Ryan Frederick Trial, Day 8

We have an early report from John Wilburn on this morning’s blockbuster news.

So, what did Prosecutor Ebert know and when did he know it?

I just heard from John( 8:10 PM). Court recessed at 7:45PM, I will post his reports as they become available.

The remainder of John’s report posted at 3 AM

John’s report is long, as was the day. He was up late getting it done. It is worth taking the time to read it if you want to know what went on it court.

In an ealier post, I wrote of the testimony of the officers on the scene that I believed it to be true AS THEY SAW IT. I would assert that Frederick’s testimony is consistent with theirs AS HE SAW IT.

I will summarize and analyse later as time permits. I am working this morning but expect to be at the courthouse after lunch, if it is not all over by then.

Advertisements

73 Responses to Ryan Frederick Trial, Day 8

  1. omar says:

    “What did he know and when did he know it?”

    I’d put money down the answer is “He knew this jailhouse jerk was a fraud from the start, just like the rest of us knew it because it’s obvious.”

    It doesn’t take a lawyer to realize what was happening here – Ebert is a professional prosecutor – he should know who is and isn’t involved with his industry; he should how people behave behind bars; he should know the “jail house confession” was a fraud.

    I guess you are asking the more legal question, “when did he know for a fact that this particular man was a professional liar” instead of “when did he know as an intelligent normal human being?”

    Ebert “is just doing his job as a prosecutor” – i.e. Ebert doesn’t care what lies he needs to push, as long as his team wins. My friends in LEO and criminal prosecution tell me they feel this way to my face. Those 20 somethings learned that garbage from somewhere. The older generation of amoral “win at all costs” prosecutors maybe?

  2. Beth says:

    Omar, don’t you know that it’s not about how you play the game, but whether you win or lose. 🙂

  3. Sven says:

    Wheres Lima Charlie? We need some law and order in here, military style.

  4. Scooby Doo says:

    “The end does not justify the means, the end reflects the means”
    Gandhi
    “So it goes.”
    Kurt Vonnegut

  5. John B. says:

    Any prosecutor in America is loathe to back down even in the face of irrefutable evidence: witness their collective behavior stemming from “The Innocence Project”. Across multiple jurisdictions and state lines they clung to their “convictions” and even after incontravertible DNA evidence was presented, an uphill tooth and nail fight often followed to actually get the innocent prisoners released. I claim no inside knowledge of prosecutors, I just judge by their behavior.

  6. bigmike says:

    This is ridiculous. The prosecutor is no less a liar than Skeeter by putting Skeeter on the stand. If it’s proven that the prosecutor was contacted by other prosecutors and told that Skeeter is a known liar, then this case should be dismissed right away and a different prosecutor brought in. Many actions of the prosecutor doesn’t seem right. Why would he bring Shivers widow on the stand, she witnessed nothing. A trick to tug on heart strings is not proving guilt. Bringing in a known liar and put him on the stand to testify against RF. Make sure a detective whose story conflicts with the other detectives is out of town. Have another witness released from VB jail after he testifies against RF (will he be found for the defense?). Then the judge. Not allowing the jury inside the house. They would be able to see and hear what RF did. Then not allowing a three mile radius map showing break-ins in the area. RF knew he lived in an area with a high rate of break-ins. I can’t help but wonder if Wright didn’t plant the growing equipment for CPD vice taking anything from RF’s garage when he broke in.

  7. TPB says:

    Ryan is Testifing now. WAVY…. Please post the notes as soon as posible please, Thanks…

    Stay Gold,
    TPB

  8. CEH says:

    bigmike,

    I am also baffled by some of the actions of this team of prosecutors, however to address some of your points:

    Shivers’ widow established he was alive and he was killed – the defense also called witnesses that were not there, why no outrage about that?

    The detective, as has already been pointed out, began the lengthy process of getting hired by the BATF well before this incident happened. He was in basic training with them, no longer an employee of the CPD -the prosecutor had nothing to do with that.

    The informant was released on bond from the Chesapeake charges after objections from the Chesapeake Commonwealth’s Attorney prosecuting the matter. Worse case is he makes himself unavailable as a prosecution witness in a future appeal – the defense should only hope so.

