TheAgitator.com
More on the Frederick Verdict
Wednesday, February 4th, 2009As I understand it, to reach the voluntary manslaughter verdict, the jury had to determine that Frederick was not aware the the people breaking into his home were the police, that he felt he was in some sort of danger, but that he was wrong to feel there enough danger where it was appropriate for him to fire through the door. I’ve read comments even from people sympathetic to Frederick and who oppose the drug war who argue that Frederick should be convicted of something, because he fired through the door, and by his own admission wasn’t certain at what or whom he was shooting.
Putting Virginia law (which as I understand it does not include a Castle Doctrine) aside, here’s my question: What do you suppose would have happened if Frederick hadn’t fired, but had waited, holding his gun, until the officers were all the way into his home?
The incident would have been reported in his obituary.
What would have happened if the cops saw him there with a gun in his hand?
I think we all know the answer to that: they would have immediately shot and killed him.
The better question would’ve been, IF he didn’t have the gun in his hand, would they have killed him? That’s one of life’s mysteries.
There would have been 100 shots fired in every direction. Maybe 5 of them would have hit and killed Frederick.
Like most things, the thugs have an acronym for this…DBS
Dead Bitch Syndrome
Has nobody (besides you, Radley) brought up the fact that Frederick was probably forced to choose (without realizing it) between himself and Detective Shivers? If he hadn’t fired he would very likely be dead right now. Instead, another man is dead and Frederick is going to lose a decade of his life.
Isn’t it a shame that there was no way of preventing this?
Oh wait.
There fucking was.
Where is Obama on this shit? I know he said he doesn’t believe in marijuana legalization, but this shit has to stop. If Obama is such a man of change, why is he going to ignore this, just like EVERYBODY ELSE. Argh, I can’t stand this anymore.
I mean to say, did nobody in the trial have the opportunity to point out the fact that if he had waited, not only would he have assumed he would have put himself in danger from the criminals, but the cops probably really would have shot him?
Is there no way to slip that in somewhere?
Chesapeake is known for shooting armed people. The data and news releases prove it, over and over. Oh, wait, no they don’t. I have personally confronted armed individuals numerous times. I’ve yet to kill any of them. You’re so sure of yourselves that you don’t even seem to realize they used restraint after it was confirmed an armed person killed one of their own! You people seem to want these things to happen to further your agenda, which I don’t entirely disagree with, but demonizing the police is not the answer. Keep speculating and theorizing. One day you’ll get your wish.
ceh-
the police demonize themselves by forgetting that they’re here to protect us. instead, they choose to go after peaceful people who happen to use plants that are illegal. all this for more funding to further abuse us.
we don’t need protection from the ‘bad’ guys- we need protection from our govt.
If he was pointing his gun at the cops, he would be dead. Full stop.
And, there would have been no trial for anyone who put a bullet in him. The mandatory, pro forma internal investigation would “reveal” that the police acted appropriately.
And, we probably never would have heard about it as the story reported would likely have been “Drug Dealer Killed In Confrontation With Police”. We would never have known about the nature of the confidential informants, the lack of controlled buys, or probably even the fact that no salable marijuana was found on the property of this supposed “dug dealer”.
Simple they’d shoot him, claim it was “self defense” and sprinkle some crack on the body.
That’s practically SOP.
Not only does Virginia not have the castle doctrine, as far as I can tell, Virginia still requires you to retreat before using deadly force can be excused.
I mean to say, did nobody in the trial have the opportunity to point out the fact that if he had waited, not only would he have assumed he would have put himself in danger from the criminals, but the cops probably really would have shot him?
If by some miracle RF gets a new trial, that line of inquiry might be vaguely conceivable. With capital murder on the table, there was no way that RF could afford to acknowledge that he even considered that it might be police.
From a purely legal/constitutional standpoint, I see no reason why some of the cops on the raid shouldn’t be prosecuted for felony murder in the death of their accomplice, but doubt that will ever happen.
