Deputy Wyman's killer indicted

[Ralph]

FA, I imagine his comprehension of the assault would come into the equation somewhere.
For that is what it was, an assault.
I never said he was wrong, but I am not saying he was right either. Any sane individual with all their capacities functioning would have surrendered post haste long before that, but he was not at the time. And apparently, neither was the person who ordered the assault.

How this plays out isn’t in my playbook or field of expertise, and I’m glad it’s not, for there would be heads rolling from all directions.
But at the end of the day, Patterson did fire upon and kill a LEO.

From what I have read and what I have been told, this was a “closed event”, they wanted to do this themselves, didn’t invite outside trained negotiators in, nor solicit aid from other LE agencies. I don’t know all the facts and I doubt anyone on the outside of that perimeter ever will, all we have is what we learn in the public forums and published accounts.

Wyman should not have been inside the active perimeter. He was, despite his background or any label put on him, a simple deputy. Once ERT arrived on the scene SOP would have relegated first responders to securing the outside perimeter and crowd control. But we already know this wasn’t played according to SOP’s as most of us know them.

In the end I feel it will boil down to “who killed who” and the how and why may be lost.
The only thing I take away from all this is that there is someone who wakes every morning, shuffles off to the bathroom and eventually looks in the mirror and says to themselves, “what the f&^K did I do?”

[bobbbiez]

Aug 5, 2011 12:54:23 GMT -5 firstamendment said:

Below is the section of Penal law he's been charged with for the death, and two counts of attempted:

§ 125.26 Aggravated murder.
A person is guilty of aggravated murder when:
1. With intent to cause the death of another person, he or she causes
the death of such person, or of a third person who was a person
described in subparagraph (i), (ii) or (iii) of paragraph (a) of this
subdivision engaged at the time of the killing in the course of
performing his or her official duties; and
(a) Either:
(i) the intended victim was a police officer as defined in subdivision
thirty-four of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law who was at the
time of the killing engaged in the course of performing his or her
official duties, and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known
that the victim was a police officer; or
(ii) the intended victim was a peace officer as defined in paragraph a
of subdivision twenty-one, subdivision twenty-three, twenty-four or
sixty-two (employees of the division for youth) of section 2.10 of the
criminal procedure law who was at the time of the killing engaged in the
course of performing his or her official duties, and the defendant knew
or reasonably should have known that the victim was such a uniformed
court officer, parole officer, probation officer, or employee of the
division for youth; or
(iii) the intended victim was an employee of a state correctional
institution or was an employee of a local correctional facility as
defined in subdivision two of section forty of the correction law, who
was at the time of the killing engaged in the course of performing his
or her official duties, and the defendant knew or reasonably should have
known that the victim was an employee of a state correctional
institution or a local correctional facility; and
(b) The defendant was more than eighteen years old at the time of the
commission of the crime; or
2. (a) With intent to cause the death of a person less than fourteen
years old, he or she causes the death of such person, and the defendant
acted in an especially cruel and wanton manner pursuant to a course of
conduct intended to inflict and inflicting torture upon the victim prior
to the victim's death. As used in this subdivision, "torture" means the
intentional and depraved infliction of extreme physical pain that is
separate and apart from the pain which otherwise would have been
associated with such cause of death; and
(b) The defendant was more than eighteen years old at the time of the
commission of the crime.
3. In any prosecution under subdivision one or two of this section, it
is an affirmative defense that:
(a) The defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional
disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the
reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a
person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the
defendant believed them to be. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall
constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of,
aggravated manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the first
degree or any other crime except murder in the second degree; or
(b) The defendant's conduct consisted of causing or aiding, without
the use of duress or deception, another person to commit suicide.
Nothing contained in this paragraph shall constitute a defense to a
prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, aggravated manslaughter in
the second degree, manslaughter in the second degree or any other crime
except murder in the second degree.
Aggravated murder is a class A-I felony.


Notice this charge hinges on intent. If you ask me, and I think Patterson will probably say the same thing, he didn't intent to kill anybody, just he tried to get them to stop shooting him. I can't see him being convicted of aggravated murder, especially since Mc Namara publicly stated he never threatened officers. That brings a big question mark as to intent.