    The Judge did not allow the Jury in the house because the decor had been substantially changed by the sister and children now live in the home. That’s a judgement call I guess, but my understanding is there were plenty of diagrams and photos available.

    Three miles in that section of South Norfolk would probably take in areas, such as low income apartment complexes, of significantly different demographics then Frederick’s neighborhood, with vastly higher incidents of crime, thus painting a not entirely accurate picture of what his neighborhood is actually like.

    If you think the equipment was planted, why did the defense admit Frederick grew marijuana in their opening statement?

    Just trying to put some of this into perspective for you.

  9. supercat says:

    CEH–One point I meant to ask earlier, but did not: if you’ve been victimized by burglars, and then a few days later you are awakened by the sound of someone banging on your door, and when you go downstairs you see that the door is breached but you cannot tell by whom, how would you estimate the following probabilities:

    -1- It is another burglary, but the burglars don’t know you’re home and will leave as soon as they find out.

    -2- It’s another burglary, and the burglars know you’re home; even though that knowledge does not deter them from entering they have no intention of attacking you personally.

    -3- It’s another burglary, and the burglars know you’re home; they intend to attack you personally, but don’t have any ranged weapons (e.g. firearms).

    -4- It’s another burglary, and the burglars know you’re home; they intend to attack you personally, and they have one or more firearms or other ranged weapons.

    -5- It’s the police, conducting a reasonable search and seizure operation.

    I would suggest that scenario #4 would be the most probable scenario, and that in that scenario, failure to shoot the attacker before the door is breached could very likely be fatal. Would you regard other scenarios as more probable?

  10. CEH says:

    -6- your detached garage was burglarized and half of your marijuana grow operation was stolen (so you didn’t report it to the police, so I guess you weren’t that concerned about your safety then). You found out who did it and threatened to kill him and his family. If he calls the police, you’ll be ready for them to. Probability? Seems like that is what happened, at least that is what the prosecution is trying to prove. We both can “what if” this to death, none of your scenarios are this scenario though. This was criminals victimizing another criminal. If you run in those circles, perhaps, just perhaps, you can expect competitors or jealous rivals or just plain thieves (as in this case) or, believe it or not, the police to come calling. This was not a mistaken address, which always reflects poorly on law enforcement, this was the right house for the right reason (only if you agree the law matters, which in our courts it does, but not to Libertarians I guess).

  11. Zargon says:

    Since you’re so willing to take the prosecution’s version of events as gospel (because they’ve certainly proven themselves reliable thus far in the trial), perhaps you can help me out here.

    Where did the other half of RF’s grow operation go? Are we do believe that RF is so clinically retarded as to dump his marijuana plants on the suspicion that the police will raid him, but not everything else?

    We can only what-if around and around if the prosecution presents an internally consistent version of what could have happened that involves RF being a villan. They havn’t been able to.

  12. supercat says:

    You found out who did it and threatened to kill him and his family. If he calls the police, you’ll be ready for them to.

    So you are suggesting that RF should be acquitted on grounds of mental incompetency? There are a number of ways one might be “ready for the police”, such as (1) getting rid of any readily-observable drugs before the police arrive; (2) if tactical considerations permit, arranging an escape vehicle and planning someone to put forth sufficient suppressive fire to enable a getaway (this only makes sense if one is or expects to be a fugitive no matter what happens); (3) taking one’s lumps and asking for (likely receiving) a suspended sentence. Somehow I can’t imagine someone considering himself “ready for the police” armed with a six-shot pistol and no workable escape plan.

    Can you explain how anyone with enough functioning brain cells to be considered competent could expect to gain anything by getting in a shootout with police armed with only a 6-shot pistol?

  13. TPB says:

    Hurry Home Mr. Wilburn….

    Can’t wait to read.

    Thanks Again,
    TPB

  14. Charlie says:

    He was ready for the police and only shoots one? You people are nuts on your theories!