Courts have ruled that absent a no-knock warrant, a forced entry raid is unreasonable unless the cops first announce themselves to any occupants of the property being entered. By any reasonable interpretation, an “announcement” would require a bona fide effort to be heard. I do not believe the cops in this case made such a bona fide effort. Is there any evidence whatsoever that they did so?
rf….dead
No sprinkle, nothing. He’d be dead. He was strapped. Maybe only one shot too. How often do these “breech” team’s practice? That cqb takes alot of full time, dedicated, focused, commitment.
Half sleeping stoner, busted door panel, perp still alive, dead cop, fast and loose prosecutor, fake reenactments, and only snitches, cops and wives testifying? What kind of kangaroo outfit is this?
This whole affair has been/will be mind boggling to me.
-bear
#7:”Chesapeake is known for shooting armed people. The data and news releases prove it, over and over. Oh, wait, no they don’t.”
Is there a source for this claim? It seems possibly, but unlikely, that accurate statistics are kept for what happens when two random armed people meet. I would assume that it frequently leads to one of them shooting. Also, I would think that most confrontations between burglars (like RF thought were coming into his house) and guys growing weed that don’t lead to shots fired are never reported.
I’ve posted this elsewhere too, but am very interest in having it resolved:
Did RF shoot through a door blindly…or did he see a busted out lower panel with an armed intruder trying to squeeze through the hole? Are there other options?
Did he hit Shiver’s first or did his shot penetrate a door first? Who was there? Was that answered?
-bear
@bear
Did he shoot through the door blindly – RF claims he shot the cop after seeing his face and arm reaching through the hole in the panel. The prosecution contends otherwise according to the testimony of the guy knocking the door out. Nobody actually saw it happen except Frederick and Shivers as the fella with the battering ram looked away to get ready and hit the door again.
Did he hit Shivers first? – Yes, Frederick shot Shivers through the arm and the bullet traveled through his armpit and into his chest. Shivers arm was inside or outside (depending on who says so) the hole, and the bullet did not go through any wood – it went straight from Frederick’s gun into Shivers. There were only two bullets fired – one into Shivers, the other by accident in another room which hit nobody and was not really a point of contention.
I think he’s a victim of geography. Had this happened in Oklahoma, where they have a “Make My Day Law,” he would’ve been cleared of anything other than the drug charges since he can legally shoot anyone who trespasses on his property.
As for your question, had the officers opened the door before he shot, I think they would’ve seen him holding a gun and fired on him, first, so there would be two dead people, the cop and Frederick.
Going against the flow here – but he shot a cop dead, and they still took him alive. It’s at least possible he’d have survived not shooting the cop, surely?
That’s not to say that I think justice is served by this trial – as far as I can see, he made a reasonable choice given the circumstances, and the situation was entirely avoidable by the police.
“What do you suppose would have happened if Frederick hadn’t fired, but had waited, holding his gun, until the officers were all the way into his home?”
Ryan Frederick would have died in a hail of bullets.
I am one of those sympathetic to Frederick and who oppose the drug war and found, based on established rationale surrounding the topic of self-defense, that his actions were inconsistent with that of legally-fulfilled self-defense.
As a civilian that has trained with firearm training facilities (which consist of live-fire training and academic education), there is a lot of information and factors leading up to the decision of applying lethal force in self-defense that must be decided in a split second. Typical course attendees include police academy instructors and other law enforcement to further their basic academy training and teach the material back to cadets, as well as military personnel.
Self-defense is a complex subject that is barely touched upon even in law school. The director and senior instructor of a firearms training academy I attended was a retired veteran officer and recently passed the bar exam. He told me that the issues regarding self-defense in his courses culminated at several hours long and completely disappointing.
It’s inappropriate to fire through a door at an unknown, possible threat under the premise of self-defense. In states where trespassing or property theft is legal justifications for lethal force, I cannot comment as that doesn’t apply to my state. I don’t know if that falls under self-defense or some other term. Yes, though we’ve seen that a spooked SWAT officer can shoot through a door and kill a single mother and blow off a toddler’s hand without consequence, it doesn’t make it right.
