretations or anything, and so we are left with that being the only logical conclusion.

You must have missed the part where I stated I'm not involved in this discussion because I want to play jury. I'm much more concerned with the societal-scale problem than whether or not user can finagle an acquittal (although, if that were my interest, I remain highly unimpressed, the vocal echo chamber notwithstanding).

Even if I agreed that your interpretations aren't stretched to fit justification in this case, I would simply say that the laws are bad, wrong, and need to be changed immediately. Like I said, I'm not playing jury.

And, I already pointed this out, but you're the one who's so intent on playing courtroom that your positions become tantamount to apologia for what is, fairly objectively, a sorry state of affairs. This is because I'm not playing courtroom; I'm discussing the real-life ramifications of these laws, policies, and procedures. And yet you respond with some citations. There are two possible ways to read that. 1: you missed the part where I said I'm not trying to carry out the job of a jury, or 2: you really think that this is a totally cool, hunky-dory way for a free society to operate.

If I laugh at the ludicrous legal defenses offered, it's because I'm not a juror, and I'm allowed to laugh at how ridiculous we've made our laws in our obsequious pandering to the law enfarcement lobby. I'm not saying that the defenses are wrong so much as I'm saying they damn well ought to be wrong.

With that said, I still think you're stretching. Be happy I'll never be a juror. :lol:

 

[KBCraig]

I have a really hard time with allowing for the idea that a cop can be justified shooting unarmed people in any instance where anyone else shooting them would not be justified. In my mind, and perhaps that of other potential jurors, if any armed citizen would not be justified then a cop wouldn't either. This may not jive with the laws, I don't know that laws well enough.

I'm pretty much with you; this is my concern as well.

Think of the permutations:
A) The person reaching through the window and riding the running board is a cop, while the driver is not (the present case);
B) Neither is a cop;
C) Both are cops;
D) The person reaching through the window and riding the running board is not a cop, while the driver is.

Let's look at B. A lady is sitting in her vehicle in a parking lot when Joe Snuffy demands to know what she's doing there. She insists she's doing nothing wrong; he reaches in to grab her DL; she cranks up the window and takes off.

At this point, there's no doubt that he's the aggressor, leaving her in the right to use defensive force. She could scrape him off on a phone pole, or she could shoot him. He would have no legal right to self defense against her, especially not deadly force, since he initiated the confrontation.

If you disagree, then look at D: does anyone disagree that if someone reached into a cop's window, then jumped on the running board when he tried to take off and gain some defensive distance, that the cop would be justified in shooting?

If your answer varies between A, B, and D based on which one is the cop, then we do not have a nation of laws.

 

[skidmark]

... I'm much more concerned with the societal-scale problem ....

So, now we have it out in the open. You want the way things are done to be changed, and my guess is you would be content using this situation as a vehicle for doing so.

Nobody asked me for my opinion of what the law is, and I have never volunteered it. That's because except for the jury nullifying a law, opinions about what the law is or ought to be instead of what they are, are meaningless in the instant discussion. We could have a great time discussing that in a separate thread, but this one is pretty much about why we think the cop did what he did and what will happen to him after being charged by the CA.

stay safe.

 

[MAC702]

Variation on B:

Man outside the car is the representative of the church. He comes to the window and demands her membership card to prove she can stay. Seeing an ID in her hand, and knowing the names of his members, he reaches for it, but now, rightly scared, she drives away...

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Variation on B:

Man outside the car is the representative of the church. He comes to the window and demands her membership card to prove she can stay. Seeing an ID in her hand, and knowing the names of his members, he reaches for it, but now, rightly scared, she drives away...

...then, when he finally get's free, he pulls a bazooka and blast her right to hell where she belong for not being a member of his church! ha ha ha ha ha!
jest of course.

 

[marshaul]

So, now we have it out in the open. You want the way things are done to be changed, and my guess is you would be content using this situation as a vehicle for doing so.

Uh, yeah. That's the point. You say this as though you've revealed to the world something I'd rather not be pointed out.

Seriously, skid. You don't "change the way things are done" because they work fine. I already said, I'd much rather see reform than this officer's conviction, although I suspect the latter may well be warranted.