  15. omar says:

    CEH,

    Thanks for your well thought out argument pushing for RF to go to prison. I don’t agree with your assessment, but I’m thankful to read a contrarian opinion that isn’t rambling hate and revenge talk mixed with lies and hateful emotion (I’m talking about you, Jack and Lima Charlie). Civil discussion is a prerequisite for justice always.

    The situation would be a lot better off for RF, for the friends and family of the dead, and for justice if the prosecutors had been making unintelligent arguments like that and not just making things up. In this case, the prosecutors and the vast majority of the law and order crowd, in my eyes, have done nothing to pursue the truth. They have spent every breath to lynch RF because the dead man was a cop. No more, no less. Revenge is an ugly thing.

  16. mikey says:

    We know at least one shot was fired from the gun. Were there any more shots fired? For someone supposedly hell-bent on shooting up the police, as the prosecutor would have us think, he was ill prepared don’t you think? If he was a big-time dealer you can rest assured he would have had a small weapons arsenal at his disposal. And from what I heard he owned the gun legally. At least he wasn’t charged for possessing an unregistered weapon that I can see.

    • Don Tabor says:

      Frederick fired two shots, a couple of seconds apart. The fatal shot first, then a second, apparent accidental discharge, as he retreated toward his bedroom. That shot went through an interior wall and remained in the house.

  17. TPB says:

    Hey Jack,
    Hey Lima Charlie,

    Where are you hiding?
    Cat got your tounge?

    Stay Gold,
    TPB

  18. Beth says:

    I too appreciate intelligent discussion on both sides of the issues. I have my own theories based on what I’ve read but it serves no purpose to elaborate when it’s not based on testimony entirely. When the trial is over I’ll give my opinion. For now besides being on my iPod, it’s too much to type.

  19. Bill says:

    Okay, CEH, on the widow testifying: It WAS unnecessary for her to testify in order to prove that her husband “was alive and then was killed”. First, I’m pretty sure that the defense would have stipulated those points–you’d think the coroner’s testimony and police personnel records might support the notion that he was alive once, and is, in fact, now dead. That may have been the ostensible purpose of her testifying, but the real goal was to make her husband out to be a really nice guy, and convey that it’s a real shame that he died. But it doesn’t matter if he was an angel and a saint, or a demon and the worst person you’ll ever met; the appropriate punishment for his death at the hands of someone else is the same regardless of what kind of person he was.

    Why is it then okay for people who weren’t at the scene to testify regarding Ryan Frederick’s character? Because HIS state of mind is at the time of the shooting IS relevant to whether he is guilty or not, and his character informs the decisions he made, along with what he reasonably would have observed in the 25 seconds between the beginning of the raid and the time the shot was fired.

  20. Price says:

    Doc, What ever happened to the WTKR news report with RF’s family and attorney claiming the police fired the round inside the house. Remember they had the pictures to prove it, before and after. Can you see how there seems to be fabricated stories from both sides or was it misinformed media.

    • Don Tabor says:

      Price,

      The bullet hole in the house has been explained, it was caused by the second shot Frederick fired, accidentally, as he retreated from the living room to the bedroom.

      There were a number of speculations in the press and in the blogs, including mine, which have been explained, and others which have not. The police could have ended those speculations by simply telling the truth at any time, and chose not to.

      Stonewalling will always be met by speculation. Stonewalling is still going on today. The truth about the review of policies is still being withheld.

  21. TPB says:

    Price,

    Are you sure that wasn’t one of Wright’s and/or Skeeter’s lies/stories…
    You see that wasn’t tried to be passed off as fact in court.
    But I guess it shows how when the police does’nt share the true facts that one could ask out loud about unanswered questions.

    This was before the pratice run re-enactment deal that was flubbed..

    Still Nice Question.

    Next.

    Stay Gold,
    TPB

    Stay Gold,
    TPB

  22. Jack says:

    TPB,

    Hiding? Well sort of, I just took a couple of Xanax, sucked in a couple of hits off my bong and now i’m in my closet loading all my guns. SHHH. Someone’s knocking on my door. They’re probable invaders coming to kill me. Something really bad is going down. Good thing all my new Libertarian friends will support me after I pop a couple of rounds in em’

  23. Blah Blah Blah says:

    RF heard the knock, said it from his own mouth. He even turned the tv down. News flash ……..he was not asleep.