Civilians are guided by a very narrow, foggy path regarding lethal use of self-defense and even then, there are no guarantees. The qualifiers for legally-justified use of deadly force (justifiable homicide) can generally be summarized with: ability, opportunity, jeopardy, or some thematic outline of such. The ability of the individual to do said harm/death, taking account any “disparity of force” factors such as gender, weapons, physical size, and physical number of assailant(s). Opportunity, that being that the assailant has the actual opportunity to carry out the deadly attack (barriers, obstacles, circumstantial), and jeopardy being the factor of immediate great bodily harm or death.
A man armed with a knife while screaming to kill you would satisfy ability and jeopardy, but not opportunity if he is on the other side of a door. Once he breaks down the door, opportunity exists. “AOJ” is safisfied and lethal force can be employed. If the man was known to you beforehand to be armed with a gun and acted the same, AOJ would be satisfied even with the door as a barrier, which still provides opportunity to satisfy ability and jeopardy. If you shot the man through the door and found out he had a gun after-the-fact, you don’t get off the hook since that piece of crucial information was unknown to you when you made that decision. If the door was a vault door, the opportunity would once again disappear.
The problem is that there are numerous gray scenarios with no hard and fast rules. Someone that says “I’m going to get a gun and come back to kill you” does not put you in jeopardy. You have given an opportunity to evade, escape, or de-escalate. The only real guideline that exists would be “what would a reasonable and prudent person do in my shoes, knowing the information at the time?” which is the framework in which you must supply the jury on why you took the courses of action you did which ultimately resulted in loss of human life. Anyone that owns firearms for self-defense would best take one of these courses as my short post doesn’t even scratch the surface. You should be well educated in this domain if you’re even to consider using lethal force of any sort for self-defense.
Unfortunately due to the nature of the justice system, an overwhelming majority of lawyers are criminal defense lawyers that build their entire model of “my client won’t say anything, prove it!”. A criminal defense lawyer in general will plea down charges instead of arguing innocence. This doesn’t build any empathy with a jury and only creates a veil of assumed-guilt. You really need a lawyer specialized in representing a case of self-defense which requires an affirmative defense, which means the burden of proof shifts to the defendant, but not at a level beyond a reasonable doubt. That means you have to admit to murder, then justify it right off instead of deferring opening statement to the prosecutor. It also makes it extremely difficult in finding a qualified lawyer. Most people caught in these situations end up with a normal criminal defense lawyer that hasn’t even heard of concepts like the competing harms doctrine, crystal skull doctrine, reasonable man doctrine, etc, not to mention finding expert witnesses that can explain the dynamic tactical issues during the actual struggle.
…and this is if you end up shooting some other civilian that wanted to take your life. Chances are if you shoot a cop, all bets are off. Nothing short of a miracle would get you a justifiable outcome, unfortunately.
Vote in the poll
http://hamptonroads.com/polls/do-you-agree-voluntary-manslaughter-verdict-ryan-frederick
I too believe that if Frederick had waited, there is a very good chance that he would have been shot, assuming that CPD is more competent at aiming than investigating.
But what about the claims made that CPD demonstrated remarkable restraint by apprehending Frederick without shooting him dead AFTER he shot Det. Shivers?
I’m not sure that this holds a lot of water. Unfortunately, the trend in law enforcement is for heavily armed and armored police to burst into a building only if they expect the resident(s) to be asleep or at least unaware of their presence. When there is an “active shooter”, all too often the police move to contain the scene, finding cover and waiting. For a tragic example of this, I believe you could look at the handling of the Columbine incident.
After that, once Frederick surrendered, I don’t think any of the cops would have been brave (read: stupid) enough to kill Frederick and assume that EVERYONE else on the scene would cover for them. There are things you can assume that your brothers in blue will have your back for, but murder one isn’t one of them.
