#48 supercat

People who act like robbers should expect to get quite legitimately shot. People who don’t want to get shot shouldn’t act like robbers. Cops have a responsibility to avoid acting like robbers. Rf should not be punished because some cops failed to do so.

Agreed.

However, there’s a whole lot of “We’re the cops, so that makes it right” out there that you have to get around first.

I have no idea what the defense attorney is going to argue in his closing, but I would suggest that he might point out that he wouldn’t be arguing RF’s innocence in court if the police had parked cars so the lights would flash in through RF’s windows and used their megaphone before breaking through RF’s door. Had those cops done those things, the attorney wouldn’t be arguing that he was innocent of killing a cop, because the cop would still be alive.

By their own admission, the police tried to prevent anyone in RF’s house from knowing they were cops. They succeeded. While it’s unclear who exactly was responsible for the cops’ unfortunate decision to conceal their identity from the target of their search, one thing is clear: it wasn’t RF.

RF believed, quite reasonably, that thieves who didn’t mind alerting him to their presence would very likely try to incapacitate and/or kill him. He wasn’t seeking to protect his property–he was seeking to protect himself. Maybe an attacker would ‘only’ seek to tie up RF, but there would be no way RF could possibly know that until it would be too late to prevent a homicidal attacker from killing him.

RF knew that there were people at the door who were acting like robbers. To suggest that he shouldn’t have fired would be to imply that people should refrain from shooting robbers on the off chance those robbers might be police who are merely acting like robbers. Such a philosophy would allow robbers to attack people with impunity.

People who act like robbers should expect to get quite legitimately shot. People who don’t want to get shot shouldn’t act like robbers. Cops have a responsibility to avoid acting like robbers. Rf should not be punished because some cops failed to do so.

1) the accidental killing of a person, contrary to the intention of the parties; and
2) the death occurs in the defendant’s improper performance of a lawful act.”

This one is possible.

“[T]he crime of common law involuntary manslaughter has two elements: 1) the accidental killing of a person, contrary to the intention of the parties; and 2) the death occurs in the defendant’s prosecution of an unlawful but not felonious act, or in the defendant’s improper performance of a lawful act.” Cable v. Commonwealth, 243 Va. 236, 240, 415 S.E.2d 218, 220 (1992).

Yeah, thats why i asked here. I found plenty of “how they are punished” but no definition.

I think we can forget about that ever happening.

Murder, other than capital murder, by poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, or by any willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or in the commission of, or attempt to commit, arson, rape, forcible sodomy, inanimate or animate object sexual penetration, robbery, burglary or abduction, except as provided in § 18.2-31, is murder of the first degree, punishable as a Class 2 felony.

All murder other than capital murder and murder in the first degree is murder of the second degree and is punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for not less than five nor more than forty years.

Va. Stat., § 18.2-32.

There are no statutory general definitions of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter that I can find. I assume they are defined by case law

I think both involuntary and voluntary manslaughter are class 5 felonies in Va., which, according to what i have found, carries a 1 to 10 year sentence. Aggravated manslaughter can be up to 20 years.

Had it only been capital murder, I would have said likely acquittal. With those other options, I just don’t know.

“The jury will begin deliberating tomorrow morning. When it does, it will have six options regarding charges in the death of Chesapeake police Detective Jarrod Shivers – acquittal or a conviction on capital murder, first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. That decision was made as the two sides hammered out what instructions will be given to the jury.”

I’ve met too many people who would only care about the latter to think that Frederick would be found “Not guilty”. Especially if they can be convinced that by growing marijuana, Frederick was committing a felony, and that the death of officer in commission of a felony is capital murder.

Incidentally, there is no reason for the judge to talk to the jury during deliberations unless the jury has a question that the judge is permitted to answer (and then both the prosecution and the defense are part of the response process).

For time out of mind, deliberations have been sacrosanct, so there is no real likelihood of any kind of rubber hose treatment. A dissenter cannot be called to account for not voting to convict (except in cases of misconduct, but that’s not what you’re talking about).

@ Rick Caldwell (#31): The prosecution’s pathetic showing is exactly why I expect a conviction on the drug charges (because an orangutan could get a drug conviction) and acquittal on the murder (because it appears clear that the cops, the CI’s and the D.A. don’t have a clue what happened, and that makes it look like they’re railroading Frederick to cover their own asses, which is something I’ve never seen a jury take kindly to). For me, the real interesting question is whether the evidence supports a manslaughter instruction and whether, if you’re the defense, you ask for it. The defense is entitled to go for broke and not ask for the lesser-included offense, but that’s asking for a compromise verdict.

I wouldn’t be surprised to find one badgelicker on the jury who thinks dead cop+trigger puller=convict, but that would hang the jury. I don’t think there’s any chance of a conviction, if the jury saw the same trial I did.

Really? Kerry? Fat jokes? I’ll come back later to your despicable column from the weekend.

Right now, I’d like to turn your attention back to 26 February, 2008, when you lectured the blogosphere to wait until we heard the facts. By “facts”, you mu…

He’ll be guilty on all charges following proper jury “instruction”…while it might take a day or so for peer pressure and the judge to mentally rubber hose any dissenters who might have slipped into the deliberations, but the process of herding cattle is very scientific these days.