  24. juris imprudent says:

    CEH “This was not a mistaken address, which always reflects poorly on law enforcement”

    I wonder then, are you opposed to the routine use of “dynamic entry”, given that mistakes do happen. There have been cases where cops were killed when they did in fact do to the wrong address. Would you punish the shooter in such a circumstance merely because it was a cop that was killed? Or do you think that perhaps the police should use “dynamic” tactics only when they KNOW the person they are seeking is likely to be violent (based on a history of violence)?

    Also, why are you so certain in the case of Frederick? Have you read anything about the Johnston case in Atlanta? When you do, I suspect you won’t as much faith in LE, narcotics in particular.

  25. Price says:

    TPB,
    I understand the fact and testimony part. My point was when that news story broke a lot of people climbed on board the news report. The police are not obligated to talk about their investigation in public. You wrote the statement “police do not share true facts”, then we should hold RF and the defense team to the same standard about admitting to growing marijuana. Why did RF wait until trial and admit it through his attorney. RF and his attorey had plenty of time to admit his marijuana growing operation. RF and his attorney are not required to talk about their defense. Is it a double standard?
    The post earlier opens some new questions or even a “what if”. Maybe RF thought it was Wright coming back to his house after RF made threats towards him after the first burglary.
    As for the reenactment, after reading all the post it is finally clear, are any types of reenactments actually verbatem 🙂

  26. IVAN formerly known as Jack says:

    I’m kind of getting bored with the same old rhetoric. So I thought I’d play along with you guys. From now on I will post as if this case takes place in a Socialist Republic. And I am a member of the state. You guys get to pretend that this case takes place in your fairytale Libertarian society, so I want in on the fun.
    Lets talk about that search warrant. We dont need a search warrant. Oh, this isnt goint to work. If you guys spoke out against the state we would find and hang you. Wow, that was fun.

  27. TPB says:

    Jack,

    Good to see you are doing fine.

    Just wanted to make sure you were okay. Hadn’t heard from you today.

    Take Care Friend,
    Stay Gold,
    TPB

  28. TPB says:

    Price,

    It is Ryan Fredericks Right to remain silent, and I believe he has the right to know the truth especially since the CPD had him locked up while they worked on their stories/facts.

    Thanks Friend,
    Stay Gold,
    TPB

  29. supercat says:

    RF heard the knock, said it from his own mouth. He even turned the tv down. News flash ……..he was not asleep.

    Many people fall asleep watching television, so I’m not sure how the television being on proves he was awake. Without knowing the acoustics of RF’s house, it’s difficult to know whether he would likely be awakened by pounding on the door even in the presence of television noise, but it’s hardly implausible.

    Unless you want to argue that nobody except police will ever pound on a door, I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove by pointing out that RF heard someone pounding. So let me ask this question: suppose the people outside RF’s house had been burglar/robbers who intended to do him harm. In that scenario, what would you expect RF to see or hear that would be any different from what he did actually see and hear?

  30. Price says:

    Doc,

    I know we are getting off topic from today’s report. but I recall the police saying they did not fire a shot. What else did they have to say. How can you say Stonewalling, could RF’s attorney informed the public it was RF who fired the shot in the bedroom and his family misinformed the public. Maybe both sides were waiting for the lab reports to confirm the information. Back to Stonewalling, the same could apply to RF for not admitting to growing marijuana before the trail but he chose not to. My point is we should not be so blind in our rush to judgement.
    thank you again for you time.

  31. TPB says:

    Price,

    The Commonwealth has come to court lying. I am not sure this prosecuter would know the truth if he could see it.

    At least there is a least one Commonwealth Attoney that has some CLASS. He comes from Portsmouth.

    Thanks Friend,
    Stay Gold,
    TPB

  32. TPB says:

    Jack,

    If you live in Portsmouth, and have to go to court; you have a better chance at truth than Ryan had in Chesapeake.

