|
|
Post by dgriffin on Feb 5, 2012 10:02:12 GMT -5
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.. I think that's the key to this case. The primary responsibility for everything that happened that night belongs to Patterson. He created the situation. Screw ups, bad judgements, etc. may all go to mitigate the degree of guilt, but in the words of my little brother, "he started it." |
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Feb 5, 2012 10:42:03 GMT -5
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.. Ahh but what determines if and when it becomes an unlawful armed situation? They went there based on a complaint of an argument between domestic partners. Neither the girlfriend nor the kid were on the premises at the time police arrived. What they encountered was one man sitting alone in his garage. I believe if he doesn't want to talk to the police about the argument that brought them there, he does have that right to remain silent. So, beyond that, what other reason would they have to suddenly corner a guy in his garage? This is a case that should have ended with Patterson being handed an appearance ticket for 2nd degree harassment for the argument with the girlfriend. Even if self defense will not fly in this case, Aggravated murder and Aggravated manslaughter both require the intent to kill someone and I am not seeing it here. |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Feb 5, 2012 12:15:02 GMT -5
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.. They went there based on a complaint of an argument between domestic partners. Neither the girlfriend nor the kid were on the premises at the time police arrived. What they encountered was one man sitting alone in his garage. I believe if he doesn't want to talk to the police about the argument that brought them there, he does have that right to remain silent. So, beyond that, what other reason would they have to suddenly corner a guy in his garage? This is a case that should have ended with Patterson being handed an appearance ticket for 2nd degree harassment for the argument with the girlfriend. Even if self defense will not fly in this case, Aggravated murder and Aggravated manslaughter both require the intent to kill someone and I am not seeing it here. I don't know. I'm not an attorney. But I'll bet it has something to do with when they told him to put his gun down and he refused. And come to think of it, for all I know ... since we can't read a person's mind ... a court may find it completely reasonable to assume intent by a person's actions or even their lack of a proper response. Anyway, I agree: No aggravated, probably. I do think he'll serve more time. |
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Feb 5, 2012 13:54:45 GMT -5
If you think it reasonable for the court to assume intent by a person's actions, then his inaction for 6+ hours before the shooting started acquits him. It might not conclusively show intent to commit suicide and it certainly doesn't show intent to kill anybody else for that matter. I'd also like to know why anyone should be required to put down a weapon they are legally holding (not holding in a threatening manner that is) when told to do so by police when they want to question them over an argument. Am I saying people shouldn't comply? Definitely not at all, they should comply, but what I am questioning is the legality of such request, especially given he was not suspected of committing a crime with a weapon in the first place.
Perhaps he should serve more time than what would be the sentence for the harassment and weapon charges, but I firmly do not believe he should be paying the price of life in prison when there were many, many mistakes made on the outside of that garage which can be conclusively linked to the death of Deputy Wyman.
Again, I am not anti-police so I hope Corner and BZ do not take my questioning the wrong way.
|
|
|
|
Post by corner on Feb 5, 2012 14:23:54 GMT -5
it is unlawful to refuse ti id yourself it is unlawful to refuse a directive to put down a weapon and speaking from experience as a LEO once a domestic complaint is made there is a 4 hour window to act and it usually ends in the arrest of someone
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Feb 5, 2012 15:30:15 GMT -5
If you think it reasonable for the court to assume intent by a person's actions, then his inaction for 6+ hours before the shooting started acquits him. It might not conclusively show intent to commit suicide and it certainly doesn't show intent to kill anybody else for that matter. I'd also like to know why anyone should be required to put down a weapon they are legally holding (not holding in a threatening manner that is) when told to do so by police when they want to question them over an argument. Am I saying people shouldn't comply? Definitely not at all, they should comply, but what I am questioning is the legality of such request, especially given he was not suspected of committing a crime with a weapon in the first place. Perhaps he should serve more time than what would be the sentence for the harassment and weapon charges, but I firmly do not believe he should be paying the price of life in prison when there were many, many mistakes made on the outside of that garage which can be conclusively linked to the death of Deputy Wyman. Again, I am not anti-police so I hope Corner and BZ do not take my questioning the wrong way. Corner I wouldn't worry about. He can only arrest you or shoot you. Bz, I would definitely worry about it!  |
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Feb 6, 2012 0:04:28 GMT -5
