Ryan Frederick Denied

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

Ryan Frederick’s appeal has been denied.

That’s sad for Frederick. It also seems likely now that we’ll never get that investigation into whether Chesapeake police were sending drug informants to break into private homes to get probable cause for search warrants.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

27 Responses to “Ryan Frederick Denied”

  1. #1 |  PW | 

    Any hope for a higher state court appeal, or taking the thing to federal court?

    The latter part about Chesapeake PD is disappointing too. Based on the extreme lengths they have gone to conceal the evidence surrounding the use of informants, I am absolutely convinced that the department knew their own officers were suborning illegal activity or even engaging in it themselves. I am also absolutely certain that, as the main officer who instigated the raid, Detective Shivers was in on this illegal activity.

    While Shivers’ death was an unfortunate and regrettable event, it was also an avoidable event that the Chesapeake PD brought onto itself. It is also far less of a price than that which was imposed upon Ryan Frederick for something in which he had no moral fault. Shivers was guilty of harming other human beings. Frederick was not, save in his own self defense.

    It may also be justly said that Shivers likely reaped what he sowed. If he did indeed instigate the break-in to Frederick’s house, his death is no more a “tragedy” than the mugger who unknowingly attacks a lady with a concealed carry permit. The only difference is the badge that gave him cover of law. And though the events surrounding his death and the price Frederick is paying for it are terrible in themselves, it is also no small comfort that a genuinely bad cop is no longer on the streets doing harm to other innocent people.

  2. #2 |  Dave Krueger | 

    It also seems likely now that we’ll never get that investigation into whether Chesapeake police were sending drug informants to break into private homes to get probable cause for search warrants.

    They only do investigations now when there is actual incontrovertible video evidence that has to be refuted.

  3. #3 |  Andrew Williams | 

    Once again, the foxes have done an excellent job guarding the chicken coop, according to themselves.

  4. #4 |  Michael Chaney | 

    He’ll appeal to the VA supreme court. Good luck to him; he’ll need it.

    Thanks for keeping up on this, Radley. Ryan needs any support he can get.

  5. #5 |  Sinchy | 

    What always baffles me in cases of drug raids, whether they result in death or not or are executed on the wrong house or not, is why bother risking anyones life breaking down doors to apprehend someone.
    Why not just wait until the guys leaves his house roll up on him, detain him and then just executing a search warrant.
    If the police think the occupants might be armed in the house isn’t it better to surprise the suspect outside of the house, rather than having to bust into an unknown area perhaps booby trapped or ambush scenario?
    I think it’s just the thrill of the hunt or wanting to emulate the exciting raids they see in movies or TV.
    What ever happened to “We have your house surrounded, come out with your hands up!”? Wouldn’t that be less dangerous for everyone?

    Maybe some LEO can tell me why violently raiding a home is better than just waiting around till the suspect leaves for a carton of milk?

  6. #6 |  Whim | 

    The police seem loathe to admit mistakes.

    Wonder why?

    When are judges going to finally understand that signing No-Knock After-Hours Search Warrants are the equivalent of signing a Death Warrant?

    Do they even care?

    You can also be sure that the LEO community and the Prosecutors will do everything in their power to see that Mr. Frederick serves his entire 10 years in the worst hell-hole prison in Virginia.

  7. #7 |  SJE | 

    How about an 1883 civil rights suit alleging that his 4th amendment rights were violated by police use of informants to break into his house.

  8. #8 |  SJE | 

    Sorry, I believe that is Sect 1983

  9. #9 |  Mattocracy | 

    I’m with you Sinchy. I don’t know why cops do dangerous shit. You ask yourself, why anyone would want to rick their life knowing that there is a safer way to do something?

    Maybe it’s theatre, so people can see their lives on the line, risking it all for us. Why do people suicide bombers do what they do? Maybe they’re all crazy.

  10. #10 |  Matt | 

    “I don’t know why cops do dangerous shit.

    …risking it all for us.”

    I’ve *never* asked *anyone* to risk their life for me.