    Thanks Friend,
    Stay Gold,
    TPB

  33. Price says:

    TPB,

    Correct RF has his rights BUT, he knew the truth because he fired the shot and grew the marijuana. I think what you wanted to say or felt the police should have provided the information to the public. Quick point, the more information put out there on this case the bigger the chance of having a biased juey either way, jmo.

  34. TPB says:

    Jack,

    You know at least one lawyer, Mr.James Broccoletti , that would work hard and seek the truth for you, if you had to go up against Ebert and or the City Of Chesapeake. Maybe you could get your trial moved to Portsmouth, that would be even better.

    Thanks Friend,
    Stay Gold,
    TPB

  35. TPB says:

    Price,
    Good Point on the biased Jury.

    Thanks Friend,
    Stay Gold,
    TPB

  36. Jack says:

    I was looking forward to seeing Broccoletti in action, but I’m kind of dissapointed. I think I would rather have Teddy Black. But, then again, if you have nothing to work with I guess he is doing an outstanding job.

  37. TPB says:

    Price,

    Who would actually trust the police? especially now?

    Thanks Friend,
    Stay Gold,
    TPB

  38. Blah Blah Blah says:

    SC,
    Had a feeling that would be your response. Was he sleep operating the remote when he turned the volume down. His memories of that evening are so vivid. Guns and drugs don’t mix. He retreated down the hall. I’m bored with this. Mr. Coherant going to get his gun. These clowns on the defense forgot to wear their make up.

  39. Bill says:

    Price, the thing is, the police work for the people, and have an obligation to explain their actions, particularly if they wish to have the people’s trust. Ryan Frederick does not work for us, and is defending himself against the state, which is using our resources to prosecute him. So in my view, he has the right to withhold explanations till the trial.

    Once more, remember that the CPD had a review of their procedures right after the Frederick/shivers incident took place, but is withholding the results from the public. Wouldn’t you like to know what was in that report, especially since your tax dollars (if you live in Chesapeake) paid for it?

  40. Blah Blah Blah says:

    I have an idea………………..Ask your local libral media for that review of polices. They will get it. Better yet ask Mike Mathers from news 3, he will make up something for ya.

  41. Zargon says:

    1) I can already tell you what’s in the report: the policy of knocking down doors of peaceful people is a-ok. But you can’t seriously expect them to publicly declare that they’ll just keep on hammering down doors, until all this dies down.

    2) It’s already been established RF was stone cold sober immediately following the raid, thanks. No matter what Ebert likes to believe.

    3) RF has vivid memories of the incident? So what? I remember the most traumatic incident of my life like it was yesterday, and it was quite a bit longer ago than a year. That incident did not include killing a person and coming to the realization that my life was probably over.

  42. Jumbo Jim says:

    Does anyone know if the Defense has tried to subpeona the CPD Internal Review of their procedures? Seems to me that a good defense is to go on the offensive against the CPD and their policy/procedures regarding this knock & announce raid.

    And since the CPD is a public agency, why should they be allowed to keep their report secret? Isn’t it in the public’s best interest to know how their police departments are operating?

  43. Jumbo Jim says:

    Were there any toxicology tests done on RF the night he was arrested? If not, the Defense should hammer away at the CPD for this lack of foresight as well.

    If the police take blood/breath tests of every DUI suspect, even those who have caused no harm or accident, it seems they would definitely take the same tests of someone who has killed one of their own.

  44. CEH says:

    Juris…,

    I’m not so certain of anything, but alot of bloggers here are. They’ve taken Frederick’s, his friends and neighbors word as gospel. I’m offering what I think are reasonable answers or explanations to the actions of law enforcement in this matter. The prosecutions missteps, I’m not so sure about. “Dynamic Entry” has its place in law enforcement. It should not be used as the first resort, only the last, unless the threat to a person’s life is immediate or there are other exigent circumstances, the safety of the officers involved is also a consideration. That being said, it must always be prepared for. You indicate the police should only do it when they “know” a person’s history. That is only one indicator of possible future behavior. The police do not have crystal balls and they cannot know a person’s intent or what is in their heart. How long do they wait when they are there to serve a warrant. If they know someone is inside, but isn’t coming to the door, do they stand out there with their thumbs up you know what, or do they gain entry to do their jobs? It is a long standing debate even among cops. It is dangerous. Sometimes it is necessary. Each situation should reviewed on its own merits and they cannot all be lumped together.

