Patterson Trial

[Deleted]

Gee there seems to be a lot of mistakes by law enforcement in this trial. It seems that we have an exhausted, confused Patterson sitting for hours on a small stool being shot at with fake bullets then rushed upon by Wyman with a taser just after a deputy aimed his rifle with a lethal bullet fired but the rifle didn't work. Seems that orders were either not heard correctly or not followed. Sometimes I feel that to much force was being used against Patterson which caused his death. Not sure what to believe in this emotionally driven trial. I keep asking myself what would Jesus say about all of this. How would he direct us to solve this trial.
www.uticaod.com/features/x582077331/Wyman-trial-Day-3-Deputy-s-gun-failed-to-fire-before-Patterson-s-first-shot

[dgriffin]

It's early in the trial. And the news reporting doesn't seem top notch. In fact, the reporting seems a bit confusing.

[firstamendment]

Confusing seems to be what went on in Knoxboro that night. They don't have a case of Aggravated Murder. Manslaughter at best but they didn't charge him with it. See, what a lot of people don't understand is a murder charge requires the intent to kill. Did he intend to kill or did he simply intent to protect himself. From the early details I wondered whether Patterson shot at the spotlights on him to prevent them from seeing him to continue shooting. Based on the medical examiner's testimony, the fatal slug struck Wyman's hand before his neck, so it would seem very likely the tactic of shooting out the light was his intent.

Something else I find missing is OSHA. After Off. Joe Corr was killed from NH, OSHA had investigated and that was how we learned NHPD weren't using vests. So far, we have not heard anything about OSHA in this case and I wonder why that could be. He died in the line of duty, which is "on the job" as far as OSHA is concerned. One problem I see for the OCSO is that Wyman was not trained in these types of situations, so why was he allowed to remain at the scene? I also have to question whether Wyman was in a position of cover or not. If things unfolded as quickly as they say, from when they pelted him with non-lethal to when he fired back, it doesn't give Wyman much time at all to move from cover to the area in front of the garage. So, I have to wonder if he were in the open all along holding a spotlight.

Wyman's death is very tragic but I do not see any jury convicting Patterson of murder when the prosecution needs to prove intent. The entire night he had been threatening his own life. From very early on, only a day or two after the incident, Mc Namara PUBLICLY stated Patterson at no time ever threatened the police. So, where is the intent to kill anybody?

so far we've seen several standoffs since Knoxboro and so far all of them ended peacefully with just one having shots fired. The guy from Lee who tried "suicide by cop" was shot when he did aim at a Trooper. Fully justified shoot without a doubt. But you'll also take note that there was one just yesterday that involved the OCSO and they seemed to have changed tactics from what they did in Knoxboro.

www.wktv.com/news/local/Taberg-stand-off-suspect-arraigned-and-sent-to-jail-138714994.html

During the stand-off, law enforcement members were "erring on the side of caution." Lt. McCarthy said they knew Bragg had high-powered weapons inside the home. Officials say weapons were seized from the home.


Imagine if they erred on the side of caution in Knoxboro. It never should have turned into a firefight unless Patterson forced that issue by either aiming or actually firing at police first. If he committed suicide and they couldn't stop it, so be it. But it never ever should have ended like this and now the Sheriff's Office is more on trial than Patterson is.

[bobbbiez]

Up-to-date the prosecution has put witnesses on the stand to testify to what Patterson had told them before the killing of the deputy. Patterson's girlfriend stated she was in fear of her life because of his actions toward her and another was Patterson's neighbor and good friend who testified that Patterson called him and told him he was locked and loaded and was not going to go to prison. The prosecution also brought out that Patterson had more rounds of ammo in his pockets which shows if he actually planned on committing suicide he wouldn't need the extra ammo.

Much more being brought out in the trial and unless you're in the court room you won't hear all the details on the news.

[Deleted]

FA, you hit the nail right on the head. I too have been thinking about some of what you said. I kkepasking myself where is the "intent". And all the reporting in print and on TV keeps making me doubt there ever was "intent". I just feel so sorry for everyone involved and I pray that the jury really thinks seriously about this one and not come to a false verdict based on emotion.

[firstamendment]

Actually, BZ, the neighbor testified that he called Patterson to find out what the hell was going on.

The Aggravated Murder charge hinges on intent. It is not like a regular murder charge that can be bootstrapped when someone dies in the commission of another felony. This one is specific to intent solely.

Even if he had boxes of rounds, I really don't see how that changes anything when everybody has already stated he never threatened the police neither in words nor in actions with his weapon. If he had, he assuredly would be facing a Menacing a Police Officer charge for that as well, but he's not. Also, someone making a claim they won't be taken alive or won't go to jail doesn't sound like a person with it upstairs. Sounds like at the very least emotional distress or at worse mental illness. And that, too is an affirmative defense against Aggravated Murder.