If you think it reasonable for the court to assume intent by a person's actions, then his inaction for 6+ hours before the shooting started acquits him. It might not conclusively show intent to commit suicide and it certainly doesn't show intent to kill anybody else for that matter. I'd also like to know why anyone should be required to put down a weapon they are legally holding (not holding in a threatening manner that is) when told to do so by police when they want to question them over an argument. Am I saying people shouldn't comply? Definitely not at all, they should comply, but what I am questioning is the legality of such request, especially given he was not suspected of committing a crime with a weapon in the first place. Perhaps he should serve more time than what would be the sentence for the harassment and weapon charges, but I firmly do not believe he should be paying the price of life in prison when there were many, many mistakes made on the outside of that garage which can be conclusively linked to the death of Deputy Wyman. Again, I am not anti-police so I hope Corner and BZ do not take my questioning the wrong way. Corner I wouldn't worry about. He can only arrest you or shoot you. Bz, I would definitely worry about it! Dave, you're getting to know me way too well.  FA, I do not take offense and I will always respect your opinion with the thought that we can agree to disagree respectfully. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and if I want that for myself then I have to allow that for others also. Believe me, kiddo, it takes a lot for anyone to offend me. I'm a big girl and am not afraid to stand up for what I believe is right even if I stand alone, so don't fret over anything. ;D My opinion is based on if Patterson didn't start this and if he ended it when the officers gave him plenty of chances and time to then a young deputy would not be dead. No matter what procedures everyone thought was wrong or right in trying to get Patterson to put down his gun, Patterson brought everything on himself and took a life. Plain and simple to me. I understand you and I simply disagree on that and you have that right to, so no sweat, kiddo.  |
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Feb 6, 2012 6:32:56 GMT -5
Times have changed greatly since the founders originally penned the final drafts of the documents that formed our free Nation. Fresh in there minds was the horrible and inhuman treatment they had received by Mother England who in their own minds had the right to control and take whatever they wanted from the colonies whenever they wanted. Our 2nd amendment rights are in play in this situation along with the right to own property. They weren't just an afterthought, a way to protect ourselves from wolves and Injuns, they were the very next thoughts they had after the right to free speech, one was penned to protect the other. The right to bear arms was established to protect ones-self from aggression from anyone that threatened harm to you or your family or our New American way of life, freedom to own land and pursue happiness without being infringed upon by anyone including government officials.
That wasn't going to be the case in New America. People not Governments nor their Constabularies owned this Country. No Lords, or kingdoms; no soldiers acting as tax collectors or law enforcement, just the USA and its citizens.
We are certainly a much different Nation yet our rights and responsibilities as Americans are timeless and ageless. Those rights cannot be infringed upon for any reason whatsoever. Police and Military members are aware of our expandability at the hands of justice done correctly but when it is done wrong, we've broken our promise to uphold the Constitution at all costs and if we die doing it, its not necessarily defensible.
I wasn't there and cant say what happened for sure but the accounts as I have heard and read are paramount to a rush to judgement and overreaction at least and an easily perceivable threat to his life and a home invasion by the police at worst. A young man lost his life acting as he believed was right and thats not subjective, many Americans have done the same for centuries and sadly had the same outcome.
We all felt the pain, distress and fear of a fictitious war hero defending his right to survive in the movie "First Blood", we cheered Rambo on as he vanquished the perpetrators even though they were police and military members because we knew, they drew the first blood not Sly! Patterson did not have all of the information and neither did the police, he was trapped and afraid for his life, they sought to protect him from doing harm to himself or others but did so as aggressors not negotiators, this wasn't a war, and he wasn't a terrorist or combatant until they fired on him. Assault is an Offensive action that is generally a term used to describe an attack, not the response to one. Patterson did not assault the Police, he defended himself against a superior force that had aggressor-like intention as proven by the fact they shot bullets at him unprovoked!
It does seem that other situations with suspects in actual crimes that have ended in a standoff as of late are handled much differently and the outcomes have been very positive. The crook ended up behind bars and the Cops got to go home with their families after. Proof that immediate actions don't have to include a full frontal assault to end peacefully. I really dont seek to make Paterson a hero, he already earned that title in Iraq (so did the officer). Not Guilty isnt a conviction of the officer that died, just an admission that means and methods need improvement to save others lives in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Feb 6, 2012 7:24:38 GMT -5
JG, that's one way to look at it. I think the jury will determine that Patterson caused his own problems when he set up an armed enclave in his garage. And it became illegal when he was asked by a police officer to put down his gun and he refused. And he didn't get any smarter over the hours he had to reflect on his behavior (and his chances of the police giving up and going home!) before the situation went to hell. The police will have questions to answer about their actions. Patterson will have a date with the prison system.