I still believe, as I have said before, that it is likely that shooting Det. Shivers saved Ryan Frederick’s life. Once he was in his living room, armed, which was his right, and the door was breached, he really had no choice.
If they did show restraint and not kill RF, they would at least have shot the dogs.
[...] especially like this observation by Radley Balko: I’ve read comments even from people sympathetic to Frederick and who oppose the drug war who [...]
“f Obama is such a man of change, why is he going to ignore this, just like EVERYBODY ELSE.”
I can but suggest that you look into Chicago politics and finally make an informed decision who to vote for. Even after the fact of your vote.
CEH,
“You’re so sure of yourselves that you don’t even seem to realize they used restraint after it was confirmed an armed person killed one of their own!”
Such was confirmed until well AFTER the actual shooting! Oh and WTF constitutes “one of their own”?
“For a tragic example of this, I believe you could look at the handling of the Columbine incident.”
No shit there, the chicken shit cop on the scene might have been able to save several deaths, even if it cost his own life. Cops actually sign up for such risk! But the chicken shit at Columbine fer sure did not own up to it! He choose to run away rather than confront! Saved his ass probably, but many more died as a direct result of his cowardice.
“the situation was entirely avoidable by the police.”
Quote of the entire event!!!!
COPS & robbers everywhere, do not attempt to break into by abode, I will shoot you! 100% of the time!!!
CEH, huh?
they used restraint after it was confirmed an armed person killed one of their own!
no, in typical COP fashion since they weren’t really expecting resistance (despite the fact that they knew there were going after a crazy drug dealer) and were surprised, and didn’t have CONTROL of the doorway and situation, they withdrew. If they had used a battering ram and invaded the house like they did in raiding the 92 y/o women’s house in Atlanta they would have killed Ryan just like they killed the 92 y/o lady. Whether he got off a shot or not.
TC, ditto!
I keep an M1A by my bed (a semi-auto M-14) with 20 rd mags of .308. The police don’t wear body armour that will stop that. Woe to any home invaders, criminal or police, that don’t recon on that.
Eric @20 thanks for your post here. I hired a lawyer for a 15 year old boy in Mississippi to file PCR. He was in a self-defense situation with his grandfather and ended up killing him to get him off of him. He feared for his life even though his fists and scary nature seemed to be his weapon. He was a much bigger man in a rage with reported mental degeneration. It was apparent that the boy feared for his life in some way, and in a chokehold he thought had to kill or be killed. He administered CPR after he stabbed him and his grandfather died in his arms, while he screamed for help. He was charged as an adult with capital murder, convicted and given a life sentence. His coerced and illegal statement given without parent or lawyer present admited killing him in self-defense. A 15 year old girl was coerced the night before the trial to manufacture intent for a deal. She admitted on the stand she was lying and just wanted to go home. The judge let in the purjured testimony. The jury convicted anyway. The MS COA affirmed the confiction acknowledging she may or may not have been lying (even though she said she was) but that it was up to the jury to decide. They decided. They believed her over him even thought she admitted she was lying.
It would seem to me that the “AOJ” was met for this child to defend himself and would seem to be on a different level than an adult since his judgement wouldn’t be as sophisticated as an adult. Maybe you wouldn’t mind reading some of the facts of the case and commenting briefly on it. Self defense is a very tricky thing and very hard to defend apparently. This boys public defender did nothing for him. He was called to the stand after no preparation by his lawyers and no other witnesses were called on his behalf. That was after spending 9 months in an adult jail at age 15. He was in no condition to tesitfy on his own behalf. His grandmother (widow of the “victim”) and the boy’s father were prepared to testify as key witnesses (backing up grandfather’s violent outbursts and emotional instability) but weren’t called. It’s very sad indeed. But I think he could have done much better than he did had he had proper representation.
http://www.myspace.com/freebrettjones
sorry the link above seems to be bogus, try this:
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=157371497
Hi Pam.
Self-defense is very tricky indeed. Being someone that is a concealed carry permit holder, I have several lawyers I can call, as well as a network which includes some well known industry experts that have been expert witnesses in the past. It is unfortunate we must shield ourselves with a legal network just to survive the legal avalanche after such a scary encounter.
