• 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.

"Brandishing" as justification for LEO's use of deadly force

Va_Nemo

Member
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
653
Location
Lynchburg
Seems he knows nothing about this Culpeper case.

And there is no need around here for anyone to cite sources. Certain persons think they deserve special dispensation on that.

Nemo
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,586
Location
here nc
Do you know he was just holding the rifle. If so please cit he source of your information
FI, OP's 29 Jan 2020 cite stated:
"...who was reportedly holding the weapon, a statement released by the department said. A SWAT officer shot him in response, the statement added.

A criminal investigation into the use of force is being conducted by the Major Crimes Bureau..."

F0D13624-7A7B-4305-A91A-7E8A5D9E5E5A.jpeg
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,325
Location
White Oak Plantation
For those who are not familiar with Culpeper or Dan Wright...another case of who is more credible...a cop, or a civilian...unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases, the cop is provided credibility whether or not he merits any credibility...the above case is apparently a very rare exception...
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,199
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
For those who are not familiar with Culpeper or Dan Wright...another case of who is more credible...a cop, or a civilian...unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases, the cop is provided credibility whether or not he merits any credibility...the above case is apparently a very rare exception...
The dirty cop had a complaint file a mile thick. So, the only way to get rid of a dirty cop is he has to kill someone for his 10 years of egregious dirty actions gets dealt with. Now I see how it works.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,473
Location
Northern Piedmont
The dirty cop had a complaint file a mile thick. So, the only way to get rid of a dirty cop is he has to kill someone for his 10 years of egregious dirty actions gets dealt with. Now I see how it works.
That's just plain hogwash. Propaganda put out by the prosecution and echoed without any investigation in newspapers and on the internet.

Seems he knows nothing about this Culpeper case.

And there is no need around here for anyone to cite sources. Certain persons think they deserve special dispensation on that.

Nemo
I'm intimately familiar with that case, by the way, having handled the defense. I've spent a lot of time defending people accused of misuse of firearms, often with little or no pay. This defendant was the only cop I ever represented and the reason I took the case was the injustice of the charges, which were, in my opinion, merely a matter of political retribution against the defendant's mother who had made a complaint regarding illegal activities of certain officers of the police department.

And, having practiced law for thirty years in Virginia with a focus on protecting firearms rights, I do consider myself privileged to pontificate on that subject. If I need to come up with sources and citations to authority, I can do that, but I charge $360.00 per hour for anyone who wants me to do the research and write a memorandum of law.

Do you know he was just holding the rifle. If so please cit he source of your information
And, as to the question about some need to refute a proposition with "sources", I refer to the original statement, which failed to state any justifiable basis for the shooting, and specifically stated that the deceased had been "brandishing" - a technical legal term that excludes any requirement for actual use or threatened use of force. The statement pointedly failed to state that there had been any assault (another technical legal term) justifying the use of deadly force.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,325
Location
White Oak Plantation
This defendant was the only cop I ever represented and the reason I took the case was the injustice of the charges, which were, in my opinion, merely a matter of political retribution against the defendant's mother who had made a complaint regarding illegal activities of certain officers of the police department. - user
Again, the singular point is made by user and again user confirms the complete and utter disregard that those in law enforcement have for the law that they purport to enforce...the Blue Wall of Defiance is not only a protector for those safely ensconced within, but a buttress against those on the outs...
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,473
Location
Northern Piedmont
Again, the singular point is made by user and again user confirms the complete and utter disregard that those in law enforcement have for the law that they purport to enforce...the Blue Wall of Defiance is not only a protector for those safely ensconced within, but a buttress against those on the outs...
I don't deny that the "we protect our own" mentality is endemic, and political corruption among law enforcement agencies has been around since "police" was invented in Boston and New York in the Seventeenth Century. "Police", as distinct from the traditional (and in the U.S., popularly elected) sheriff. But don't get me started on humans and "original sin", there's a lot of that going around.

In this case, however, it was the opposite situation. This was a police department seeking retaliation against a "whistleblower" by setting up her son (who'd had nothing to do with any of that stuff and who, as a former Marine, was doing his best to be a responsible cop). The department had a desire to "get" this guy whom they assumed was a "loose cannon" because of the actions of his mother (formerly, secretary to the chief of the dept.), and his offense was really a sort of naiveté borne of an idealistic romantic view of the legal system. If he'd been "one of us" (i.e., corrupt), it's true, they'd have circled the wagons to protect their own guy.