    I’d certainly never ask the likes of people who are willing to break into other people’s homes using their job and a goddamn plant as an excuse for their violent actions.

    The only people I’m likely to ever run into that I’m not sure I can protect myself from are cops.

    Yet they presume to claim to “protect” me without my consent.

  11. #11 |  Lucy | 

    DAMN IT.

    Not two days ago I sent my second letter to him, telling him good luck and everything. Now I feel like that’s going to be some unfortunate timing. Damn damn damn.

  12. #12 |  BamBam | 

    I don’t know why cops do dangerous shit. You ask yourself, why anyone would want to rick their life knowing that there is a safer way to do something?

    Cops do it because they know there is a very low chance that they will be injured, and a very high chance that they will get a huge hardon from terrifying, beating, scaring, injuring, and controlling people, pets, and property. The chances of crotch titillation becomes even higher when you target non-victim “crimes”, as those “criminals” are more likely to not be armed and/or more likely to be compliant even while they are injured and abused.

  13. #13 |  BamBam | 

    Forgot to add that another factor is that cops usually aren’t very intelligent, and know they have the full backing of The State and are thus virtually immune to ANY consequences of their actions.

    Human nature dictates that “lack of consequences” + “violence towards others” = “emboldened to commit greater acts of violence”.

  14. #14 |  PW | 

    #10 –

    “The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.” – Lysander Spooner

  15. #15 |  Toastrider | 

    Contrasting this was a story in my local paper about a pot bust handled… creatively. The cops found the guy’s marijuana plants, but not him — so they took the plants, and left a ransom note with a phone number.

    Sure enough, the guy calls to negotiate the return of his precious wildwood weed, and they agree to meet — whereupon he is promptly arrested.

    Now, regardless of whether you like or dislike the drug laws (I’m no fan, myself), this was a /good/ way to handle it. They had the goods, and they picked the guy up with no fuss.

  16. #16 |  cobaco | 

    @sinchy

    That’s cause cops nowadays get trained like military, not peaceofficers. They start with the assumption that the situation will escalate, instead of trying to keep the situation from escalating.

    Consequently they immediately go for the use of potentially deadly force instead in the form of a military assault. And since they usually have the advantage of surprise, numbers, training and weaponry they tend to get away with it.

    The entire attitude is endemic to a stormtrooper attitude where ‘the law is the law’ (at least when applied to non-cops). This ofcourse is nothing more or less then a rephrasing of ‘befehl ist befehl’ which we know to be a fallacy.
    Consider e.g. the change in the language used:
    – used to be ‘Peace-Officer’ now ‘Law Enforcement Officer’
    – used to be ‘Court of Justice’ now ‘Court of Law’

    Law was supposed to be the means, not the end (hence the existence of things like jury nullification, and justifiable homicide), alas not any more.

    Each time they pull a stunt like this they diminish the social capital on which their safety is ultimately based, as such it is a self-defeating policy in the long run.

    We’re already away from the default assumption of ‘a cop can be trusted’. If they keep at it ultimately they’ll be seen as predators to be put down when the situation allows, and avoided the rest of the time.

    In the end you reap what you sow, and all the good cops (and that’s still a -decreasing- majority) closing ranks to ‘protect their own’ oughta keep that in mind. In the long run they’re not helping themselves, their collegues or society.

  17. #17 |  Pablo | 

    @sinchy–read Radley’s “Overkill” report for more info than you ever wanted on this topic. Lots of reasons for all this–SWAT in the media to the extent that every police department thinks they need one, government grants for this sort of thing, freebie military surplus stuff from the Pentagon, judges rubber-stamping no knock warrants, etc.

  18. #18 |  Mike T | 

    Law was supposed to be the means, not the end (hence the existence of things like jury nullification, and justifiable homicide), alas not any more.

    Justifiable homicide was legal until recently in Australia. They had a legal defense called “provocation” wherein your rank stupidity or malice could throw someone so far over the edge that they would attack you.

    The feminists got it revoked because it was successfully used by cuckolded men as a legal defense for killing their cheating wives and their wife’s lover when caught in flagrante.