Ultimately mistakes were made at every level, and it can’t be expected that Joe Civilian would know how to respond in such a situation. There is little we can do but learn from this and spread the word. I’m saddened after reading this and finding out the infamous Dr Steven Hayne was an “expert witness” in that kid’s case. Radley has done plenty of articles on Mr Hayne. Unfortunately, most prosecuting “expert witnesses” are not. To expect a medical examiner an “expert” in gunshot wounds or knife wounds is ridiculous. You really need someone experienced in combat application of firearms or knives to determine WHY a knife wound was placed where it was or why a gunshot wound was located where it was. A medical examiner would simply say the defendant shot the “victim” in the back in cold blood, while a veteran of combat arms can explain how the delay time of roughly a half second between action/reaction of the human nervous system can result in the defendant placing multiple shots into the attacker, the last one hitting him in the back before the defendant realized the attacker was spinning from the first bullet and the threat ceased.
The only thing a medical examiner can discover is how deep, how wide, and where it was located on the body, not WHY. I even saw he claimed the tip of the knife bent on bone, even though living bone in the body is fairly SOFT when it is alive, and the bending of the knife tip on a jar/can cannot be duplicated on bone. You’d lift out a chip of bone before the tip bent. Brett Jones could have used a credible martial artist trained in edged combat as a legit expert witness who could tell the jury why his grandfather had the knife wounds he did. Unfortunately it seems CSI-type shows seem to pollute the jury pool. The layman believes dubious ballistic “science” is exact and dependable, and that medical examiners are credible in everything leading up to the death of the individual in question.
Another problem is that he got stuck with a public defender. You’d have a problem even if you got stuck with a criminal defense lawyer. As I briefly mentioned, you really need a lawyer that has knowledge and experience, and specializes in self-defense, not your run-of-the-mill criminal defense lawyer that’ll defend criminals and consider a reduced charge a victory of sorts. An affirmative defense is needed to establish that yes, your intent was homicide, but a justifiable homicide to prevent your own imminent death. If not, you are liable to get stuck with the wreckless death charge, aka manslaughter. Many self-defense cases fail and the defendant ends up with some sort of manslaughter charge which at best, says you were wreckless and caused someone to die. Self-defense is not wreckless, but a very specific situation where you intently killed someone. You need to prove it was justified homicide. This also protects you somewhat in a civil case down-the-road as it’s a common tactic to push the accident card so they can collect monetary damages through your insurance. Insurance will pay out for accidental deaths, but not deaths taken on purpose.
Self-defense training extends past the actual encounter and how you handle things from that moment on. It requires proper steps post-event and screwing this up means you can never come back. In training, you learn that there are specific things you need to address immediately after a self-defense situation, in that you need to contact law enforcement and establish you are a victim that was fending off an attacker and you’re willing to press charges, and exculpatory evidence and witnesses should immediately be pointed out as these have a tendency to disappear during the mayhem of first responders. You must outline key things on what happened, but not give specific details, and request legal council politely after while requesting a minimum 24 hour rest period before giving a full statement. Taking the criminal defense lawyer’s generic advise of “I ain’t talking til I see a lawyer!” means the responding officer puts a check mark next to the “suspect” box when he is doing his on-scene report. You don’t want that doubt cast on you; it sets the tone for the rest of the investigation.
A rest period is standard procedure for any officer after a shooting and no one takes their statement for good reason. A whole host of physio-psychological effects take place during and after a life-threatening situation. People have cognitive dissonance and recall spacial details incorrectly and facts are recalled in an anachronistic manner. Witnesses are also influenced by this and not always reliable even if they did see everything. In a fight or flight situation, your body releases epinephrine and norepinephrine among it’s chemical cocktail to keeping you alive. One of the side effects of this, including an extremely elevated heartrate is that you process information at an accelerated rate, which is why people perceive a “slowing of time”, or tachypsychia when in fact you’re just processing data faster in realtime. Afterward, your brain needs time to pick apart this compressed data stream and arrange it in the proper order. Trying to recall events will result in a skewed, discombobulated picture.