I don't see anything in the OP which suggests that the thread is limited to your preferred focus to the exclusion of mine.

And if you're trying to imply untoward methodologies on my part, I submit that there is nothing of the kind. It is, in fact, eminently reasonable to reference real-world events when seeking reform, or to springboard off them to underline a need for reform. Again, reform doesn't occur because there aren't problems.

When a woman's life is needlessly taken under questionable circumstances, it is precisely the time to argue the need for reform. Mrs. Cook deserves nothing less – especially if we, as a society, decide our present laws preclude justice. The least we can do is fix that, in her name, so that the next Mrs. Cook is able to get justice, or maybe won't need any in the first place.

 

[user]

I think your very right about this.
Do you think a non LEO would be justified in the follow up shots after the car was driving away?

No. That's one place where the rules really are different for cops. A cop is legally required to prevent the escape of a person who has committed felonious acts in his presence. Keep in mind that the operative word, "arrest", means "stop", and one way to stop a fleeing felon is to kill him. And a police officer, unlike a sheriff's deputy, has all of the powers of a high constable at common law, which is a pretty heavy load. There is a recent U.S.Sup.Ct. civil case (wrongful death) that held that it is a per-se violation of a person's right to due process of law to shoot to kill where the cop had no reasonable basis for belief that the fleeing felon did not represent a continuing threat of danger to himself or the community. This "community caretaker" doctrine imposes a duty upon a cop, a duty flowing from him to the state (and not to any particular person), to take action when the Sovereign's subjects are being threatened by a fleeing felon. Just plain folks have no such duty.

If, on the other hand, there is a present basis for a "reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact" that there is an "imminent threat of serious bodily injury" to another person who is himself innocent of having any part in starting the conflict, then anyone observing the threat can take action to stop the threat. But that's a defense, not a duty, and it has to be specific as to the person threatened.

 

[user]

I have a really hard time with allowing for the idea that a cop can be justified shooting unarmed people in any instance where anyone else shooting them would not be justified. In my mind, and perhaps that of other potential jurors, if any armed citizen would not be justified then a cop wouldn't either. This may not jive with the laws, I don't know that laws well enough. This thread has gone so long I can't remember if User posted something that showed it is okay for cops to shoot some one committing a felony, where as a non cop wouldn't be justified doing it.

I do know it doesn't sit right for me. If I was a juror, I feel I would need to be shown that ANY reasonable person would feel the need to pump all that lead into the unarmed woman as she drove away to feel it was justified.

I don't want to seem like a cop hater. I don't WANT to jump right to the conclusion that cop-involved shootings are automatically unjustified.
In fact I saw a video of a scene where this idiot was walking out of a restaurant after breaking a bunch of windows with what looked to be a pipe bender. After a cop tasered him he made like to strike the cop with the pipe bender (maybe) and cops shot him many many times. I thought it was completely justified even though the majority of comments disagreed.

Good points, and a good basis for future political discussion about what the law ought to be. Keep in mind, though, that people use cars to kill others much more than they do firearms, and that the vehicle itself is a weapon if used that way, as illustrated by the example of the pipe-bender-wielding glass-breaker you gave. Hitting cops is not the normal and reasonable use of the pipe-bender, but it became a weapon when used as such. My take on the present case is that the fleeing felon was armed and dangerous; she had just tried to kill or seriously injure the cop, and was obviously bent on destruction, whether of herself or others is hard to tell. I think it's right to be suspicious, but it's also right to remember that generalizations can be true only as generalizations and that specific instances require mental flexibility and an open mind. I'm not looking for everyone to pile on my bandwagon, but simply to eliminate prejudice.

 

[user]

I'm pretty much with you; this is my concern as well.

Think of the permutations:
A) The person reaching through the window and riding the running board is a cop, while the driver is not (the present case);
B) Neither is a cop;
C) Both are cops;
D) The person reaching through the window and riding the running board is not a cop, while the driver is.

Let's look at B. A lady is sitting in her vehicle in a parking lot when Joe Snuffy demands to know what she's doing there. She insists she's doing nothing wrong; he reaches in to grab her DL; she cranks up the window and takes off.