§ 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.


Intent is the key element to this charge. Also of note is Paragraph 3(a) for an affirmative defense regarding extreme emotional disturbance.

The girlfriend stated in fear of her life yet Patterson only faces a 2nd Degree Harassment (violation) charge for that dispute.

[bobbbiez]

Feb 4, 2012 20:18:07 GMT -5 firstamendment said:

Actually, BZ, the neighbor testified that he called Patterson to find out what the hell was going on.

Correct, I got confused in typing but what Patterson told his neighbor is also correct.

Hopefully, Patterson will take the stand in his own defense as planned. I do want to hear what he has to say.

[firstamendment]

www.uticaod.com/news/x1217537609/Patterson-indicted-in-shooting-death-of-Deputy-Wyman

Christian Patterson, 40, was indicted on charges of aggravated murder, two counts of attempted aggravated murder, all felonies, fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon, a misdemeanor, and second-degree harassment, a violation, documents stated.

The harassment charge stems from a domestic dispute with a woman that originally brought officials to Patterson's Knoxboro Road home, District Attorney Scott McNamara said Wednesday.



I would bet he will say he tried shooting out their spotlights so they couldn't see to keep shooting him. I can't imagine anything to put someone further into emotional duress than to be shot, lethal or non-lethal rounds. they aren't going to convict him on any of the Aggravated murder charges.

[bobbbiez]

Feb 4, 2012 20:18:07 GMT -5 firstamendment said:

Also, someone making a claim they won't be taken alive or won't go to jail doesn't sound like a person with it upstairs. Sounds like at the very least emotional distress or at worse mental illness. And that, too is an affirmative defense against Aggravated Murder

That is not necessary true. Many a guilty party willingly committing a crime has made that statement in thoughts of being captured. Same as them saying if they're going down they will take someone else with them. I see that as a direct threat not as a mental problem. I also see if Patterson didn't have any kind of intent to cause anyone harm he had plenty of time to just walk out and end it all before anyone was harmed. End results was all in his hands and actions at the beginning and at the end.

[Clipper]

I think that the police simply lost patience and made a mistake in rushing the situation to a conclusion. One of the officers stated that they were worried about daylight giving Patterson an advantage in that he would be able to see better to take aim at police. That officer said it was 2 AM. Hell that would give them at least 3 more hours before daylight would become any sort of a factor. Just seems that they brought about the mess through confusing orders, or no orders, and a young deputy that was supposed to be holding a flashlight on the trigger of the gun and Patterson's hand, but acted on his own judgement and rushed in with nothing in his hand but a taser. Lack of experience, and lack of proper training in how to handle such situation ended with a loss of life. Rushing a man with a loaded shotgun with nothing but a taser is simply poor judgment.

In the last few days there have been a couple of other standoffs. Both were ended without injury or death, and both were handled with the State Police running the show. I will never understand why an armed standoff was handled without the Sheriff's Dept requesting help from NYSP, and if they did request help, why it was not provided. There is a big difference between the resources and the training available to the state police and what the Sheriff's Dept has available.

I have the utmost respect for the Oneida County Sheriff's Dept. and have a former brother in law and several friends that are deputies, but in this case, they made a lot of mistakes and it cost a young man his life. I feel badly for all concerned, but I don't see them convicting this guy of murder when they fired the non lethal rounds making him think he was about to be shot and killed. It became a case of self preservation for him at that point.

[dgriffin]

I think you're right, Clip and FA, and I don't expect he'll be convicted of murder, let alone aggravated. But he will do jail time. After all, he was the cause of the entire episode and the jury will keep that in mind. By the way, am I correctly assuming the jury has the wherewithal in this case to convict on a lesser charge? Does anyone know?

[firstamendment]

It is my understanding that, once the situation escalated from a domestic to the standoff, that the NYSP did offer assistance and that Sheriff Maciol declined. I heard this from a few sources including one friend WITH the Sheriff's office who works in the Corrections Division. And quite honestly, I don't see why the NYSP wouldn't offer assistance if they are available anyway, so I have no doubt it is true that the NYSP did offer to help. This is a case where a small town cop like Maciol was not experienced enough to lead in this situation. He was in over his head here and should have deferred to the State for their expertise. Not saying Townsend would have been a better sheriff and Masucci from Rome actually was probably the most qualified from an actual LEO experience standpoint.