By giving specific details of what you think happened to a responding officer, you essentially chain yourself to these statements. “He was 15 feet away” when evidence shows he was 10 feet away. You are now branded a liar. If you recant your statement later after a rest period and the real figures clear up. You already gave a statement. You’d be called a liar if you tried to recant.
What I fear is that this kid, like most civilians, are taught to trust the cops fully, and in that extremely vulnerable state after killing his own grandfather, he wanted to tell his story, to prove his innocence. In cases where people killed another to save life, the cop takes on the roll of parent, and the victims take on a child-like state. People babble after-the-fact . You see this on reality cop/trauma shows on television. If he gave detailed statements on what happened, he has chained himself to that initial version of the story for all time.
After reading some details, I can see where the prosecutor tore into the kid for not mentioning self-defense details after the cops gave him “friendly advice” to neglect it in his statement. One thing few people understand is that police interrogation techniques are so precise, honed, and overwhelming to someone in that emotional state that police have gotten completely innocent people to confess to crimes they did not commit. I believe the average rate of people waiving their Miranda rights is 60-70%. Interrogators are allowed to outright lie in your face, pretend to be your friend, sympathize, and use dirty tricks. For many, its also a challenge, a game to them, to extract confessions. They probably promised to cut deals, made false threats, chitchat to get him to open up, tried to justify his “crime”, played the good cop/bad cop game, exaggerated and said they had all sorts of inculpatory evidence. In this case, the Hollywood portrayal is true. Interrogation has been honed for centuries. I used to have a URL to a great paper detailing things like the Reid technique and what techniques are used commonly, along with firsthand interviews with interrogators that take it as a con-game. However I can’t seem to find it.
I’m sorry for the long reply, but books can (and have) be written on this topic. It’s not something you usually find in academia either. Most of these types of books are written by veteran officers who’ve been in multiple shooting situations and have incorporated this knowledge into current academy teachings. It’s also a depressing subject that most people don’t want to deal with, but its a reality we all might face one day–being attacked by someone and having to survive the legal aftermath.
thanks Eric. We’re hoping for a new trial so I will keep the information you’ve posted here in mind for possible expert testimony if Hayne is again used. Hayne only sees paychecks and power, and anti’s up for a share of the pot.
“What I fear is that this kid, like most civilians, are taught to trust the cops fully, and in that extremely vulnerable state after killing his own grandfather, he wanted to tell his story, to prove his innocence. In cases where people killed another to save life, the cop takes on the roll of parent, and the victims take on a child-like state. People babble after-the-fact .”
You hit the nail on the head. I’ve read the statement. It is exactly as you say, the cops must have been drooling all over themselves when Brett started talking & talking & talking… I was cringing when I read it because I know Brett so well, I can read between the lines, but the jury, not so much. It also helps get a kid to talk when you threaten him with the death penalty. Many lies were perpetrated by the Sheriff’s department during this juvenile interrogation most effectively that one. I think one of the substantial reasons for the court to accept his PCR (among other violations) was Brett was asking for his parents throughout the interrogation, the cops ignored it and made no attempt to contact them. Of course they didn’t want any parents, who would when a kid is “confiding” in you about killing someone? It was a free for all in that room, a scared kid who they completely took advantage of.
your information on bone and cartlege was interesting. Once again “DR” Hayne was making crap up. He tried to justify homicide by saying the knife bent hitting bone and cartlege therefore a malicious and vicious attack on the victim by the child. Of course there was no forensic evidence to back that up, bone chips, etc. Thanks for that information, if the prosecution brings Hayne back at a new trial we will get our own expert to counter this bullcrap. Durng the trial the prosecution made a big deal over the bent knife, holding it up to the jury more than once and presenting Hayne to back up their theory. It was never objected to by the defense counsel. It was allowed to stand.