At this point, there's no doubt that he's the aggressor, leaving her in the right to use defensive force. She could scrape him off on a phone pole, or she could shoot him. He would have no legal right to self defense against her, especially not deadly force, since he initiated the confrontation.

If you disagree, then look at D: does anyone disagree that if someone reached into a cop's window, then jumped on the running board when he tried to take off and gain some defensive distance, that the cop would be justified in shooting?

If your answer varies between A, B, and D based on which one is the cop, then we do not have a nation of laws.

There is a slight problem with the logic, though I generally agree with the conclusion. For example, did you know that banks, insurance companies, natural gas suppliers, and real-estate brokers are exempt from the Virginia Consumer Protection Act merely because of their status? So if a bank sells you a repossessed car, they are free to lie, cheat, and steal, and that's just too dam'bad. If a used car dealer does the same thing, you can sue him. I see variations based on the status of the actors as antithetical to Law as practiced by a civilized society.

The problem comes when you consider that there are two kinds of cops. There are cops who are doing their job as cops, and acting according to their legal duty, and there are cops who are engaged in personal agenda; I'm thinking about the Aaron Stevenson case in Roanoke a while back - no question in my mind that the two cops who rousted him did so for personal reasons, and were not acting as agents of the Sovereign.

Those cops who are acting as agents of the state in doing what they're doing work for us all: we are "the Sovereign." That's not a matter of their personal status as individuals. It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference who they are, what they've done, or where they're from when they represent The Power of The State. That's not just a matter of variation in treatment based on status of the individual actor. So I think you actually have twice as many permutations in your logic than you thought.

Here's another way to look at it. When I do something on behalf of a client as his attorney, it's as if he did it for himself. I can legally do anything for another person that he might lawfully do for himself; the word, "attorney", means, "substitute", etymologically. Similarly, when a cop acts on behalf of us, the Sovereign, it's as if we ourselves were doing the act. He's our agent and our substitute.

We're sort of like the villagers who hire killers to protect us from the bandits, as in "The Seven Samurai", or its derivative, "The Magnificent Seven". If we want the samurai/gunslingers to kill the badguys for us, then we have to recognize that they're entitled to use their own tactics to do so on our behalf. We have to be able to distinguish, however, between those who are truly acting on our behalf, and those who are "on a lark of their own." The alternative would be to live in Maryland, where there is no law, only status, and where the cops are legally constrained and the citizens cannot carry their own means of defense.

 

[user]

This is easily a two way street......

The follow-up shots by the cop, what would be their purpose?

Mrs Cook had not become a fleeing felon who was an immediate danger to others until she was shot in the back and had magically become dead at the steering wheel. At the time of her death, the Jeep was still moving. Instead of hitting a telephone pole, it could have been a mother and a baby stroller.

Those who want the world to be perfectly safe are in for a frustrating and disappointing life. The car prior to the shots was headed down a public street on the wrong side of the street toward the most heavily trafficked area in town. The cop successfully stopped the threat with minimal collateral damage (the utility pole must have gotten scratched up a bit). I'd say, that's pretty good shootin'.

 

[peter nap]

When a woman's life is needlessly taken under questionable circumstances, it is precisely the time to argue the need for reform. Mrs. Cook deserves nothing less – especially if we, as a society, decide our present laws preclude justice. The least we can do is fix that, in her name, so that the next Mrs. Cook is able to get justice, or maybe won't need any in the first place.

Finally...the Marshaul we all love!

I'm not sure anyone here would agree that shooting this woman was right, only that it might have been legal. They are often different things.

Reform is needed but convicting this man if he was acting within the law, isn't going to reform anything. It will be forgotten in 6 months and will continue to happen.

Reform has to take place on a legislative level, not in the lower courts.

 

[OC for ME]

This cop is using the 'armed and dangerous fleeing felon' shtick as his 'stay out of jail' card.....with this in mind he is likely to walk. It's tough to second guess a cop when he throws this card, too many cops are/could be affected if this cop gets convicted.