• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Police Home Assault Informer Revealed, and Chesapeake PD apparently made deal with bad informer

Thndr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2008
Messages
86
Location
, ,
imported post

possumboy wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND!!! I know someone that did not.
Again, still contested. He may have knew his target, just not know it was a LEO. The trial will determine if he is telling the truth about if the LEO was visible, or if the CPD is telling the truth with him just firing through the door.

It is not contested that you need to know your target what is beyond.:p

I am not bashing LEO's but just remember the "Off duty cop in alleged road rage shooting" case inwhich it seemed as ifthe shooterdid not know the target other than there was someone on the other side of the glass.

Never heard anything more on the case so I do not know how it turned out but just thinking of recent events similar where decisions were made and shots fired.
 

possumboy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,089
Location
Dumfries, Virginia, USA
imported post

Thndr wrote:
I am not bashing LEO's but just remember the "Off duty cop in alleged road rage shooting" case inwhich it seemed as ifthe shooterdid not know the target other than there was someone on the other side of the glass.

Never heard anything more on the case so I do not know how it turned out but just thinking of recent events similar where decisions were made and shots fired.

That was a minor one of LEO not knowing beyond. Remember the boy shot when the officer was trying to shoot a snake out of the tree (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292168,00.html).

It happens everywhere. They put him in jail, the LEO in the example above got paid admin leave. You figure it out.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:


KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND!!! I know someone that did not.

**********************

This is really the point, isn't it? If he did not know his target, then how could he be charged with capital murder?If he did know his target, then send him to Iraq because he isthe best shot I have ever seen.

Manslaughter seems to be an appropriate charge. Not saying he is guilty or innocent, as I don't have all the facts, but this seems like a gross abuse of power to put the shooter and the community through a capital murder trial.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

We don't know how this was presented to the grand jury. I can think of ways that the case could be presented to me with only the prosecutors side that I too would vote that it go to trial.
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
imported post

Thundar wrote:
Manslaughter seems to be an appropriate charge. Not saying he is guilty or innocent, as I don't have all the facts, but this seems like a gross abuse of power to put the shooter and the community through a capital murder trial.
Manslaughter might be the charge that should have been brought but my take is that if someone is yelling police while busting down your door does NOT make the person liable to let them bust down the door *unless* they have been doing something that *should* cause them to expect a police visit. If I have done nothing wrong and someone is busting down my door yelling police - so what - anyone can yell police and once they're in they're in.

It seems to me if the guy was not dealing he had no expectation for the police to take that action, the police would therefore liable for whatever happened.

Edit: It's basically the same principle as the cop chasing a BG who should have pulled over and the *cop* crashes and kills someone. The BG is liable for that death, not the cop.
 

MeBaby

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
257
Location
Right Here, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
The grand jury are citizens from the same locality. They hear the CA'S brief details presentedin common language on what happened.They decide BASED ON WHAT THE CA PRESENTS, if there is enough to believe a crime has been committed of if what the police did was wrong.

In this case.... they may feel free to place themselves in Ryan's shoes BASED UPON THE CA'S EVIDENCE PRESENTED and think "What would I have done at that moment when someone was kicking in my door?"

It seems that they all agreed BASED UPON THE EVEIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE CA that what Ryan did was not acceptable and was not done in self defense. It would also appear that they must not have had any problems with the police deciding to make entry at 8:30 PM BASED UPON THE CA'S EVIDENCE.

Long and short..... Ryan will be getting his day in court. Chalk this us as a learning lesson that there are people OUTSIDE this OC board that do not agree with shooting people at the door step BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE CA. AND I'M SURE THAT THE ONLY INTEREST THAT THIS CA HAS IS THE TRUTH (MY ASS).

You can spout "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" But there are 6 already out there that would be against you in this type situation.

KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND!!! I know someone that did not.
See above..... and yes I was yelling!:cuss:LEO229... don't look now but you bias is showing :what::what::what::what:And before you assume that I'm anti-police, I'll let you know I have a bunch of police friends (state and federal) so don't go down that road.
 

swillden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
1,189
Location
Firestone, Colorado
imported post

Neplusultra wrote:
my take is that if someone is yelling police while busting down your door does NOT make the person liable to let them bust down the door *unless* they have been doing something that *should* cause them to expect a police visit.
But, how are the police supposed to know if the guy inside knows that he's done something that should cause him to expect a police visit? Under your scenario, police would *always* have to assume that they may get shot when they break down someone's door, even if they only suspect him of a minor, non-violent crime like growing weed.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

MeBaby wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
The grand jury are citizens from the same locality. They hear the CA'S brief details presentedin common language on what happened.They decide BASED ON WHAT THE CA PRESENTS, if there is enough to believe a crime has been committed of if what the police did was wrong.

