Culpeper shooting

[marshaul]

Why didn't you do a name search in the WINCHESTER courts at the link that I posted? There is a lot more there than a probation violation.

In fact, searching Culpeper and Winchester courts reveal very very interesting things. When you couple that with the fact that the "witness" CHANGED HIS STORY, it all comes together.

So why didn't you bother checking out the name search? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Blowhard indeed.

Gotta love this. Brand new poster, with a clear agenda.

Concerted effort to discredit a witness, much?

Back to the whole objectivity thing, if the perpetrator of this crime wasn't a cop, folks would laugh if you asked them to discount a witness due to having run over a fire hose and having subsequently received one of the various contempt of cop charges during the same incident (we can all imagine how that went down).

But that's all part of the game. Arrest every citizen for something, anything, and all of a sudden everyone can be said to have a "vendetta" against the police, and all of a sudden there are no "credible" witnesses but the police themselves.

I won't follow this red herring. If the witness is lying, there should be plenty of proof to corroborate it. Dash cam? (Oops. Where did that go?) Giant bruise on the arm from being dragged in a car window? (Nope, haven't seen that.) An explanation for the 5 or 6 shots fired after the woman was driving? (Not forthcoming.)

This thing stinks. And whatever scent mask our latest member has sprayed into the air is no less putrid.

 

[marshaul]

Here's an article referencing VSP's claim that Buchele changed his story:

http://www.wusa9.com/news/virginia/...hanged-Story-About-Officer-Involved-Shooting-

There is no evidence offered that he changed his story. He denies it, and the reporter has nothing to contradict him.

If VSP wish us to believe their story, they should show us evidence. Insinuation and expecting us to take them on their word for anything they might say aren't going to cut it.

 

[sawah]

People who are arrested on such charges are not necessarily 'bad' people or liars. They just have impulse control issues or addictive personalities. I would think a person with a record would be LESS likely to come forward and put themselves at GREAT risk by contradicting a LEO's story. He now has to fear for his life. Don't you think he realized that if he's lying he could be charged? His story is easily verified by even the most elementary investigation, which, apparently is not being done in favor of drawing it out to try and let it 'blow over'.

Second, it does not matter if his story is 'true', there's little defense for shooting a person 6-9 times once you are free and the person is no danger to you. Now, shooting into a public area the LEO is the danger.

---
Edit to add: IN FACT if he were lying the LEO would immediately demand time to refute it, which he has not done.

 

[wylde007]

Not putting anything here, but you can look for yourself if you like and see if that would change your mind about anything.

It's funny how the prosecution would put the would-be witness's character or record on display and under scrutiny when it protects one of the chosen (which says to me - the rotten cop is guilty as sin if this guy's story is heard without bias) when if the tables were turned and the guy with a criminal record is a paid informant and those same cops used his statements as a basis for a no-knock raid at the wrong address which ended in some other innocent civilian death... we, as citizens, cannot win this battle on even ground in the courts.

So, is that in any way anti-cop?

Sometimes even the truth is "anti"cop.

Blowhards? From a poster who shows up on the forum and his first post is to attack the credibility of the witness and attack forum members?

Nerp.

I also wonder if he realizes that a probation violation, while not great, does not utterly destroy his credibility. Certainly the witness has less to lose than the cop who would be up for manslaughter and a ruined career if it turned out if it was not a justified use of deadly force.

If it is a probation violation, then the witness has more to lose for telling the truth, but in my experience it is not a violation to be in a different town, just to leave the state.

 

[marshaul]

People who are arrested on such charges are not necessarily 'bad' people or liars. They just have impulse control issues or addictive personalities.

What charges are you talking about?

 

[peter nap]

Its amazing that neither the media or the speculating blowhards bothered to check out the background of the "witness" who was caught changing his story.

Anyone see anything interesting below?

http://www2.starexponent.com/m/lifestyles/2008/jan/13/police_reports_01_12_08_cse-ar-343530/
http://www2.starexponent.com/m/news/2008/may/25/police_reports4-ar-339090/

How about here? A simple name search in Culpeper and Winchester might reveal some interesting things.

http://epwsgdp1.courts.state.va.us/gdcourts/nameSearch.do

Surely such a person would have no reason to lie about the police, right? I wonder why the blowhards and the media didn't do such a simple check? Why not? Too busy speculating? Afraid of what the result might be?

Now I realize that the speculators are far too invested in their collective fantasies to want to eat crow, but that dish is getting served up none-the-less.

A. I'm pretty sure you're a LEO doing propaganda duty.
and
B. That kind of BS is exactly why there appears to be an anticop attitude.
and
C. Don't bother to argue about it. I'm not interested!

 

[peter nap]

A. OH NOEZ ITZ A CONSPIWACY!
B. Translation: MOMMY MOMMY I WANT AN ECHO CHAMBER!!!!
C. Translation: MOMMY MOMMY I WANT AN ECHO CHAMBER!!!!

Don't read well do you Tinkerbell?

 

[peter nap]

Translation: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Pretty snappy comeback. Try a 10 code next:banana:

 

[Repeater]

Here's an article referencing VSP's claim that Buchele changed his story:

http://www.wusa9.com/news/virginia/...hanged-Story-About-Officer-Involved-Shooting-

There is no evidence offered that he changed his story. He denies it, and the reporter has nothing to contradict him.

If VSP wish us to believe their story, they should show us evidence. Insinuation and expecting us to take them on their word for anything they might say aren't going to cut it.