    Ms. Johnson in Atlanta: tragic, crooked cops all around. I hope they rot in federal prison. Not the same situation.

    Wrong address and the cop gets killed. In general, if the homeowner didn’t know or should not have known, I don’t think they should be charged, it was the mistake of the police that caused the incident. Again, each situation has to be judged on the facts and one or two sentences doesn’t suffice. Again, this situation was the right address.

  45. Scooby Doo says:

    I can only go by the Pilot and this blog for reports on testimonies. Based on those sources I have noticed a lot of misquotes in the comments about Frederick’s and others testimonies.
    Readings vary so widely in perception, how can we really trust any eyewitness, anytime, anywhere?
    Eyewitness testimony,re-enactments and demonstrations, forensics, art, photos and videos, etc. All must align beyond reasonable doubt. Anything less is a prosecution built on a house of cards.
    I saw that on Perry Mason. Or, maybe it was My Cousin Vinny!

  46. InterestedInJustice says:

    1. Thank you for the time and effort that has been taken to keep the public informed.

    2. People need to know what is going on, if the police can break into your house because of something someone says (and someone with a record to boot) then I think we all need to be careful who we piss off. Friends , family anyone wanting to get back. That in it self is scary.

    3. Seems that some of these policeman were on their way out to bigger and better federal gigs, maybe this was pratice for them.

    4. Dont you think the way the bullet traveled was a 1 and an million shot?

    5. I believe this is awful I feel 4 the family of the officer, and the family of Ryan.

    6. I DONT beleive this is first degree murder.

  47. Price says:

    Bill,

    Spare me the “we pay their salary” speech, do you tell that to the 16 YO kid when he screws up yourBig Mac order that you paid for. I agree with you, the police work for the public and did explain what happened during the trial just like RF. Stop with the double standard. Admit it, your thirst for infomation and details has blinded you. Seriously, take a look at what I said about providing too many details before a case goes to trial. If the police had put infomration out there that was negative towards RF you would scream, “they are trying to influnce the public”. The whole case could be delcared a mistrial if both sides provided all the information you think you are entitled to.
    As for the report paid with “my tax” dollars. Let the trial end first, which right now is the most important thing for two different families and hopefully the rest will fall into place.

  48. rhofulster says:

    “your thirst for information has blinded you”

    PRICELESS!

  49. omar says:

    “Spare me the “we pay their salary” speech, do you tell that to the 16 YO kid when he screws up yourBig Mac order that you paid for.”

    Your argument has bigger holes than an onion ring.

    Burger King pays that kid’s salary. We are just Burger King’s customers. Furthermore, if we don’t like how our Big Mac was made, we can go to McDonalds.

    Of course, the police DO work for the public, and I DO pay their salary. When they do a shit job, we can’t just go to another police department. On top of that, we are talking about life and death here, not hamburgers, so the need for accountability is much much higher.

    When the police take an action, we are ALL involved, not just RF and Det. Shivers. We are responsible for the laws, we pay for their enforcement, we eat the consequences. If this case were handled correctly, there would be no RF trial to wait for. There would be several other trials.

  50. John Sutton says:

    Fact check –

    Omar,
    McDonalds makes the Big Mac, Burger King makes the Whopper.

  51. ktc2 says:

    I think it’s clear here that he was shooting at the guy who had just smashed a whole in his door and appeared to be reaching inside to unlock it. I would say that’s clearly self defense.

    However, he missed that guy and hit another guy who was not even visible to him at the time.

    He killed someone unintentionally while acting in self defense against someone else. So what does that add up to? Because the intended target and the actual target were working in concert does that still qualify as self defense? I’m no lawyer.

    But at the very most were talking about manslaughter here, murder is completely off the chart.