Toward the bottom of the charge it does give an affirmative defense for extreme emotional disturbance.

Another case in the OD this morn, "Lee man indicted in shooting incident with state trooper," for y'all to examine.

[firstamendment]

Very much agreed, Ralph. I, too, have heard much the same and actually it was from a friend IN the OCSO that told me they did not want the NYSP helping out here.

Your post mirrors that which I'd stated before from my logical reasoning, that Wyman should not have been part of the situation once ERT got there.

The murder and attempted murder charges still hinge on intent. If anything, I think your previous post indicating some sort of manslaughter as a lesser included offense might be a compromise. But I want to see this go to trial because the public deserves to know what went wrong and who is responsible.

BZ, the situation you reference looked like a suicide by cop that didn't pan out. I believe the man was quoted as saying "please shoot me" or something of the sort. Menacing a police officer is certainly an appropriate charge for him.

[bobbbiez]

Aug 5, 2011 13:42:18 GMT -5 firstamendment said:

Very much agreed, Ralph. I, too, have heard much the same and actually it was from a friend IN the OCSO that told me they did not want the NYSP helping out here.

Your post mirrors that which I'd stated before from my logical reasoning, that Wyman should not have been part of the situation once ERT got there.

The murder and attempted murder charges still hinge on intent. If anything, I think your previous post indicating some sort of manslaughter as a lesser included offense might be a compromise. But I want to see this go to trial because the public deserves to know what went wrong and who is responsible.

BZ, the situation you reference looked like a suicide by cop that didn't pan out. I believe the man was quoted as saying "please shoot me" or something of the sort. Menacing a police officer is certainly an appropriate charge for him.

Only because he didn't succeed in shooting the cop.

[firstamendment]

Probably because he had no intention of shooting the cop. Pointed the gun at the cop to invoke the cop to shoot him. His intent was to get the cop to do what he couldn't, end his life.

[Deleted]

I don't think he is guilty of shooting that deputy either. I think the deputy was trigger happy and maybe recalling events that happened to him while in Iraq. And possibly in that split moment of time when Wyman pulled the trigger of his gun he flashed back to some event in Iraq that reminded him of that event. I think the deputy was acting like a marine and not like a deputy. His funeral is a reflection of Wyman as a marine and not a deputy. I think that is what happened based on what I have read and what I can conclude. The problem is that I don't think that Patterson will get a jury to believe this and so he will be found guilty. A shame but in this case no justice will be served. Deputy Wyman's killer was himself.

[bobbbiez]

Aug 5, 2011 14:27:54 GMT -5 firstamendment said:

Probably because he had no intention of shooting the cop. Pointed the gun at the cop to invoke the cop to shoot him. His intent was to get the cop to do what he couldn't, end his life.

Well, actually unless you are a mind-reading there is no way for us to know what his intent really was. In the past there have been many officers and private citizens killed by those who want to end their lives and took others with them. Definitely not the first time and sadly won't be the last.

[dgriffin]

Aug 5, 2011 20:19:26 GMT -5 @alanquigly said:

I don't think he is guilty of shooting that deputy either. I think the deputy was trigger happy and maybe recalling events that happened to him while in Iraq. And possibly in that split moment of time when Wyman pulled the trigger of his gun he flashed back to some event in Iraq that reminded him of that event. I think the deputy was acting like a marine and not like a deputy. His funeral is a reflection of Wyman as a marine and not a deputy. I think that is what happened based on what I have read and what I can conclude. The problem is that I don't think that Patterson will get a jury to believe this and so he will be found guilty. A shame but in this case no justice will be served. Deputy Wyman's killer was himself.

Well, lucky for those of us who want to live in a civil society, a jury will probably not agree. Here in this part of the universe when a man kills another, he is answerable for his crime (so far) except within an extremely narrow set of circumstances that are hard to prove because they seldom occur. If you pull the trigger, you pay for it. Were that not true, many more undesirables would be walking the streets and everyone would be in a lot more danger.

The path to law and order is ..... law and order.