In this case.... they may feel free to place themselves in Ryan's shoes BASED UPON THE CA'S EVIDENCE PRESENTED and think "What would I have done at that moment when someone was kicking in my door?"

It seems that they all agreed BASED UPON THE EVEIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE CA that what Ryan did was not acceptable and was not done in self defense. It would also appear that they must not have had any problems with the police deciding to make entry at 8:30 PM BASED UPON THE CA'S EVIDENCE.

Long and short..... Ryan will be getting his day in court. Chalk this us as a learning lesson that there are people OUTSIDE this OC board that do not agree with shooting people at the door step BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE CA. AND I'M SURE THAT THE ONLY INTEREST THAT THIS CA HAS IS THE TRUTH (MY ASS).

You can spout "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" But there are 6 already out there that would be against you in this type situation.

KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND!!! I know someone that did not.
See above..... and yes I was yelling!:cuss:LEO229... don't look now but you bias is showing :what::what::what::what:And before you assume that I'm anti-police, I'll let you know I have a bunch of police friends (state and federal) so don't go down that road.
Not nice to quote someone and edit what they said in the same quote.

Looks like you do not know who actually goes before the Grand Jury.....

THE OFFICER WORKING THE CASE IS NORMALLY THE ONE WHO APPEARS BEFORE THE GRAND JURY! NOT THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY!!

Yes.. I too was yelling at the newbie who does not have a clue. :lol:


Not sure how I am being bias by describing what happens at the Grand Jury.
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
imported post

swillden wrote:
Neplusultra wrote:
my take is that if someone is yelling police while busting down your door does NOT make the person liable to let them bust down the door *unless* they have been doing something that *should* cause them to expect a police visit.
But, how are the police supposed to know if the guy inside knows that he's done something that should cause him to expect a police visit? Under your scenario, police would *always* have to assume that they may get shot when they break down someone's door, even if they only suspect him of a minor, non-violent crime like growing weed.
The police should always assume they may get shot when busting down someone's door :). I think that's why they dress the way they do and use the tactics they use. But as far as liability goes, legal liability, if I'm a coke dealer and suddenly someone is breaking down my door I will have reasonable suspicion that it actually is the cops. If I'm an innocent citizen it could be said I have reasonable suspicion that it's NOT the cops. Were the officers yelling "Police" while busting down the door? I don't remember reading that anywhere.

The bottom line is you want to stop violent BGs from getting into your home if you can. Once they're in things get more difficult. This was gone over in another thread not too long ago. It was a case of a son shooting through a door that was about to cave in and wounding a BG in the foot. Seemed justified to me. But in that case they knew for sure it was BGs trying to break in. This case is a little more complex. And I could be wrong. But with these "No Knock" warrants and someone trying to break in violently in the middle of the night....... I would put the onus on the government, not the citizen. I mean they didn't even "try" to verify if this guy was growing......
 

swillden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
1,189
Location
Firestone, Colorado
imported post

Neplusultra wrote:
swillden wrote:
Neplusultra wrote:
my take is that if someone is yelling police while busting down your door does NOT make the person liable to let them bust down the door *unless* they have been doing something that *should* cause them to expect a police visit.
But, how are the police supposed to know if the guy inside knows that he's done something that should cause him to expect a police visit? Under your scenario, police would *always* have to assume that they may get shot when they break down someone's door, even if they only suspect him of a minor, non-violent crime like growing weed.
The police should always assume they may get shot when busting down someone's door :).
Oh, absolutely. I was just trying to twist LEO's tail, since he indicated that no one would have expected this kind of response for such a minor crime, as though the nature of the alleged crime necessarily has anything to do with the homeowner's response to an assault on his front door. :banghead:

Neplusultra wrote:
But with these "No Knock" warrants and someone trying to break in violently in the middle of the night....... I would put the onus on the government, not the citizen.
Precisely. Police should assume that a violent entry may result in someone being hurt or killed -- whether an officer, a suspect or an innocent bystander -- and they should weigh carefully whether the violent entry is justifiable. IMO, it's justifiable only if the alternatives also pose a greater risk of someone being hurt or killed.
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
imported post

swillden wrote:
Neplusultra wrote:
But with these "No Knock" warrants and someone trying to break in violently in the middle of the night....... I would put the onus on the government, not the citizen.
Precisely. Police should assume that a violent entry may result in someone being hurt or killed -- whether an officer, a suspect or an innocent bystander -- and they should weigh carefully whether the violent entry is justifiable. IMO, it's justifiable only if the alternatives also pose a greater risk of someone being hurt or killed.
And that is my point. If the citizen is innocent then it should be the police's fault if anyone gets shot. If the citizen is gulty, ie. the police really had a reason to be there, then the citizen should be held responsible.
 

