Culpeper shooting

[Fuller Malarkey]

While I don't see what "flashers" has to do with it - that is not a requirement for "detaining", I also so no reason to beat this very dead horse.

Though I do not agree that she was within her rights to drive away, I will not belabor the point.

Unless someone has heretofore unposted/undisclosed new information, we are continuing to beat that poor horse.

I have little doubt you understand that dash cams are often designed to activate when the police car roof light bar is activated. If you didn't know that, now you do. I have little doubt the "flasher" reference was in fact a reference to the roof top light bar.

As far as "heretofore unposted/undisclosed new information", my post informing of this latest development [Murder conviction appeal denied considered a dead horse????] was posted five days ago and updated three days ago. Christmas was yesterday. Some may not have had the opportunity to view and comment on these new developments.

And to those who feel Patricia Cook has not received justice, appeals and denials and any other development is all part of a very much alive horse. If Dan Hawes considered this "a dead horse" why would the conviction appeal be pursued? Maybe billing purposes?

 

[Citizen]

SNIP And to those who feel Patricia Cook has not received justice, appeals and denials and any other development is all part of a very much alive horse. If Dan Hawes considered this "a dead horse" why would the conviction appeal be pursued? Maybe billing purposes?

I know you probably didn't mean that as a comment on Dan's integrity, Fuller, but just in case anybody else takes away a mis-impression:

Over the last few years I've had the opportunity to talk with Dan several times. The next to last time it was just he and I in a very relaxed setting, talking for perhaps forty-five minutes to an hour.

The last thing I would expect from Dan is pursuing a case for billing purposes. I have little doubt that if he thought the appeal wouldn't work or was groundless, he'd tell the client that.

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

While I don't see what "flashers" has to do with it - that is not a requirement for "detaining", I also so no reason to beat this very dead horse.

Though I do not agree that she was within her rights to drive away, I will not belabor the point.

Unless someone has heretofore unposted/undisclosed new information, we are continuing to beat that poor horse.

I have little doubt you understand that dash cams are often designed to activate when the police car roof light bar is activated. If you didn't know that, now you do. I have little doubt the "flasher" reference was in fact a reference to the roof top light bar.

As far as "heretofore unposted/undisclosed new information", my post informing of this latest development [Murder conviction appeal denied considered a dead horse????] was posted five days ago and updated three days ago. Christmas was yesterday. Some may not have had the opportunity to view and comment on these new developments.

And to those who feel Patricia Cook has not received justice, appeals and denials and any other development is all part of a very much alive horse. If Dan Hawes considered this "a dead horse" why would the conviction appeal be pursued? Maybe billing purposes?

Jump around much or are you jerking my chain?

Your original reference to "flashers" was to whether she was free to leave, not related to dash cam use at all.

I made no specific reference to the event, charges, conviction or appeal - in fact asked that posts be limited to new information. Hopefully people will be able to make that distinction.

Whether Patricia Cook received justice is not matter of the criminal case. That is a civil matter and not part of the load that horse must bear.

It has been my experience that when Dan Hawes appeals a decision, he does so on the technical merits. It would seem you are insulting either me or Mr. Hawes by insinuating that I said he he would do so for monetary gain. I prefer to think that he gives 100% of his best effort to his client.

BTW - You should not consider me your adversary - so it would seem you do.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Whether Patricia Cook received justice is not matter of the criminal case. That is a civil matter and not part of the load that horse must bear.

Phfffft. Yeah, that's why victim impact statements are becoming more common--because they get their justice from the civil court system. Suuuure. /sarcasm

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

I know you probably didn't mean that as a comment on Dan's integrity, Fuller, but just in case anybody else takes away a mis-impression:

Over the last few years I've had the opportunity to talk with Dan several times. The next to last time it was just he and I in a very relaxed setting, talking for perhaps forty-five minutes to an hour.

The last thing I would expect from Dan is pursuing a case for billing purposes. I have little doubt that if he thought the appeal wouldn't work or was groundless, he'd tell the client that.

You are correct, and thanks for pointing that my sarcasm could be construed as a slight to Mr. Hawes. The billing reference was to emphasize that the effort of the convicted cop's attorney was not an attempt to resuscitate a "dead horse" any more than discussing the appeal denial is.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Jump around much or are you jerking my chain?

Your original reference to "flashers" was to whether she was free to leave, not related to dash cam use at all.

I think you have me confused with another poster. I made no recent reference to anyone in this thread being free to go anywhere. Maverick9 did, I simply stated I thought Maverick9's "flasher reference" was referencing the police car roof top light bar. Nothing more or less. If Maverick9 says I'm wrong, I'll promptly apologize and remove the contention.

~SNIPPED~

.

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

Jump around much or are you jerking my chain?

Your original reference to "flashers" was to whether she was free to leave, not related to dash cam use at all.

I think you have me confused with another poster. I made no recent reference to anyone in this thread being free to go anywhere. Maverick9 did, I simply stated I thought Maverick9's "flasher reference" was referencing the police car roof top light bar. Nothing more or less. If Maverick9 says I'm wrong, I'll promptly apologize and remove the contention.

~SNIPPED~

.

Misattributed the quote - please accept my apology.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

Jump around much or are you jerking my chain?

Your original reference to "flashers" was to whether she was free to leave, not related to dash cam use at all.

