More injustice from cops

[grumpyMSG]

Folks, you need to wait until the investigation is over to complain. One potential reason they haven't been putting more information out there is that they don't want to taint the pool of perspective jurors. If it was just an attempt to sweep this under the rug, they would have cleared the officer already. One of the things a prosecutor does not want to do in the Commonwealth of VA is to start the clock on a speedy trial. Unlike federal cases that seem to linger for years, VA's court system has a set period of time in which they have to go to trial. Dependant on whether or not the accused is in jail or on bond also affects how long the time period is. Assuming the officer will be prosecuted, the choice would be to arrest the officer now and start the clock rolling or wait get more evidence and information and present to a grand jury and start the clock then. I am all for doing it slow and doing right over hurry up and do it right now. The difference could be a conviction.

Let them do there jobs. After they are done, and you are still unhappy, complain all you want.

[mk4]

@grumpyMSG...
if it were you or me, do you believe that there would be a month of virtual silence? even based only on the little bit of info released so far, i believe we'd be all over the media, charged, jailed and awaiting trial for our life. it's the silence in this instance that does nothing but reinforce the appearance of a double-standard.

[davasmith]

It could have been a bad "hit", or a "hit" gone bad. I know some of you think the same thing. Reminds of the shooting at joe's or wherever it was, where a cop executed a young guy. Ya'll had the thread on here awhile back.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[WRW]

I'm with grumpyMSG on this. Quick arrest results in quick trial with opportunity for mistakes being made. As well, how does a few additional days before charges are levied affect the length of sentencing? In other words, 15 years is 15 years no matter when you start.

[mk4]

respectfully, the incident occurred on 2/9. it's now 30 days, hardly quick. at what point do "a few additional days" become a few additional weeks, months, etc?

[WRW]

respectfully, the incident occurred on 2/9. it's now 30 days, hardly quick. at what point do "a few additional days" become a few additional weeks, months, etc?

Patience, Grasshopper. Give them the opportunity to do it right the first time...especially given that there can be no second time.

[mk4]

respectfully, the incident occurred on 2/9. it's now 30 days, hardly quick. at what point do "a few additional days" become a few additional weeks, months, etc?

Patience, Grasshopper. Give them the opportunity to do it right the first time...especially given that there can be no second time.

a healthy skepticism of the "state" is important, especially when they are investigating themselves. there is far too little "we the people" oversight of the power we invest in those who might abuse it.

oh, as far as grasshoppers go, i'm familiar with the tv reference. unfortunately, i was already "old" when it was playing . i normally have much patience. this time, it's the deafening silence that has tried mine to the limit. that and the glaring double-standard in treatment, have made many uneasy and angry.

[WRW]

a healthy skepticism of the "state" is important, especially when they are investigating themselves. there is far too little "we the people" oversight of the power we invest in those who might abuse it.

Absolutely. 100%

If it makes you feel any better, remember that even involuntary manslaughter has no statute of limitations. The officer involved can be arrested and tried at any point in the future that a current, or subsequent, Commonwealth Attorney decides that there is enough evidence to present at trial.

[mk4]

a healthy skepticism of the "state" is important, especially when they are investigating themselves. there is far too little "we the people" oversight of the power we invest in those who might abuse it.

Absolutely. 100%

If it makes you feel any better, remember that even involuntary manslaughter has no statute of limitations. The officer involved can be arrested and tried at any point in the future that a current, or subsequent, Commonwealth Attorney decides that there is enough evidence to present at trial.

thanks for engaging in an interesting discussion.
one caveat, the ca is still part of the "state". what i think would be better in situations like this would be a special grand jury, with full investigative powers.

a different story, but certainly within the general scope of this thread, and a counterpoint to the apparent double-standards in the culpeper incident...

http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news ... refighters
note that the incident occurred on 3/4 and the officer involved was named that day. circumstances are different, but the public has information.
and today, only 5 days later...
http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news ... enied-bond
ongoing updates, seemingly.

if i wanted to play the cynic card, i'd say that one reason for the openness by vbpd and vsp is that the victims are alive, they are able to recount the events. in the culpeper incident, not so. we have one side, and no guarantee that much will be sunshined.

[grumpyMSG]

mk4, I don't know why you have it stuck in your head "The deafening sound of silence" means this COP is going to walk. The Commonwealth's Attorney is an elected office, so he belongs to the people of that community. Since the Commonwealth's Attorney office in that jurisdiction has worked with that particular officer in the past, 9 times out of 10 they are going to bring in an outside prosecutor. He or she will probably be from a neighboring jurisdiction. In most cases involving possible criminal activity by a police officer, an outside agency is going to conduct the investigation, so there is no accusing them of a cover up. You should be taking the long wait as a sign something is still happening, not that the officer is going to be cleared.

[mk4]

grumpyMSG, they brought in a special prosecutor quite early and it's interesting that he has very close ties to the vsp. i'm not saying he won't be fair and impartial in weighing the material before him, but, appearances mean things. insiders investigating insiders does nothing to bolster the confidence of the governed in those in whom we invest power.

as a people, we have generally become too trusting of government to "do the right thing", all imho.

peace.

[CCFan]

No offense, but with the number of folks here wanting judge jury and verdict in a month, I am beginning to wonder if I would exercise my right to trial by jury....

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[mk4]

no offense taken. i'm not advocating a rush to judgement. i'm protesting a seeming inequity in protection under the color of law. we should all expect 'innocent until proven guilty'. in reality, *civilians* are often treated as 'guilty until proven innocent'.

it would be difficult to argue that the leo isn't being treated differently than a civilian would be...