MeBaby

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
257
Location
Right Here, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
MeBaby wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
The grand jury are citizens from the same locality. They hear the CA'S brief details presentedin common language on what happened.They decide BASED ON WHAT THE CA PRESENTS, if there is enough to believe a crime has been committed of if what the police did was wrong.

In this case.... they may feel free to place themselves in Ryan's shoes BASED UPON THE CA'S EVIDENCE PRESENTED and think "What would I have done at that moment when someone was kicking in my door?"

It seems that they all agreed BASED UPON THE EVEIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE CA that what Ryan did was not acceptable and was not done in self defense. It would also appear that they must not have had any problems with the police deciding to make entry at 8:30 PM BASED UPON THE CA'S EVIDENCE.

Long and short..... Ryan will be getting his day in court. Chalk this us as a learning lesson that there are people OUTSIDE this OC board that do not agree with shooting people at the door step BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE CA. AND I'M SURE THAT THE ONLY INTEREST THAT THIS CA HAS IS THE TRUTH (MY ASS).

You can spout "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" But there are 6 already out there that would be against you in this type situation.

KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND!!! I know someone that did not.
See above..... and yes I was yelling!:cuss:LEO229... don't look now but you bias is showing :what::what::what::what:And before you assume that I'm anti-police, I'll let you know I have a bunch of police friends (state and federal) so don't go down that road.
Not nice to quote someone and edit what they said in the same quote.

Looks like you do not know who actually goes before the Grand Jury.....

THE OFFICER WORKING THE CASE IS NORMALLY THE ONE WHO APPEARS BEFORE THE GRAND JURY! NOT THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY!!

Yes.. I too was yelling at the newbie who does not have a clue. :lol:


Not sure how I am being bias by describing what happens at the Grand Jury.
It's your slant, dumbass.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

Why is this case so important to gun owners? Dr Tabor explains it very well so I have lifted this from his web site. This is a lot of reading, so the last, and most important part for Virginia gun owners is in BOLD.

Premeditation is usually proved by demonstrating a series of overt acts on the part of the accused that establish motive and anticipation of the act of murder. Such a series of actions is clearly missing in this case. Frederick did not know Det. Shivers, and did nothing to confront him, or any other law enforcement officer, and to the contrary, all of the overt acts leading to the death were committed by the police. Given the known circumstances of the shooting, the prosecutor would have to prove that Fredericks had formed the intention to shoot a policeman serving a warrant at some point and then waited for the opportunity. Given Frederick’s non-violent past and the absence of any evidence he was guilty of any serious crime beyond misdemeanor possession of marijuana(and thus would have reason to expect a police raid), only Fredericks himself could provide such testimony.

So, given the implausibility of the charge, we must question the motives of the police and prosecutor in continuing with such a gross overcharge. None of the possibilities cast a favorable light on our law enforcement officials.

One rational is that there is hope that the possibility of being convicted on a capital charge will frighten Frederick into accepting a plea to a lesser charge, (such as manslaughter rising out of negligence,) rather than have his day in court in hopes of being found not guilty based on self defense. It is not the proper duty of prosecutors to convict innocent citizens just for the sake of winning. Frederick was either acting in self defense, in which case Det. Shivers death is excusable, or he was negligent. A jury should decide if there is uncertainty in the mind of the prosecutor. Terrorizing Frederick into taking a deal is not a just outcome.

Another is that the police and prosecutor know that Frederick’s claim of self defense is valid, and that they will ultimately lose in court, and they simply wish to punish him anyway by keeping him in jail without bail for over a year awaiting trial, which is only possible if the first degree charge is kept in place. Using the technicalities of the legal system to exact vengeance on an innocent victim of police blunders would be most despicable of all.

Most frightening of all, for the rest of us, is the possibility that the prosecution intends to make the case that arming oneself to defend ones home is evidence of premeditation in and of itself. The consequences of that theory would be catastrophic to the rights of every Virginian who owns a firearm, or even a knife or bat. Equating the intention to defend one’s life and home with premeditation to commit murder if a mistaken identity leads to an accidental death would effectively deny the rights of self defense to all Virginians.

Link: http://tidewaterliberty.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/ryan-fredericks-day-in-court-is-ours-as-well/
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

This thread is played out and members are now resorting to name calling due to no logical discussion. :shock:

This thread will now be closed.
 
Top