Dave, I am unsure if charges like manslaughter and the like are what they call lesser included charges along with the murder charge. All I know is from the actual indictement, he was indicted on Aggravated Murder for the death of Wyman and two charges of Attempted for the two additional shots he fired after the first and fatal one at Wyman. If those other lesser charges are not automatically considered, then he's not going to prison for anything related to the deaths or any of the shots he fired. What is left, according to the indictment mentioned in the news is 2nd degree harassment, which I've stated many times before is simply a violation punishable by a fine and/or very little time in a county jail. And the other charge was 4th degree criminal possession of a weapon, a misdemeanor. If all they end up convicting him on are the harassment and weapon charges, pretty much guaranteed he is walking out a free man once the trial is over. Considering he has been held without bail in police custody almost since this first happened, he already has 7 months of time service to his credit. I do not think he can get any more than a year in jail on the weapon charge, so even if he gets a maximum sentence for it, he's still looking at just a few more months behind bars. You say he will do time, and quite honestly, he already might have done all the time he will get as time served without bail is time served. It doesn't matter that it is time before being convicted, they always have to credit a defendant for that time no matter what.

Not sure if Swimmy has any criminal experience or enough knowledge to comment on lesser included charges in a murder case. This is where watching too much Law and Order can be a bad thing because that is probably a term I heard on the show!

I was reading Rocco's account of the testimony and pretty much laughed my ass off about the "2AM sun going to be up soon" statement. Even in the month of June, where we are approaching the longest day of the year as far as daylight is concerned, the sun still does not rise until 5AM or later. They still had 3 hours or more until the daylight would even factor into it. Besides, why would daylight help Patterson and hinder police? The police still have the upper hand where they can rotate out tired officers for fresh ones. They have the resources to pack a lunch and be there all day if need be. Patterson, on the other hand, had very few options at his disposal. He's cornered in a garage, he ain't going anywhere. He's not getting up to look for food in a wide open garage, he's not finding a corner to take a leak. He's pretty much stuck right where he is and eventually that will wear him to the point he either gives up by surrendering or gives up by eating the business end of the gun. And then you've got to figure sitting in the garage eventually will heat up from the sun. Given no civilians were being held hostage and no civilians were allowed anywhere near there, time was on their side without a doubt.

Funny you should bring up those other peacefully resolved standoffs since Knoxboro, just as I did. That alone should bolster the case for the defense that errors made by the OCSO are what is to blame here since those same mistakes seem to have been avoided in these more recent cases. Matter of fact, one of the Troopers in the NY Mills standoff last week was quoted as saying they knew time was always on their side. As tragic as it might be, if Patterson had succeeded in killing himself, at least nobody else would get hurt or killed as a result. I'm not saying just let him do it, since police do try to protect the public even if it is from themself, but don't aggravate the situation like what happened here.

[firstamendment]

Two lesser included offenses of Aggravated Murder are Aggravated Manslaughter 1st degree and Manslaughter 1st degree.

Manslaughter, not aggravated would not apply here because these were LEO's involved, but here is the legal def of Manslaughter 1st:
§ 125.20 Manslaughter in the first degree.
A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when:
1. With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he
causes the death of such person or of a third person; or
2. With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the
death of such person or of a third person under circumstances which do
not constitute murder because he acts under the influence of extreme
emotional disturbance, as defined in paragraph (a) of subdivision one of
section 125.25. The fact that homicide was committed under the influence
of extreme emotional disturbance constitutes a mitigating circumstance
reducing murder to manslaughter in the first degree and need not be
proved in any prosecution initiated under this subdivision; or
3. He commits upon a female pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks
an abortional act which causes her death, unless such abortional act is
justifiable pursuant to subdivision three of section 125.05; or
4. Being eighteen years old or more and with intent to cause physical
injury to a person less than eleven years old, the defendant recklessly
engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of serious physical injury
to such person and thereby causes the death of such person.
Manslaughter in the first degree is a class B felony.

Aggravated Manslaughter 1st might apply as a lesser included BUT it still hinges on INTENT. This is where my theory he was trying to shoot out the spotlights is a key difference of shooting at an inanimate object as opposed to intending on shooting a person.

§ 125.22 Aggravated manslaughter in the first degree.
A person is guilty of aggravated manslaughter in the first degree
when:
1. with intent to cause serious physical injury to a police officer or
peace officer, where such officer was in the course of performing his or
her official duties and the defendant knew or reasonably should have
known that such victim was a police officer or a peace officer, he or
she causes the death of such officer or another police officer or peace
officer; or
2. with intent to cause the death of a police officer or peace
officer, where such officer was in the course of performing his or her
official duties and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known
that such victim was a police officer or peace officer, he or she causes
the death of such officer or another police officer or peace officer
under circumstances which do not constitute murder because he or she
acts under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance, as defined in
paragraph (a) of subdivision one of section 125.25. The fact that
homicide was committed under the influence of extreme emotional
disturbance constitutes a mitigating circumstance reducing murder to
aggravated manslaughter in the first degree or manslaughter in the first
degree and need not be proved in any prosecution initiated under this
subdivision.
Aggravated manslaughter in the first degree is a class B felony.