  52. Marty says:

    ktc2-

    Great post. I’ve been wrestling with this all morning. To me, the justification for breaking in someone’s door needs to be airtight. To execute a warrant is not justification, thus RF is within his rights to defend what’s his, even if he heard them announce that they were police. There are too many instances of home invasions by people impersonating cops. Why would someone minding their own business feel they ‘must’ open their door for anyone?

    RF seems like a simple man, in the best sense of the word- he works, takes care of his family and property, and minds his own business. The world would be a better place with more Ryan Fredericks and less Eberts, that’s for sure.

  53. omar says:

    McDonalds told me what was up with the drive-through speaker. McDonalds said they saw Burger King opening up down the road, so they got our their flame broiler and started making whoppers. McDonalds knew it was against the law to violate trademark. McDonalds didn’t care though – they knew they were stealing business but pretending to get off on making an honest mistake. When this is over, McDonalds is going to hire the Hamburglar to steel all the whoppers.

    McDonalds demeanor was totally gangsta – the fella on the speaker kept saying “Who run Burgertown”, and wouldn’t let me get my burger until I said “McDonalds run Burgertown.”

    It ain’t right.

  54. ktc2,

    To be clear, RF did see the other guy (who turned out to be Shivers). All he was able to see was his blue jeans, but he knew there was a second guy. He also believed there were two burglars, because he saw called two different numbers that he found on his caller ID. That, in fact, is why he retreated to unjam and reload his weapon.

  55. Bill says:

    Price, it seems I don’t need to say anything in response to your post as rhofulster and omar basically covered the same territory, and quite elegantly, I might add.

  56. Price says:

    Bill,
    I see omar’s valid point abount accountabilty, but my reply would be if you do not like the city services then move. As for Rhof, I have demanded no information. We are getting off topic. I am not trying to approve or condone what the police have and have not done. I am not trying to prove that RF has knowingly lied too. In order for there to be a fair trial with an unbiased jury both sides are not and should not fight their cases through the media or some citizens who think they are entitled to the information before the trial just because they pay taxes. The parties directly involved do have that right. As for what information each side receives is up to the judge and evidence procedures. I keep going back to the WTKR report because that was a big media blunder, it was explained, but not in the same fashion it was reported and the damage was done. Stop saying the police should have provided that information, the PD said they did not fire a shot. In that case RF should not have provided false information during his jail house interview. It can go both ways. Cases are not to be tried in the media. Just sitting on the fence. PS, I do not like Big Macs.

  57. omar says:

    Price,

    “if you do not like the city services then move.”

    The city workers do not “own” the city. The citizens of the city own the city and employ the workers. The city is not some static entity with the rules set in stone and the power-players predefined. You don’t sign up to live under the rule of corrupt men just because you purchase land with corrupt rulers claiming sovereignty in close proximity. You don’t give up your rights just because others around you have historically done so.

    If you don’t like the city services, you should fire the servants, and they can stay or leave at their pleasure. It is not a sin to scream, yell, protest, and cry when people in the government act in ways that are not true to the spirit of public service. It’s a virtue.

    One could also argue “well, the citizens have hired these people, and that’s the way they like it, so if you don’t like it then move…it’s the will of the people.” And that’s certainly an option. But that is certainly an inferior option than kicking the bums out of their cushy offices. And that’s why we are here and other places, kicking, screaming, protesting, and crying. I prefer to give the citizenry the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their ability to throw out the bums when needed. But nobody knows when that time is unless other people are throwing a fit when they see it happen instead of moving away.

  58. wtf says:

    ktc2,Rhof, very well put.That is the sound of a tail going between legs as they walk away.After all of the serious talk,we need a Price,Jack or Lima Charlie to keep it entertaining. Let us not forget when the time is right to question how many of our tax dollars went into paying LE to monitor and comment on web sites.

  59. Bill says:

    Another problem with the “if you don’t like it, then move” is that the issues with the drug war and the militarization of policing is that these problems are cropping up all over the country. If people do not raise their voices to oppose trends that are dangerous to liberty, but simply put their tails between their legs and move, then sooner or later there will be no place to move to.

    Or, as Thomas Jefferson DIDN’T write in the Declaration of Independence, “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People…to go someplace else.”