Let's be clear: if the "witness" made statements to the investigating professionals (How that sound, you lurkers?) that are "materially false" then he has Obstructed Justice:

D. Any person who knowingly and willfully makes any materially false statement or representation to a law-enforcement officer or an animal control officer employed pursuant to § 3.2-6555 who is in the course of conducting an investigation of a crime by another is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

I take a dim view of anyone who commits a Crime Against the Administration of Justice.

As for the lurker who now calls himself/herself/it "Raven" I had to wonder how long it would take before someone would come to our sandbox and attempt to discredit the eyewitness.

I take a dim view of anyone who commits bad manners.

 

[sawah]

What charges are you talking about?

See below...er, in this case, above this post.

 

[Sheriff]

The only thing that you can point to are the ramblings of a "witness" who changed his story and random speculation about "DA EVIL PAHLIZE

Can you please sum up version 1 and version 2 of the eyewitness statement please.

Or at least what the state police will say is his two different versions.

I haven't seen 2 different versions from day one of the shooting.

Have the state police started their crusade to make the eyewitness out a bad person yet? it seems to be long overdue if not.

 

[Repeater]

The eyewitness discredited himself when he changed his story.

I find it interesting that you don't want the whole story on the witness made public. Shouldn't people know about the interesting background of the witness, and then judge for themselves if he would have a reason to change his story?

I find what Mark Furman has to say, when appears on the Fox Network, occasionally interesting. He used to be a LEO, an LAPD detective.

Should people know about the interesting background of the ex-detective, the fact that Mark is a [size=+3]FELON[/size] who committed perjury, and then judge for themselves if he would have a reason to change his story?

Or maybe that's irrelevant and would serve only to inflame prejudice.

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

I find it interesting that Mark Furman lives or has recently lived near Hayden Lake, Idaho - once home of
whitepower-Americanism - in Sandpoint, that is called "a bit of California dropped into Idaho."

 

[JamesCanby]

In the first story, the witness is quoted as saying that the officer had his hand IN THE WINDOW. Later, he changes his story to say that the officer's hand was never in the window, but was resting ON THE DOOR HANDLE and that as soon as the window was rolled up, the officer shot the woman for no reason.

The story changed.

Rather than provide your paraphrase of what you purport to be two different versions of the "story," please provide links to reports or news reports that substantiate your assertion that the story changed.

 

[sawah]

Either way, nobody gets their arm caught in the window such that they're being dragged by simply having their hand on or near the window and we KNOW that LEOs are trained NOT to put their hand in the window. Also, nobody could hand crank a window up fast enough to capture an arm in the window before the person could pull it out if the person was not trying to assault the driver by having his whole arm in the window. I do not believe there is any link which shows two stories from the witness, I think there may have been a reporter's error.

I would only consider the witness as changing anything if I could see the witness on a youtube (for example) or a webvideo giving two different versions. Otherwise you're just promulgating a reporter's error. It only matters what the witness will say in court under oath anyway.


Why not focus, instead, on what we DO know. A LEO shot a church lady 6-9 times without just cause, endangering passersby and home dwellers in the area when he could have simply taken the license number and arrested her at her home IF she had committed an actual crime (which I doubt she did).

 

[wylde007]

The witness said the officer’s arm was in the window as Cook was rolling it up."

Words have meaning.

The story says the officer's arm was in the window as Cook was rolling it up - not that the officer's arm was TRAPPED IN THE WINDOW after Cook rolled it up.

Why was the officer's arm INSIDE THE WINDOW in what was, under present characterizations, a CONSENSUAL, NON-ARREST ENCOUNTER?

"His left hand was on the door handle and his right hand was on his gun, they were close together, you know. " says Buchele. He says he never saw the officer arm in the window."

Perhaps after his hand left the interior of the vehicle and Ms. Cook decided to discontinue the encounter (obviously vehemently protested by the enforcer) he attempted to open her door and force her to comply with an illegal order or to remove her from her vehicle and detain her without PC?

Those two stories don't contradict. The second is an alternate/elaborated version.

Thanks for playing.

 

[wylde007]

First, you don't have to have your arm physically trapped in the window. I can post dashcam footage of officers being dragged in open car doors and windows that are not rolled up at all.

Not this time you can't. How convenient.

If discovery shows this officer's shoes to be undamaged, I hope they roast you along with him.

 

[peter nap]

Either way, nobody gets their arm caught in the window such that they're being dragged by simply having their hand on or near the window and we KNOW that LEOs are trained NOT to put their hand in the window. Also, nobody could hand crank a window up fast enough to capture an arm in the window before the person could pull it out if the person was not trying to assault the driver by having his whole arm in the window. I do not believe there is any link which shows two stories from the witness, I think there may have been a reporter's error.

I would only consider the witness as changing anything if I could see the witness on a youtube (for example) or a webvideo giving two different versions. Otherwise you're just promulgating a reporter's error. It only matters what the witness will say in court under oath anyway.


Why not focus, instead, on what we DO know. A LEO shot a church lady 6-9 times without just cause, endangering passersby and home dwellers in the area when he could have simply taken the license number and arrested her at her home IF she had committed an actual crime (which I doubt she did).

Has anyone heard that this person may be involved somehow?

 

[sawah]

Here's an actual on-camera interview where the witness says one hand on the door handle and one hand on his firearm. That is credible.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...ation-With-Police-Fatally-Shot-139084059.html

I do think the woman should have stopped when ordered to but maybe she was in fear for her safety.

I'd challenge Officer Raven to come up with a different on camera interview which is substantially different.

 

[marshaul]

See below...er, in this case, above this post.

What does an addictive personality have to do with driving over a fire hose?