Even with the consideration of manslaughter or aggravated manslaughter, it is still hard to consider the jury finding him guilty when testimony and statements made by the DA previously state he didn't point his gun at them nor verbally threaten to harm them. I suppose through some of his statements, one could have the opinion his statements might be construed as threatening, like saying "locked and loaded". But then you can still look at how long this went on with no action by Patterson and he only acted the way he did in reaction to the actions of police shooting him.

Am I saying people should go ahead and hold police at bay like this? Nope, not at all. Should he be held accountable for holding police off like he did? Absolutely. But I am not about to call this man a cop killer when chances are highly likely he never would have shot at them had they not shot at him.

One more thing I also found sickening and offensive was how Maciol and his undersheriff made statements that their personnel did nothing wrong, even though they also publicly stated they would be reviewing procedures and probably making changes. Face it, there were mistakes made or else you would not be amending procedures in dealing with these situations. Just admit it. But just like the former Sheriff could not admit they railroaded Steven Barnes, even when confronted with DNA evidence that exhonerated him, why am I surprised that this Sheriff also won't admit he was wrong? Do you think the public would lose faith in LEO's if they actually admit mistakes were made, or if they try to pretend or even cover up mistakes made? Hey, I would rather they say we did this that and the other incorrectly and these are the steps we are taking to make sure it doesn't happen again. For this reason, I am very glad this case did go to trial so that the public doesn't simply convict this guy based on press releases by the OCSO and the DA, and actually have to see and hear the details of what happened and what went wrong and by who. No doubt all of the facts will not completely be revealed in the trial but at the very least we are getting a lot more details had he taken a plea, or even been killed in the standoff that night. If he were killed that night, we'd never get a full account of this and I have no doubt the "who shot at who first" would have been lost somewhere along the lines.

BTW, where is Maciol's report on the investigation into this? Hasn't released it to the public yet. Did the defense get to see it? Bet they wanted to see it.

No, I am not anti-cop, but when they make mistakes and people get hurt or killed, don't try to blame it on someone else. Whether those mistakes were oversights, lapses in judgement or just plain recklessness, someone needs to be held accountable here. And simply saying that Wyman acted on his own like Maciol did publicly state is passing the buck and a disgrace to Wyman's name. Just as much as I want to see criminals punished, I want to know our LEO's also play by the rules and don't go making these situations any worse than they need to be. There is only one person that night who should have been in harm's way and the only one who should have been in a position to lose his life and that was Chris Patterson. I have to question police procedures when a man is cornered in his garage for over 6 hours, a deputy gets killed in the process and the suspect wasn't the one who started the shooting AND is still alive at the end of it all.

[firstamendment]

Feb 4, 2012 20:30:20 GMT -5 bobbbiez said:

Feb 4, 2012 20:18:07 GMT -5 firstamendment said:

Actually, BZ, the neighbor testified that he called Patterson to find out what the hell was going on.

Correct, I got confused in typing but what Patterson told his neighbor is also correct.

Hopefully, Patterson will take the stand in his own defense as planned. I do want to hear what he has to say.

What he told his neighbor is correct according to who? The neighbor? At least that is what the neighbor said under oath anyway. Whether that is factual or not is another question. I'm not going to outright call the man a liar because I have no idea. But it seems this neighbor also made statements where he showed some negative feelings against Patterson. I believe this is the same neighbor who said Patterson wasn't a good hunter because he couldn't shoot for shit, as was quoted in the news. The witness sounds more like a guy with an axe to grind than anything else.

www.wktv.com/news/local/Christian-Patterson-murder-trial-continues--138633799.html

A friend and neighbor of Christian Patterson named Ernest Davenport then took the witness stand. Davenport said he received a phone call from Patterson's teenage son the night of the shooting. Davenport told "little Chris" to call the police if his dad had gone over the edge. Davenport called Chris Sr and claims he told him he was sick of his girlfriend (the son's mother) and that he couldn't take it, and that it was "done today," that he was "locked & loaded, was not going to jail or leaving" his house.

Ernest Davenport testified that Christian Patterson was not a skilled hunter because he "couldn't shoot for (expletive)."



What does Patterson's skills or lack thereof have to do with a murder trial? Ha! If anything, maybe the defense could use the assessment that the defendant "couldn't shoot for shit" and therefore was incapable of shooting what he aimed at!

[corner]

fa once someone has created an un lawful armed situation self defense is out the window if you refuse to drop your weapons and surrender that being said the sherrifs office had time on their hands and should have waited him out or call in the state police to take over who are better trained for thes situations...the only time i have seen self def used as an affirmative defense against the police is when they kicked in the wrong door and the home owner shot and killed one not knowing who was breaking in..