I can't agree this is a 2nd amendment issue or see Patterson as a hero. This is rather about living in an ordered society and not having to put up with a husband or a neighbor who when frustrated turns to weapons and thinks he's defending the Alamo. If Patterson lived in my neighborhood, I'd say Good Riddance.
|
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Feb 6, 2012 9:38:01 GMT -5
Yes its a very good Idea to do whatever the police say if you are ordered to do so, Mom always said the Man with the Gun and the Badge is your friend and he is trained to defend himself above all things. Refusing to follow the orders of police doesn't automatically mean that they have the right to shoot guns at you, that is a primarily defensive maneuver for police, this isn't a war zone or downtown LA, its sleepy little Knoxboro, a one horse town with a population of less than 500 counting the Dogs and Cats. Non lethal bullets from a real gun dont sound nonlethal!
I dont see Patterson as a hero in this case, I think its heroic to serve in a war zone, both he and the officer he shot served in Iraq or Afghanistan I believe Ive read. I'm sure he will do time for everything but murder. He's got to be made an example, that's just how it is. Truthfully, I dont think there is a single case of exoneration in a standoff of this type, it isnt a he said she said situation, too many witnesses.
He was distraught, by the polices own admission possibly suicidal and cornered like a rat, he was also a trained and battlefield tested War Veteran. His response was by the numbers, someone shoots at you, they become the enemy, the enemy must be eliminated or you might die, suppress and eliminate the enemy quickly. They shot at him with a gun and tried to blind him with their lights, if that doesn't make one defend themselves with anything within their grasp, nothing will.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Feb 6, 2012 20:48:56 GMT -5
Corner I wouldn't worry about. He can only arrest you or shoot you. Bz, I would definitely worry about it! Dave, you're getting to know me way too well. FA, I do not take offense and I will always respect your opinion with the thought that we can agree to disagree respectfully. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and if I want that for myself then I have to allow that for others also. Believe me, kiddo, it takes a lot for anyone to offend me. I'm a big girl and am not afraid to stand up for what I believe is right even if I stand alone, so don't fret over anything. ;D My opinion is based on if Patterson didn't start this and if he ended it when the officers gave him plenty of chances and time to then a young deputy would not be dead. No matter what procedures everyone thought was wrong or right in trying to get Patterson to put down his gun, Patterson brought everything on himself and took a life. Plain and simple to me. I understand you and I simply disagree on that and you have that right to, so no sweat, kiddo. Ok, how far do we take the "who to blame" game? Why not blame his girlfriend, Shannon Secor, for the argument that sparked the standoff that lead to the death of Wyman, as the cause of it all? Perhaps, whatever she had to say to him is what drove him over the edge to the point of thinking about killing himself. What is to say it was Patterson who started this and not her? She isn't on trial because they took her word regarding the argument at face value. Maybe he could file a criminal complaint against her for harassment? And no, I am not attempting to blame a woman, or this woman for this mess. I am merely trying to illustrate how the entire blame game gets convoluted. It is quite possible that Patterson reached his breaking point and really thought about killing himself. I know I've been frustrated and backed into a corner where I'd hide out in my cellar or drive out to a secluded spot in redneck country to try and clear my head and figure things out. There is no way of knowing whether Patterson would have cleared his head, blown his head off or gone after Shannon and killed her. Who knows. Beyond his culpability in all of this, you cannot overlook, omit or downplay the significance of the errors made by law enforcement that night. Let's say one of the deputies were killed in a car accident while driving out to that scene. Is that Patterson's fault, since it was his house and his incident for them to be going out there in the first place? What if Wyman was shot by friendly fire when he ran into the garage and line of fire against orders, as has been testified to today? Would a friendly fire death by Patterson's fault also? Or how about Patterson was the one killed in an accident while in police custody, would that be his fault? Police are going to make some kinds of mistakes some of the time, it is inevitable. But the magnitude and multitude of mistakes that night which really shifts the focus here. Patterson is guilty, but not for murder. Not even manslaughter. I don't believe he ever intended to kill anybody except himself and perhaps his girlfriend. He had over six hours to start shooting deputies and the ammo to do it. I keep getting right back to the one key moment that changed the tone of events, the decision to shoot him with less than lethal rounds. Until that point, everyone was safe and the scene was under control. That action changed everything and it looks very much like many on the outside of the garage were not prepared for those shots when the took them. And I also raised the red flag over Wyman's lack of training for this. It is also looming larger now that they are saying he responded to the order when someone said "go, go, go, down" that was not meant for him and was ordered not to move in, in vain. Yes, I am repeating myself, but WHY did they allow him to remain in the thick of it being untrained? Why? Patterson did not do that, someone in the Sheriff's Office either made the decision to keep Wyman there or someone didn't bother making a decision to remove him. In any event, he should have been removed from the scene when ERT arrived but he wasn't. That is not Patterson's fault, that is a fault in the chain of command with the Sheriff's Office. And for that error, plus many others, I find it deeply difficult to call this man a cop killer when he probably never intended it to happen at all. |