One thing no one seems to get is a fundamental legal principle, the law of agency. When the cop is in uniform, wearing his badge of office, and acting within his territorial jurisdiction, doing the State's business, he isn't acting for himself, but for the State. As the State's agent, he has no liability, either civil or criminal, for the acts of the State. And, because "the State" is itself a legal fiction, like a corporate entity, it acts only through its officers and agents, and those people's acts are the acts of the State and not their own. Thus, the cop performing his duty as such is clothed with sovereign immunity.

Where that changes is when the cop is acting "on a lark of his own" - i.e., going outside the parameters of the job in order to effect a personal agenda. It can be a fine line between "doing his duty" and "a lark". If he steps outside the circle of legitimate authority, he is personally responsible, both criminally and civilly.

Unfortunately, that issue was never litigated in the Culpeper cop's case; I filed a motion on three occasions to make it an issue in the case, but the judge denied the motion and refused to allow him to state that defense so that it could be fully and fairly litigated so the jury could make its own decision about whether he had, in fact, stepped over the line. The Sup. Ct. refused to consider that as appealable error on the judge's part. The local officials were determined to "get" him, and they did. I think they had three "ringers" on the jury, too, by the way, but that's just my personal opinion based on my personal observations during the trial. Politics as usual.
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,199
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Color of Law said:
The dirty cop had a complaint file a mile thick. So, the only way to get rid of a dirty cop is he has to kill someone for his 10 years of egregious dirty actions gets dealt with. Now I see how it works.
That's just plain hogwash. Propaganda put out by the prosecution and echoed without any investigation in newspapers and on the internet.......
Are you telling me I can't trust the spokesman for the police or the press? What's this world coming to.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,199
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Now that you are a "non-attorney" why should we even listen to you?:giggle:

Most of the attorneys I have met, and that is a lot, are arrogant no nothings. They actually believe they are lawyers, learned in the law. Most quote "key" cites and never read the actual case making themselves out to be fools. And that includes judges.

I'm the paralegal (meaning I do most of the research and general brief writing) for the lead attorney on a civil gun case. Because of the meaning of a statute (the plain meaning of the statute is clear) that the other side is challenging we considered bringing on an attorney who claimed to have been on the legal teem that authored the statute. As a side note, this attorney is also a gun rights radio host.

The client (though not an attorney is also well versed in the law) and myself interviewed this guy for the purpose co-counsel. He proceeded to tell us we were going to loose because the intent of the statute was what was going to carry the day, not the plain meaning of the statute. So I could understand this attorney's position I asked him if he agreed with my interpretation of the plain reading of the statute, and he agreed with my understanding of the statute. I proceeded to ask him as a matter of law how the intent of the statute was going to trump the plain meaning of the statute. He informed us that since we were not attorneys were too ignorant to understand. In effect, he slapped the face of the lead attorney.

A few weeks later on a public Facebook thread this same attorney published a draft resolution for a sanctuary 2A county. The draft was replete of misquotes. I proceeded to point out all the mistakes by posting what the statutes and case law actually said. Being a public forum be was between a rock and a hard spot. I challenged his public persona. In a contortionist way he tried to justify his misrepresentations, but finely admitting he was incorrect.

What was that phrase? "we protect our own".
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,473
Location
Northern Piedmont
Now that you are a "non-attorney" why should we even listen to you?:giggle:
No question, you shouldn't listen to me. You should listen to that function variously known as "the Holy Spirit", "gut instinct", "women's intuition", etc. (it doesn't care what you call it, it works the same regardless, if your level of awareness is sufficient to allow you to "hear" what it's telling you). And "non-attorney" is the correct phrase; I have not only "retired" (a special status within the Virginia State Bar that means you're still a member and subject to their regulation, but not allowed to practice law), but "resigned" (not a member, and not subject to regulation - my right to the First Amendment has been restored, but not allowed to practice law - in the same boat as every other citizen). And if anyone feels that they need "credentials" to decide whether what they're being told is appropriate, I'd have to say that's probably a case of the blind leading the blind. I retired for health reasons, and I resigned because I can't support what I regard as a corrupt system by my presence.