  60. Bill says:

    Please pardon the horrendous structure of my first sentence in the post above…or, on second thought, if you don’t like it, go read something else…

  61. Donny says:

    Have any of you gone to the VAPilot website and listened to the recording of RF’s initial interrogation? He sounds just as I would expect I would sound if I had just been told that I had killed a cop when I thought I was repelling a criminal. Any criminal who’s seen COPS on TV knows that you don’t say anything to the police if you’re arested until after you talk to your lawyer (Which is really good advice even if you’ve done nothing wrong). How can anyone try to paint this terrified kid as a premeditating cop killer?

  62. ktc2 says:

    Donny,

    Because they are evil. Plain and simple. It’s the only explanation that works.

  63. Price says:

    Ok, I give up you guys can not seem to debate the orginal point. We seem to go off on side tangents. I want you to keep asking questions, yelling and protesting as long as it does not hurt the judical process in this case, for you just may effect the outcome in a negative way. Like I said before I am not approving or disapproving what the police have done and the same goes for RF until the case has been tired in court and not the media. I will wait until the defense has had a chance to present their case.

  64. Donny says:

    Sorry to hijack your train of thought, but I wanted to let everyone here know about the interrogation tape on VA Pilot.

  65. ktc2 says:

    Here’s Bill Hicks describing my feelings about LE. He’s talking about Marketing people but the feeling is the same.



    First attempt at an HTML link so . . . it may not work.

  66. wtf says:

    Thanks Donny, don’t worry about Price.We all understand his points,that change everytime he is backed into a corner.

  67. omar says:

    Price,

    You were the one who kept changing the subject, buddy. You were the one who said “move”. And it’s not cool to say “I’m not talking about this anymore” then turn around and talk about it.

    Side tangent or not, it’s not our job to sit down and wait for anything. We aren’t on the Jury. We are grownups perfectly capable of discussing current events within the context of our beliefs.

  68. cem says:

    I LOVE this website…..

  69. ktc2 says:

    Let’s all hope for some more good news for Mr. Frederick today.

    Remember he really needs an acquital because a hung jury will just start the whole thing over and give the prosecutors a new batch of 12 people to try to hoodwink. Even with their exhibited level of incompetence, with unlimited “do overs” they’ll eventually do it.

  70. price says:

    Omar,

    I concur with the adult and discussion of the events with our own beliefs. I have tried to remian objective on both sides and stay away from petty thoughts; the “move” comment was childish on my part. It would be pretty boring on here if someone did not take an objective view instead of just calling Ivan and Lima(?) names.

  71. supercat says:

    They’ve taken Frederick’s, his friends and neighbors word as gospel.

    Even if practically everything the cops say is true, there’s nothing there that would contradict RF’s claims of self-defense. If the first cop’s announcement was sufficiently feeble that the garage team didn’t hear it, and if doors and the walls of RF’s house were sufficiently soundproof that cops didn’t immediately recognize the report of his pistol as a gunshot, that would suggest that it would have been difficult for RF to have heard any announcement. His ability to hear knocking does not contradict the notion that his house was essentially soundproof, since low frequency sounds like knocking can frequently pass through materials that will totally muffle higher frequency sounds (in my old apartment, a resident two floors down liked to play loud music; from right outside his apartment, the music didn’t sound particularly bass-heavy, but from my own apartment all I could hear was annoyingly loud bass).

    It should not be used as the first resort, only the last, unless the threat to a person’s life is immediate or there are other exigent circumstances, the safety of the officers involved is also a consideration.

    Can you identify any exigent circumstances the cops faced in this particular situation, prior to their efforts to batter down the door, that would have justified a forced entry? I am unaware of the cops or prosecution having even suggested any.

    Absent exigent circumstances, why should efforts to force entry into a dwelling without first making all reasonable efforts to contact the occupant be considered anything less than reckless? If the occupant of the property was a fugitive, that could qualify as ‘exigent circumstances’. Likewise if he was believed to have hostages. Was there anything to justify forced entry in the extant case? Even if everything the police say is true, I don’t see any.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: