Culpeper shooting

[sawah]

If it was a righteous shoot:

1. The cop involved would already be interviewed, nothing to hide, out in the open
2. The investigation would be complete. It's not like they need fingerprint analysis, identities searched, crooks found. All the info, the players, the victims are right there. Nobody has to do more than shine a flashlight into the car, look at the LEOs shoes.

But, in absence of these, in an "investigation" that is drawing out to the second week, handed over to the son of a VSP to litigate, we have to conclude there are at least some shady dealings here.

Agree the husband was a damn fool for announcing he was _going_ to file. Now the city will try to exonerate the CPD to limit their liability. I think he should fire his atty.

 

[Sangre]

Nightmare, I think you make great points. I agree with you the anticop bias on this site is overwhelming. They have already made assumptions that:
1. The witness statement to a news source is more credible than the officer.
2. The lady was an innocent victim.
3. The officer was never in danger.

Mind you that none of these posters were there and don't know anyone involved. They make their conclusions because they are anticop. They have formed their own old angry man club and thats why you only see the same posters from that circle. Even the sensible posters on this site won't add pro police comments because they know they will receive criticism.

Now I personally haven't concluded if the officer was right or wrong. How could I? I wasn't there nor do I know what the investigation is revealing.

Now time for Citizen's (or Peter) witty personal attack comment....

I won't disagree that the thread is mostly speculation, since nobody here witnessed the shooting. I would say I don't have any anticop bias, in fact I have a great respect for LEOS almost all my experiences have involved very professional officers doing a great job, and I myself believe that the majority of police are this way, but I know from my experience and from what I've seen that like in any job, there are definitely bad apples.

In this situation, the officer states he was in danger because he was being dragged with his arm stuck in the window, and this is why he had to shoot. If he was actually stuck and being dragged and was in fear for his life I would most definitely consider that a justified shooting. I do find it hard to believe that he would have reached his arm far enough in the car with the window up high enough for her to quickly roll it up on him, or that his reaction was so slow that he couldn't move his hand before it was cranked up if it was farther down. I also have a hard time believing that he really needed to fire 6 shots to free himself from the window - although it appears the last 5 shots where fired as she was driving away which I don't understand. If there was something she had done or said that made her so dangerous rolling away that he had to shoot her why not release that information? The fact that his dashcam wasn't working also seems unusual to me, it would likely clear or convict the officer. I can't say that I know what happened, but based the information I have now on the event it does seem suspicious to me.

 

[user]

Some have complained about an "anti-cop bias". I've been thinking about that. What I've seen is the same kind of assumptions and guesses that have been made in this context as would happen with any other criminal defendant. There is absolutely no question here that there's probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person who committed the crime happens to be a town police officer. He may well have a good defense, but that should be a matter for evidence at trial, in exactly the same manner as would obtain for anyone else.

 

[peter nap]

I don't think anybody would dispute this fact. The problem is he needs to face his mistake

and accept his punishment like any other person would have to. But that's not going to happen.

Hitting the gas instead of the brake and bumping the Mayors car is a mistake...

Shooting a middle age woman in the head then giving her 5 more for good measure is a tad more.

 

[marshaul]

Some have complained about an "anti-cop bias". I've been thinking about that. What I've seen is the same kind of assumptions and guesses that have been made in this context as would happen with any other criminal defendant. There is absolutely no question here that there's probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person who committed the crime happens to be a town police officer. He may well have a good defense, but that should be a matter for evidence at trial, in exactly the same manner as would obtain for anyone else.

But he isn't anyone else. The machinery of the State's power of prosecution can be friendly to him in a way it would not be friendly to anyone else. The complaints of "anti-cop bias" really reflect a failure to give the cop special status, not any particular bias against the man on account of his having been a cop. People are legitimately concerned that this guy, who would be sitting in jail right now on charges of murder if he hadn't been a cop, is getting a break merely because of his status as a cop.

I have to deal with this thing about how the police officer is entitled to a higher level of presumed credibility just because he's a police officer all the time. But the usual explanation for it is that he had no personal interest in the outcome, no particular animosity toward the defendant, and was an objective third-party observer. Well the witness in this case is the only person who satisfies those criteria. The cop is entitled to no extra credibility here, he's the prospective defendant, and presumptively facing a charge of second-degree murder.

And what about that missing video? Where have I heard that before?

Nailed it.

 

[deepdiver]

Some have complained about an "anti-cop bias". I've been thinking about that. What I've seen is the same kind of assumptions and guesses that have been made in this context as would happen with any other criminal defendant. There is absolutely no question here that there's probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person who committed the crime happens to be a town police officer. He may well have a good defense, but that should be a matter for evidence at trial, in exactly the same manner as would obtain for anyone else.

But he isn't anyone else. The machinery of the State's power of prosecution can be friendly to him in a way it would not be friendly to anyone else. The complaints of "anti-cop bias" really reflect a failure to give the cop special status, not any particular bias against the man on account of his having been a cop. People are legitimately concerned that this guy, who would be sitting in jail right now on charges of murder if he hadn't been a cop, is getting a break merely because of his status as a cop.

I have to deal with this thing about how the police officer is entitled to a higher level of presumed credibility just because he's a police officer all the time. But the usual explanation for it is that he had no personal interest in the outcome, no particular animosity toward the defendant, and was an objective third-party observer. Well the witness in this case is the only person who satisfies those criteria. The cop is entitled to no extra credibility here, he's the prospective defendant, and presumptively facing a charge of second-degree murder.

And what about that missing video? Where have I heard that[/iu] before?

Well, said, User, well said. ..

 

[sawah]

Since there's nothing better to do (in this thread), let's put the worst possible spin on it.

The lady is having a reeely bad day and when the cop starts bugging her, she calls him an SOB and says 'get out of my way, get out of my life or I'll run your cracker arse over', and slowly starts to roll the window up.

The LEO, not having any of this says "stop or I'll shoot." He tries to keep her from rolling up the window by holding onto it, and of course, is dragged, but he could let go at any time.

Who am I, a neighbor, living down the street afraid of? Who am I afraid of even now?

I'm afraid of a guy firing 6-8 shots at a moving vehicle which is no danger to anyone until he starts shooting. Maybe he felt 'Oh I have a wounded driver, they're impaired. I need to keep them from careening down the street so I have to kill them'.

None of that sounds reasonable. That's not the way a professional does his job. He gets backup and they arrest the lady at her house for a trespassing charge. They don't execute her. They don't endanger innocent homeowners and pedestrians.

 

[SouthernBoy]

I won't disagree that the thread is mostly speculation, since nobody here witnessed the shooting. I would say I don't have any anticop bias, in fact I have a great respect for LEOS almost all my experiences have involved very professional officers doing a great job, and I myself believe that the majority of police are this way, but I know from my experience and from what I've seen that like in any job, there are definitely bad apples.

In this situation, the officer states he was in danger because he was being dragged with his arm stuck in the window, and this is why he had to shoot. If he was actually stuck and being dragged and was in fear for his life I would most definitely consider that a justified shooting. I do find it hard to believe that he would have reached his arm far enough in the car with the window up high enough for her to quickly roll it up on him, or that his reaction was so slow that he couldn't move his hand before it was cranked up if it was farther down. I also have a hard time believing that he really needed to fire 6 shots to free himself from the window - although it appears the last 5 shots where fired as she was driving away which I don't understand. If there was something she had done or said that made her so dangerous rolling away that he had to shoot her why not release that information? The fact that his dashcam wasn't working also seems unusual to me, it would likely clear or convict the officer. I can't say that I know what happened, but based the information I have now on the event it does seem suspicious to me.

Well stated. I too would prefer to reserve my opinions and thoughts on this incident, though I admit to having a knee jerk reaction when first hearing about it. I know NightmareSHANIQUA and he's a good apple in my book. While I am not about to put words in his mouth, I would bet he is just trying to keep the opinion door wide open and wait until there is a lot more information available from which one can draw a more valid conclusion.

I will also admit that on the surface, this thing does appear to have an onerous odor about it which does make it hard to remain objective in light of what we know... which isn't a whole lot. My biggest concern at this time is any evidence of a coverup. I really hope no such thing will surface but I am not naive to believe the possibility of this isn't there. Damn I hate to see something like this happen in Virginia.

 

[Citizen]

**loading into the polemic magazine now those ideas about "complaints...failure to give the cop special status" and "higher level of presumed credibility"**

Thanks, User.

And, thank you for the half-baked arguments used by government to "justify" a cop being more credible. They left out a few points that go a long ways toward explaining why any given cop might not be all that impartial and therefore less credible than argued.

Hmmmm. Do I detect the aroma of frying bacon? Or, is that sour ham? (He asked for a witty comment.) (But, do take note that he included in his comment the idea of a personal attack against him. While he is the one who made the personal attack by naming Peter and I. Bwahahahahahahahahahahaa!!)

 

[Dreamer]

Nightmare, I think you make great points. I agree with you the anticop bias on this site is overwhelming.

You are right, this "anticop" bias has absolutely no basis in fact, and everyone knows that police never "testi-lie" under oath, or make up false reports, or fabricate evidence. They are all 100% trustworthy, and their judgement should never be questioned. I just don't understand why people would doubt the story of the LEO in this or any case...

http://www.indypendent.org/2008/08/08/police-perjury-in-focus

http://www.propublica.org/nola/stor...icted-of-perjury-obstruction-in-post-katrina/

http://www.dnainfo.com/20110817/manhattan/dozens-of-nypd-officers-investigated-for-perjury

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111223/NEWS03/111229962

http://tfy.drugsense.org/dersho1.htm

1. The witness statement to a news source is more credible than the officer.

The testimony of police is beyond reproach, and should never be questioned, even when citizen eye-witnesses, cruiser video and other surveillance footage contradict that testimony:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123319367364627211.html

http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/slobogin,%20testilying.htm

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/12/13/1943161/police-perjury-taints-criminal.html

http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking06/Muckraker.html

2. The lady was an innocent victim.

Police NEVER shoot and kill innocent people, nor do they ever accuse people of doing things they weren't actually guilty of, or deny them medical care when they are having life-threatening medical conditions on the road, or abuse people in a sadistic or brutal way for no reason. This is simply egregious cop-bashing, and people need to know the TRUTH:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/13/maryland-police-brutality_n_535639.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ke-arrested-traffic-police-thought-drunk.html

http://gothamist.com/2011/09/07/nypd_fired_73_bullets_in_brooklyn_s.php

http://ron.dotson.net/sources/WorldNetDaily Ranch-coveting officials settle for killing owner.htm

http://www.policebrutality.info/2011/05/orlando-police-injures-innocent-woman-outside-library.html

 

[Citizen]

You'd think he would have learned by now that every time he opens his mouth, he just gives us the opportunity to refute him by showing the readership the dark side of the policing industry with tons of links.*

Nevermind how he reflects on his local department with his evasions, ad hominem attacks, twisting, and non sequiturs.


*I'm getting a bit lazy about tons of links. I'll just provide references to two websites, who will then give the reader tons.

Injustice Everywhere
The Innocence Project

 

[peter nap]

**loading into the polemic magazine now those ideas about "complaints...failure to give the cop special status" and "higher level of presumed credibility"**

Thanks, User.

And, thank you for the half-baked arguments used by government to "justify" a cop being more credible. They left out a few points that go a long ways toward explaining why any given cop might not be all that impartial and therefore less credible than argued.

Hmmmm. Do I detect the aroma of frying bacon? Or, is that sour ham? (He asked for a witty comment.) (But, do take note that he included in his comment the idea of a personal attack against him. While he is the one who made the personal attack by naming Peter and I. Bwahahahahahahahahahahaa!!)

I just chose to make fun of him in private:lol: Shuts him up quicker!

Oh wait a minute...you're talking about Nightmare, not Novacop.

 

[Citizen]

I just chose to make fun of him in private:lol: Shuts him up quicker!

Oh, no! We don't want to shut him up. We want him to make his own...um...unique contributions to the forum. We want others to see how some cops don't/can't/won't think. We want others to see the intellectual dishonesty of some cops.

Its fun to ram his false arguments down his throat. Its fun to expose his intellectual dishonesty. Its fun to call attention to his evasions.

All the while promoting liberty and educating others on their freedoms. What more could a guy ask for by way of contentment? Besides a new rifle or case of ammo, of course.

 

[peter nap]

Oh, no! We don't want to shut him up. We want him to make his own...um...unique contributions to the forum. We want others to see how some cops don't/can't/won't think. We want others to see the intellectual dishonesty of some cops.

Its fun to ram his false arguments down his throat. Its fun to expose his intellectual dishonesty. Its fun to call attention to his evasions.

All the while promoting liberty and educating others on their freedoms. What more could a guy ask for by way of contentment? Besides a new rifle or case of ammo, of course.

It was fun for a while but it's like watching really bad X rated movies. It eventually just gets disgusting.

 

[Dreamer]

You'd think he would have learned by now that every time he opens his mouth, he just gives us the opportunity to refute him by showing the readership the dark side of the policing industry with tons of links.*

According to a study done by Harvard Law School in the 1990s, perjury is the most common felony committed in the USA, and there are over 100,000 instances of felony perjury committed by LEOs testifying in court in the USA EVERY YEAR.

According to Jennifer Koepke, writing in the Washburn Law Review (Vol.39), an LEO is more likely to be struck by lightning than prosecuted for perjury.

Cops don't lie? Actually, the academic research shows that LEOs lying under oath is almost the RULE, rather than the exception in felony cases in the US court system...

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/dershowitz_test_981201.txt

http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/cje/html/sample1.html

www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/181241.pdf
(This one is an automatic PDF download link, of a report commissioned by the NCJRS regarding the problem of police perjury)

www.washburnlaw.edu/wlj/39-2/articles/koepke-jennifer.pdf
(This one is an automatic PDF download link, of a study published in Washburn University's Law Review regarding the problem of police perjury)


'Nuff sed...

 

[CrimsonSoul]

I would like to think there is more to this than her driving off, as of right now we dont know what if anything she had in the jeep. To take anothers life is not a light thing, we cannot shoot a man/woman if they are fleeing our home running across are yard, even if they did just break and enter our home and rob us.

You can in Texas

 

[Repeater]

No Open Carry -- no carry at all

If we are to believe published reports, Mrs. Cook was not open-carrying, not carrying at all. Under the Fourth Amendment, you are supposed to be free to leave a LEO if you wish, unless the LEO has the authority to detain you or arrest you.

She was trying to leave this cop. Whether he had authority to detain her is a dispute of material fact. She cannot testify regarding her version of events -- she's dead. She dead because the still unnamed cop shot her multiple times. Why he shot her is a dispute of material fact. It may be the cop did not expect an eyewitness. Well, there is one.

I'm waiting for all the facts to come out. I'm patient. However, I have little patience with misconduct in office or with cover-ups.

So, is that in any way anti-cop?

 

[riverrat10k]

snip There is absolutely no question here that there's probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person who committed the crime happens to be a town police officer. He may well have a good defense, but that should be a matter for evidence at trial, in exactly the same manner as would obtain for anyone else. snip

this. Well said, IMO, User.

 

[riverrat10k]

It was fun for a while but it's like watching really bad X rated movies. It eventually just gets disgusting.

Ya got that right.

I was getting wound up earlier today, but did not post. Better said, Peter.

 

[Citizen]

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?


I wonder if our new member noticed the witness lives in Winchester and the incident happened in the town of Culpeper? 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.