I think you have me confused with another poster. I made no recent reference to anyone in this thread being free to go anywhere. Maverick9 did, I simply stated I thought Maverick9's "flasher reference" was referencing the police car roof top light bar. Nothing more or less. If Maverick9 says I'm wrong, I'll promptly apologize and remove the contention.

~SNIPPED~


Misattributed the quote - please accept my apology.

Accepted.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Settlement reached in Pat Cook wrongful death case in Culpeper

http://www.dailyprogress.com/starex...cle_2f8542e6-82c9-11e3-bee7-0019bb30f31a.html

"The ability to wait out a lawsuit is one advantage governments always have in avoiding accountability in court. If the amount being paid by the town’s insurance company remains undisclosed, residents will never know just how much poor police hiring practices and training policies cost them. And nothing else will happen."

http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/21/town-of-culpeper-settles-with-family-of

 

[Citizen]

http://www.dailyprogress.com/starex...cle_2f8542e6-82c9-11e3-bee7-0019bb30f31a.html

"The ability to wait out a lawsuit is one advantage governments always have in avoiding accountability in court. If the amount being paid by the town’s insurance company remains undisclosed, residents will never know just how much poor police hiring practices and training policies cost them. And nothing else will happen."

http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/21/town-of-culpeper-settles-with-family-of

This line in the linked DailyProgress article caught my attention:

"Harmon-Wright received a three-year sentence for manslaughter in Cook's death, and his appeal in the criminal case was recently denied. On the stand last January in circuit court, he defended his actions, claiming he was acting in self-defense when he shot Cook five times because she had rolled up her vehicle's window on his arm and hand, trapping him." (red emphasis added by Citizen)

This was new to me. Did I miss something earlier, or has this not yet been reported on the forum?

 

[Grapeshot]

This line in the linked DailyProgress article caught my attention:

"Harmon-Wright received a three-year sentence for manslaughter in Cook's death, and his appeal in the criminal case was recently denied. --snipped-- (red emphasis added by Citizen)

This was new to me. Did I miss something earlier, or has this not yet been reported on the forum?

Yes, because yes.

 

[user]

...And to those who feel Patricia Cook has not received justice, appeals and denials and any other development is all part of a very much alive horse. If Dan Hawes considered this "a dead horse" why would the conviction appeal be pursued? Maybe billing purposes?

Hah! That's funny! I charged a fourth of what would have been billed for the work I did at trial, and I am now court-appointed, which is basically working for peanuts.

Current status: demand for review of petition by a three-judge panel has been filed.

 

[user]

This line in the linked DailyProgress article caught my attention:

"Harmon-Wright received a three-year sentence for manslaughter in Cook's death, and his appeal in the criminal case was recently denied. On the stand last January in circuit court, he defended his actions, claiming he was acting in self-defense when he shot Cook five times because she had rolled up her vehicle's window on his arm and hand, trapping him." (red emphasis added by Citizen)

This was new to me. Did I miss something earlier, or has this not yet been reported on the forum?

That quotation has just about every detail wrong. Whoever wrote that clearly had no idea what was going on.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Hah! That's funny! I charged a fourth of what would have been billed for the work I did at trial, and I am now court-appointed, which is basically working for peanuts.

Current status: demand for review of petition by a three-judge panel has been filed.

It's too late to re-craft my post that referenced your billing. I explained myself in a later post. The reference to your billing was NOT regarding unscrupulous billing or practices, the sarcasm was directed to the absurdity that this case is a dead horse, as evidenced by the defense still pursuing options.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...per-shooting&p=2019279&viewfull=1#post2019279

I am sorry my ill crafted post appeared to disparage your practices. If it's something you choose to hang onto, that's your privilege.

 

[OC for ME]

Will Harmon-Wright be eligible for release before the appeals process has run its course?

 

[user]

Will Harmon-Wright be eligible for release before the appeals process has run its course?

Probably. He's due to be released in August of this year; I've just filed a petition in the U.S. Sup. Ct., both the Va. Ct. Apps. and the Va. Sup. Ct. having denied him the privilege of appealing in those courts.

 

[Grapeshot]

Probably. He's due to be released in August of this year; I've just filed a petition in the U.S. Sup. Ct., both the Va. Ct. Apps. and the Va. Sup. Ct. having denied him the privilege of appealing in those courts.

It is my perspective that the wheels of justice can move ever so slowly as they grind over the dusty bleached bones.

 

[ProShooter]

Probably. He's due to be released in August of this year; I've just filed a petition in the U.S. Sup. Ct., both the Va. Ct. Apps. and the Va. Sup. Ct. having denied him the privilege of appealing in those courts.

Still such a damn shame.

 

[taurusfan]

I wonder is it possible for anyone to say in this forum that he was guilty and got probably less prison time than he deserved.

 

[skidmark]

I wonder is it possible for anyone to say in this forum that he was guilty and got probably less prison time than he deserved.

Obviously it is possible.

But is it necessary for you to insult the wisdom of the judge? You do realize that is considered contempt of court and you can be brought in front of the judge on either civil or criminal charges for that behavior?

The rest of us had our say before, during, and immediately after the trial concluded, the verdict was given, and sentence was passed. Why do you feel it necessary/appropriate to bring it up this late in the game?

stay safe.