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Feb 6, 2012 21:03:55 GMT -5
Yes its a very good Idea to do whatever the police say if you are ordered to do so, Mom always said the Man with the Gun and the Badge is your friend and he is trained to defend himself above all things. Refusing to follow the orders of police doesn't automatically mean that they have the right to shoot guns at you, that is a primarily defensive maneuver for police, this isn't a war zone or downtown LA, its sleepy little Knoxboro, a one horse town with a population of less than 500 counting the Dogs and Cats. Non lethal bullets from a real gun dont sound nonlethal! I dont see Patterson as a hero in this case, I think its heroic to serve in a war zone, both he and the officer he shot served in Iraq or Afghanistan I believe Ive read. I'm sure he will do time for everything but murder. He's got to be made an example, that's just how it is. Truthfully, I dont think there is a single case of exoneration in a standoff of this type, it isnt a he said she said situation, too many witnesses. He was distraught, by the polices own admission possibly suicidal and cornered like a rat, he was also a trained and battlefield tested War Veteran. His response was by the numbers, someone shoots at you, they become the enemy, the enemy must be eliminated or you might die, suppress and eliminate the enemy quickly. They shot at him with a gun and tried to blind him with their lights, if that doesn't make one defend themselves with anything within their grasp, nothing will. As it turns out, Patterson graduated a year after I did from UFA. I did not know him though. From what I read, he served in the Army, and probably ended up deployed during the first Gulf War in 1991. His service, like Wyman's is honorable. I don't think using the word "hero" for anybody here is appropriate though. Nobody can really attest to his mental status during the entire night. Most certainly whatever pressures drew him out to the garage from the argument with the girlfriend only compounded themselves once the police arrived. Another troubling issue I see here is that the police refused to bring in any mental health professional to assist. This person doesn't necessarily have to enter the garage or get too close in order to talk to Patterson, or someone like him in a similar situation. Perhaps someone with such mental health background might have been of assistance to either reach Patterson on a level the police weren't trained to, or even helped the police with ways to reach him. In any event, I think that is one more mistake from those on the outside. Many of us think about this rationally, not in an extremely emotional and stressful situation. None of us can attest to what actually set him off in the first place. Some rumors were that he confronted her about cheating. I do not know any fact to that, but that is an example of something that can create a great emotional disturbance for a lot of people out there. Doesn't excuse everything that happened, but perhaps if they actually brought a shrink onto the scene, he could have made some headway with Patterson where the tactic of police simply demanding him to come out weren't working. I've been in situations where the world was crashing down around me, I've thought about the suicide thing. I've gotten as far as a handful of pills staring me in the face. It is serious. Fortunately I've never had access to weapons beyond steak knives in the kitchen. Anybody who has seen or experienced mental illness firsthand will not discount the mental aspect of this case. I am quite sure all of us, me included, would have surrendered almost immediately in this situation, or not found themselves in this situation in the first place. But we aren't Chris Patterson and we can't possibly know what set these events in motion nor how long the pressures he faced had been building. |
|
|
|
Post by corner on Feb 7, 2012 12:14:34 GMT -5
its a cluster f**k all the way around like i said earlier with the wrong people on scene it was amateur hour.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Feb 7, 2012 12:48:15 GMT -5
Based on Patterson's testimony this morning, it sounds like some of his injuries were sustained after he was in custody. His mention of hearing concern by the deputies about the possible presence of cameras in the garage is curious.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Feb 7, 2012 12:52:51 GMT -5
its a cluster all the way around like i said earlier with the wrong people on scene it was amateur hour. Couldn't have said it better myself. There are no winners here. Even if Patterson is acquitted on the murder and attempted murder charges, which I think he will, his life is in shambles and Wyman is still dead. Based on Patterson's testimony today, he couldn't even see who was outside the garage with the lights on him. How do you aim to kill someone that you can't even see? Frankcor brings up another aspect of injuries sustained beyond being shot. One deputy already testified he slapped Patterson in the head for not keeping his eyes closed after they pinned him in the garage. Why would that be even necessary if he's restrained and wounded? |
|