    Our legal system is so inhumane today because it doesn’t understand and account for human nature like the fact that it is human nature for most people to get so caught up in rage when catching their spouse in flagrante that they kill them in cold blood.

  19. #19 |  some lawyuh | 

    Not surprised. The VA Court of Appeals has a rubber stamp that says “DENIED” for criminal appeals. The Supreme Court is hearing as lot more criminal appeals, and overturning substantially more of them. The appeal to the CofA is by right, and the Supreme Court has to choose to hear it, but they are reviewing many more recently, and they’ve smacked the C of A down a few times recently. It’s been kind of fun to watch, actually (though this may be true only for attorneys).

  20. #20 |  Cynical in CA | 

    Surprise, surprise — the State defended itself. Oh well, I know it’s small consolation, but at least he bagged a cop.

    /1st amendment

  21. #21 |  Charlie O | 

    This case is evidence of what’s wrong with the jury system. I can’t believe reasonable people would have convicted this guy. He should have been acquitted from the start.

  22. #22 |  Dave W. | 

    That’s cause cops nowadays get trained like military, not peaceofficers.

    I disagree. Police officers aren’t trained “like military.” Rather, they are trained in the military. Jarrod Shivers is a good example. He is a Navy vet.

    They do what they do in Iraq and Afghanistan (where it is arguably appropriate), and then they bring it here. In other words, they spend their formative years killing people and breaking stuff in a place with no Constitution and that sticks in their heads and colors their thinking. They are, in a word, brainwashed.

    I don’t believe in spitting on combat vets — I think that is morally and ethically wrong — but there is NO way that the ones who served in Afghanistan or Iraq should be allowed to become US policemen.

  23. #23 |  supercat | 

    //This case is evidence of what’s wrong with the jury system. I can’t believe reasonable people would have convicted this guy. He should have been acquitted from the start.//

    The jury isn’t allowed to see everything that outsiders can see. The government will declare “irrelevant” anything which jurors might find relevant in a way it doesn’t want. While there certainly are problems with today’s government, they aren’t problems with the jury system per se, but rather with the government’s efforts to undermine it.

    That having been said, Mr. Frederick’s attorney was given a very difficult job, since juries will generally not react favorably to anything that would put police actions in a negative light, and since saying Mr. Frederick didn’t know who was at the door (i.e. that they were police) could be and likely was taken as admission that Mr. Frederick was firing at an unknown target.

    Mr. Frederick’s attorney should, IMHO, have made very clear that even if Mr. Frederick didn’t know *precisely* who was breaking down his door, he had an objectively reasonable belief that anyone who would knowingly and deliberately break into an occupied dwelling in such fashion as to call attention to himself intended to assault and–at minimum–subdue the occupants of the dwelling. He was put into a situation of either (1) shooting the intruder, or (2) yielding the upper hand to an intruder before knowing the limit of the intruder’s intentions.

    BTW, if the government were really interested in upholding the law, Det. Shivers’ accomplices would be prosecuted for his murder, under the same rules that would allow any other robbers to be prosecuted for the death of an accomplice.

  24. #24 |  JOR | 

    “They do what they do in Iraq and Afghanistan (where it is arguably appropriate), and then they bring it here.”

    All the more reason to celebrate when they die over there.

  25. #25 |  Pinandpuller | 

    Wow JOR, time to start putting SOA on your business cards?

  26. #26 |  Matt | 

    PW, I know your Lysander, and raise you a Rand, my friend. ;)

    “Collectivism goes a step below savage anarchy: it takes away from man even the chance to fight back. It makes violence legal – and resistance to it illegal. It gives the sanction of law to the organized brute force of a majority (or of anyone who claims to represent it) – and turns the minority into a helpless, disarmed, object of extermination. If you can think of a more vicious perversion of justice – name it.”

    — Ayn Rand, Textbook of Americanism, 1946

    (Serendipitously resurrected, just this evening, in a bout of cleaning.)

  27. #27 |  “Off topic” – political news and more | BNCScripts | 

    […] Ryan Frederick Denied […]

Leave a Reply