Most of the attorneys I have met, and that is a lot, are arrogant no nothings. They actually believe they are lawyers, learned in the law. Most quote "key" cites and never read the actual case making themselves out to be fools. And that includes judges.
Gee, no kidding??? (Mock amazement.) I've always said, some of 'em are really good, some are really bad, and most are average. They're smart enough to have gotten into law school, survived law school, and passed the bar exam, but that doesn't make them diligent, intellectually honest, or careful to place their clients' interests above their own. Most of those who "help" just plain folks remind me of Pope Leo X (nephew of Lorenzo di Medici), who said, "God has given us the papacy; let us enjoy it." Particularly in the areas of personal injury, domestic relations, and criminal defense law. The bar license is permission to print money. Other professionals are in the same boat, though, people feel they deserve a certain income and if their clientele is made up of peasants (i.e., wage earners), they have to rip people off in order to get the money they want, because just-plain-folks don't really have enough to pay unless there's an element of extortion involved.

...
What was that phrase? "we protect our own".
Right, and I've never been "one of us".
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,473
Location
Northern Piedmont
Again, the singular point is made by user and again user confirms the complete and utter disregard that those in law enforcement have for the law that they purport to enforce...the Blue Wall of Defiance is not only a protector for those safely ensconced within, but a buttress against those on the outs...
Thinking about this point again, it occurs to me that we get what we deserve. I am constantly amazed at how little regard we as citizens have for our law. I've argued that the law is like a set of rules for a game that we've all agreed to go by (directly or through representation doesn't matter for this analysis), and that the game won't work as such, and no one will have any fun unless we all follow the rules. But when I cite some legal authority for some proposition, people sort of roll their eyes and tell me something to the effect that the law's all well and good, but mostly irrelevant and they want to, and will, do what they want, regardless of any law. They make it clear that unless there's some real threat of prosecution, they couldn't give what my uncle referred to as "a good, healthy [defecation]". The law exists so that the fascists can exact retribution against political enemies. It's a weapon to "get" people the System Establishment Machine doesn't like. And it's like that, because we're like that.

How many of us actually stop for stop signs or obey the speed limits? We're a society of hypocrites and our legal system reflects our popular culture. As Pogo said in the mid-1950's, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,325
Location
White Oak Plantation
Thinking about this point again, it occurs to me that we get what we deserve. I am constantly amazed at how little regard we as citizens have for our law. I've argued that the law is like a set of rules for a game that we've all agreed to go by (directly or through representation doesn't matter for this analysis), and that the game won't work as such, and no one will have any fun unless we all follow the rules. But when I cite some legal authority for some proposition, people sort of roll their eyes and tell me something to the effect that the law's all well and good, but mostly irrelevant and they want to, and will, do what they want, regardless of any law. They make it clear that unless there's some real threat of prosecution, they couldn't give what my uncle referred to as "a good, healthy [defecation]". The law exists so that the fascists can exact retribution against political enemies. It's a weapon to "get" people the System Establishment Machine doesn't like. And it's like that, because we're like that.

How many of us actually stop for stop signs or obey the speed limits? We're a society of hypocrites and our legal system reflects our popular culture. As Pogo said in the mid-1950's, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
...it is very difficult to follow the rules when the refs (judges) manufacture, on the spot, and out of thin air, advantages for the other team (cops)...Terry v. Ohio, Heien...QI...just to name the big three...but follow the rules we must...

...I get your point...follow the rules and let a judge sort it out latter...no?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,586
Location
here nc
oh kinda like playing monopoly at someone else's house eh...house rules on the "free parking" having money put in automatically or only "fee monies" is put in or no money is!

and legal beagles go to school how long to grasp this concept?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,199
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I went to court a few years ago for some infraction of which I fail to recall. I filed a motion to dismiss. The cop didn't show. The prosecutor wanted a continuance. When the case was called I walked up with two copies of the motion and a copy of the Big Yellow Bench book. That is a book of statutes and rules judges keep on their bench so they can reference if there is some question of law or procedure that may arise.

After the prosecutor read the charge I informed the judge there was a motion before the court. The judge asked what motion. I retorted, the motion I served on you two days ago. Did not your secretary give it to you, if not I have a courtesy for you right here. He was royally *%^$#..... He said he had no time for this. I fired back that I had no time for this either. I said the prosecutor wants a continuance, turning to the prosecutor and saying go ahead and ask for your continuance, I'll object, but go ahead and ask.

The judge slammed down his gavel denying my motion and dismissing my case. I turned and walked out of the courtroom.

He knew I came prepared for battle.
 
Top