[Ralph]

Aug 5, 2011 20:19:26 GMT -5 @alanquigly said:

I don't think he is guilty of shooting that deputy either. I think the deputy was trigger happy and maybe recalling events that happened to him while in Iraq. And possibly in that split moment of time when Wyman pulled the trigger of his gun he flashed back to some event in Iraq that reminded him of that event. I think the deputy was acting like a marine and not like a deputy. His funeral is a reflection of Wyman as a marine and not a deputy. I think that is what happened based on what I have read and what I can conclude. The problem is that I don't think that Patterson will get a jury to believe this and so he will be found guilty. A shame but in this case no justice will be served. Deputy Wyman's killer was himself.

Alan, I usually try to be objective and weigh all sides of an argument, statement, debate or discussion before I respond. Usually when I do it is in good taste to interject an educated opinion.
However…….every now and then something will come along to “tweak” me enough to count to 100 and do a few laps before I respond.
Well I counted to 100 and it’s too damn hot to do laps, so I will just respond to your statement in the best and most eloquent way I am able.

BULLSHIT!

Wyman was a Marine and a Law Enforcement Officer; his funereal would reflect him as a Marine if he had been a garbage collector, an auto mechanic, or collecting cans off the corner.

I am sure he was not suffering flashbacks nor PTSD from his tour in Iraq, he would never have made it past the psych exams or gotten through the academy without it being noticed.

I am sure he was not trigger happy as he never fired his weapon…..which was a TASER by the way.

Wyman was no doubt following orders, no matter if those orders were flawed or not. He was there looking for an opening in an effort to take the perpetrator in question into custody without loss of life, armed only with a Taser and a flashlight.
Regardless of the outcome of the entire debacle, he put himself in the line of fire to protect the perpetrator and those around him through non-lethal methods.
THAT is a hero, not a dysfunctional Marine.

You are are right about one thing, no justice will be served here, for a fine young man will never walk this plane again

[corner]

wasn't the sherrif himself there directing all of this?

[firstamendment]

Aug 6, 2011 7:13:00 GMT -5 corner said:

wasn't the sherrif himself there directing all of this?

Yes he was, he and his appointed Undersheriff.

[firstamendment]

Aug 5, 2011 21:15:47 GMT -5 bobbbiez said:

Aug 5, 2011 14:27:54 GMT -5 firstamendment said:

Probably because he had no intention of shooting the cop. Pointed the gun at the cop to invoke the cop to shoot him. His intent was to get the cop to do what he couldn't, end his life.

Well, actually unless you are a mind-reading there is no way for us to know what his intent really was. In the past there have been many officers and private citizens killed by those who want to end their lives and took others with them. Definitely not the first time and sadly won't be the last.

Actually, don't have to read his mind. He was quoted as saying something to the effect of shoot me at the time he was shot. Seems pretty suicidal to me. There is no telling what set him off yet and yes there are some who will be so selfish to take others with him. That situation, the officer was completely justified in shooting this suspect. It was clear that the man fired once and then pointed the gun at the officer. The man is lucky all he lost were a few fingers at this point. He should be getting carried by six as opposed to being judged by 12.

[Deleted]

I am just saying this doesn't at up. Sure Patterson pulled the trigger to shoot Wyman but the intent to kill was not there. Patterson was cornered and he was not in a stable mindset he is about to be killed and he responds, no intent. I still think Wyman's mind snapped. Maybe he wanted to be a knight in shinning armour.

[firstamendment]

Personally, I wouldn't go as far as to blame Wyman for getting himself killed. I put blame on the chain of command, or lack thereof. He may have moved in with his taser after Patterson was stunned with the non-lethal ammo on an instinct, which could come from his LEO and Marine training. However, he was not a trained member of the ERT, therefore he never should have been in front of that garage to begin with once the ERT took over the scene. By not removing him from the situation that is how the Sheriff's Office got him killed.

[JGRobinson]

The Chain failed everyone. No need for a frontal assault ever in a scenario that hostages and WMD's arent a factor. The right teams would have been equipt with NODs and after cutting his power, No food and no water, it would have only been a little while and he would have been much more willing to call it a day. Why did they ramp it up, Im still not at all sure what was the rush to end this thing.