[OleMan]

We need to keep a wait and see attitude about this before we draw a firm conclusion. An important fact is that the State Police are doing the investigation. Think Bureau of Criminal Investigation and not the uniformed troopers you see in marked cars. They have a mandate to investigate where dicated by the Governor, Atty. Gen., and cases mandated by state law. That often involves investigating local police. I have been acquainted with one who is an excellent investigator; and one with a good national reputation who was trained as a CSI and Profiler by the FBI.

Decades ago they cleaned house in a city police department with more than it's share of corruption. Mulitple officers went to jail and others were fired. One of them, after serving his sentence, committed capital murder and the BCI was instrumental in his arrest and conviction; for which he was exectuted.

There are at least two cases where BCI investigated a state policeman and they were charge with felonies, convicted and went to jail. It is premature to presume that the VSP/BCI is doing a cover up.

Even if one assumes the officer is guilty of homicide, until they are ready to lodge charges or go to a grand jury, the worst thing to do is run to the news media and risk prejudicing prosecution of a case.

[OakRidgeStars]

When topics like this come up, I really miss SgtBill.

(Paging SgtBill --- Paging SgtBill)

[OleMan]

When topics like this come up, I really miss SgtBill.

(Paging SgtBill --- Paging SgtBill)

Even though I'm a short timer - here for about a year, I miss him too. He brought a lot to this forum.

[SgtBill]

I watched the video and it told me that the so called witness saw the officer with his left arm inside the window and his right hand on his weapon. If in fact this is what happend ( I was not there so I can't say)and the woman started to drag him alond the road after rolling up her window and trapping his arm then he was FULLY JUSTIFIED in shooting her as her vehicle was now a weapon that could cost him his life. The FIRST shot was JUSTIFIED but if when the window shatterd and his arm was released the next 5 shot's were not. Ahain I was not there and I did not do the investigation so I can't shed light on the case.
Bill

[mk4]

@SgtBill...
i just watched the video in post #1 again and didn't hear where the witness said the officer's arm was in the window, trapped or otherwise. did i miss something? below are some excerpts of his account.

0:42 "...had his hand on the door handle..."
the witness demonstrated left hand on imaginary door handle and right hand holding a gun up and apparently on a target (not low ready).
1:06 essentially same narrative and hand positions/gestures
1:15 "...the window was half-way up and he said stop or i'll shoot..."
1:22 "...she's got the window all the way up and that's when he shot..."

thx.

[Newgunguy]

I'm with grumpyMSG on this. Quick arrest results in quick trial with opportunity for mistakes being made. As well, how does a few additional days before charges are levied affect the length of sentencing? In other words, 15 years is 15 years no matter when you start.

No way a quick arrest would result in a quick trial unless they are trying to protect one of their own or are setting up to do a settlement out of court and public's eye. Also you can't take the video interview as an actual account, cause there is no way I trust the media that edits and gives cliff notes of a story. I posted that just so people could get enough info themselves to look up more on this. For those that are saying that they are holding back so they don't compromise the jury pool is garbage, they could have already arrested him and report that more info would come out in the upcoming trial. To bad the woman wasn't black though, cause I'm damn sure this would be moving much faster and of course Al Sharpten and Jesse Jackson would crawl out from under some rocks and proclaim "RACISM". Would like to see the town go bankrupt here, but know then it would just hurt everyone else just cause of a trigger happy cop.

Just take a look at this story, even though it doesn't involve the police, it was in front of a station and in perfect view of a camera. When you watch these you will see that cops are trained killers that are bored most of the time and want action.

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2010 ... -shooting/

This guy was arrested and in jail for a year and basically roughed up going inside to say whatever he said. Also as you can see he put his weapon back into the car and had gone inside with his hands visible and stayed inside the entry way. They say this guy was confronting the husband and wife someplace else, but in the video I see him as being the victim chased and stalked. Just thankfully the video was there or it could have been a different outcome for him. So what do you think would have happened if either one was a cop? I would be willing to bet that he would be sitting at home until the video was leaked if it ever was.

[WRW]

I'm with grumpyMSG on this. Quick arrest results in quick trial with opportunity for mistakes being made. As well, how does a few additional days before charges are levied affect the length of sentencing? In other words, 15 years is 15 years no matter when you start.

No way a quick arrest would result in a quick trial unless they are trying to protect one of their own or are setting up to do a settlement out of court and public's eye. Also you can't take the video interview as an actual account, cause there is no way I trust the media that edits and gives cliff notes of a story. I posted that just so people could get enough info themselves to look up more on this. For those that are saying that they are holding back so they don't compromise the jury pool is garbage, they could have already arrested him and report that more info would come out in the upcoming trial. To bad the woman wasn't black though, cause I'm damn sure this would be moving much faster and of course Al Sharpten and Jesse Jackson would crawl out from under some rocks and proclaim "RACISM". Would like to see the town go bankrupt here, but know then it would just hurt everyone else just cause of a trigger happy cop.

Just take a look at this story, even though it doesn't involve the police, it was in front of a station and in perfect view of a camera. When you watch these you will see that cops are trained killers that are bored most of the time and want action.

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2010 ... -shooting/

This guy was arrested and in jail for a year and basically roughed up going inside to say whatever he said. Also as you can see he put his weapon back into the car and had gone inside with his hands visible and stayed inside the entry way. They say this guy was confronting the husband and wife someplace else, but in the video I see him as being the victim chased and stalked. Just thankfully the video was there or it could have been a different outcome for him. So what do you think would have happened if either one was a cop? I would be willing to bet that he would be sitting at home until the video was leaked if it ever was.

I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you saying that all who act in "self defense" should be arrested until it can be proven that it was, indeed, self defense? If you would do that for police, it should apply to all.

I didn't watch the video...it has nothing to prove or disprove the police action in this case.