Keep your calendar clear for the evening of Tuesday, June 5th. Details to follow.
Paul Ebert Is Not Doing Us Proud
By Greg L | 4 June 2008 | Virginia Politics, Crime | 33 Comments
You’re asleep in your house, and suddenly you’re woken by a commotion out front. Someone is trying breaking down your door. Ryan Frederick did what a lot of us might do — he got a firearm, and defended himself. As a result, Prince William Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul Ebert indicted Frederick yesterday for capital murder, and will likely seek the death penalty, because the person who Ryan Frederick ended up shooting, and who died, was a police officer. Frederick is the latest victim in what appears to be another example of overzealous no-knock police SWAT operations supposedly justified by the flimsiest of evidence. The facts of this case are beyond disturbing.
Chesapeake police conducted a drug raid on Frederick based on a tip from an informant that the guy had a major marijuana growing operation in his garage. Ryan Frederick thought the cops were armed intruders, so he fired his gun and killed one of them. There was no marijuana growing operation in his garage, although police did find a some marijuana in his house. Police found some grow lights and pots, but Frederick was an avid gardener who raised decorative japanese maple trees as a hobby.
The informant was the same guy who broke into Frederick’s house a few nights before the raid, likely with police consent (which of course would be illegal). He was dating the sister of Frederick’s fiance, and he and Frederick had gotten into an argument after Frederick accused him of stealing some things. This informant is a complete dirtbag. The police had him on some credit card fraud charges from a few weeks before the raid. Those charges were mysteriously dropped a couple of days prior to the raid.
Seems pretty clear what happened, doesn’t it? The cops did no controlled buys. Their “surveillance” consisted of couple of drive-bys where they noted no unusual activity. So based solely on the word of this informant, they go busting into a guy’s house, get one of their own killed, and now they’re blaming it all on Frederick.
The state’s attorney in Chesapeake was recused for conflicts, and Paul Ebert was called in to prosecute the case. Radley Balko over at Reason Magazine isn’t too impressed with Ebert’s overzealous prosecution in this case, which is starting to look more like a cover-up than serving the cause of justice:
Special Prosecutor Paul Ebert pushed the unlikely theory yesterday that Frederick looked out his window, saw several police officers about to break into his home, heard them announce themselves as police, decided to shoot and kill just one of them, then surrendered. This is a guy who friends, former employers, neighbors and family describe as harmless and unconfrontational to the point of being meek. The idea that he’d knowingly kill a cop over a few joints is absurd.
Frederick had a job he enjoyed, a record of steady employment and strong recommendations from supervisors, and he’d just gotten engaged. Again, hardly the profile of a cop killer with a death wish.
Ebert also got the law wrong in his statement to the press. He said:
“Anytime someone kills a police officer, who is acting properly with a legal search warrant, that is a case of Capital Murder.”
Well, no. According to the Virginia criminal code, the act has to be willful, deliberate, and premeditated. If you don’t know that the men breaking down your door are police when you shoot and kill one of them, you aren’t guilty of capital murder. Virginia doesn’t have a Castle Doctrine, so you may be guilty of something. But it isn’t capital murder. This is why Ebert is arguing the “peered out the window” theory.
This guy was defending his home. The cops screwed up, and got one of their own killed. They’re now trying to bring the hammer down on this kid to atone for their own mistakes. That this travesty continues is absolutely ridiculous, but given Paul Ebert’s overzealous behavior in the past, this is sadly unsurprising.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
33 Comments
Views: 1204
Loading ...
Absolutely disgusting. Paul Ebert - if even capable of such a thing - should be ashamed of himself. And there should be an independent investigation of the police who arranged the “bust” as well as the judge who issued the warrant.
If all facts can be substantiated, the fallen officer’s family would at least have an air-tight civil case against the County.
HAM SANDWICH FOR PWC COMMONWEALTH’S ATTORNEY 2011 !!!
I usually don’t have too many complaints about Ebert — though you would think that he could’ve convicted one of the Bobbitts, as I’m pretty sure SOMEONE committed a crime that night — this one is stinking up the place.
A few years back, a man in Dumfries was killed by police as he reached for a gun under his bed, when police broke into his bedroom as he was sleeping, if memory serves. I don’t remember all of the details, but I do know that no one was prosecuted. I wonder what would have happened in the facts had been reversed?
I’ve been complaining about the lack of a castle doctrine since I moved to VA years ago. It comes up each year, but never goes anywhere. Without it, the notion of being able to defend your home and family is a joke.
Of course, I moved here from Maryland, so I can’t complain too loud right?
This reminds me of the JohnGrisham novel, “Innocent Man”. The characters were wrongfully prosecuted in Ada, OK and were sent to death row.
I have often wondered how much of this goes on without us knowing the whole story.
I firmly believe the police went over the line and got one of their own killed in the process.
I understood that if the person is IN the house and you shoot them, you are ok and it is considered self defense. If they are in the yard, then you have problems unless you can drag them into the door real quick
Doesn’t Ebert lead the state and possibly the nation in sending murders to death row?
In the novel, based on a true story, the police and prosecutor as well as the Judges were all wrong in the case. It is a good read if you get the chance to read it. Of course, John Grisham is one of my favorite writers
I wonder if anything like this would be true for this prosecutor??
This whole tradgedy could have been avoided. Let’s hope that the facts come out at trial.
Doesn’t a Grand Jury have to make a determination on whether this incident (taking in all the facts) goes to trial?
This could have been avoided if people would learn to identify the difference between a Japanese Maple and Pot (both have similar looking leaves, but when you smoke a Japanese Maple, you don’t get high)
I thought that SWAT teams wore clothing that identified them as SWAT, and I thought that they announced their entry as “SWAT!” or “Police!” But then again if one is asleep or somewhere between sleep and awake then perhaps a loud boom, followed by storming in one’s house could confuse someone who is not fully conscious and get their adrenaline running and put them into a fight or flight mode of thinking.
Greg, your blog and subsequent postings should just be be called what it has become: “Circle Jerk for the like-minded” — you all seriously have no idea what you’re talking about…James Young, in the case you refer to, officers announced themselves so loudly that several neighbors heard it
James Young, indeed the officers announced their presence many times and the Dumfries man did not reach for the gun under the bed. He was lying in wait for the officers in bed with the gun beside him. He knew the police were there, he knew why, and still chose to challenge them by threatening their lives. The officers fired in self-defense. Those officers were/are very sound, efficient, effective and well respected. Paul Ebert did nothing wrong in not prosecuting them, as they were exonerated from any wrongdoing.
Correction:
“Circle Jerk for the simple-minded”.
Greg, I hope the day never comes when you are in need of that thin blue line as I wouldn’t blame them for stopping for a cup of coffee and a doughnut before wandering over to your location. You have little more to offer than innuendo when it comes to the local PD and truly don’t understand how the system works, nothing more than hot air and bluster, but that is to be expected.
Mom,
The Police have no duty to offer protection to individuals, as affirmed MANY times by the Supreme Court.
What situation do you imagine Greg being “in need of that thin blue line”?
I’m happy to be corrected on the point, “Legal” and “Formerreader”; as I said, I certainly don’t pretend to have had knowledge of all of the facts of that case. Thanks for bringing more information to the table.
I must confess, though, I don’t know how they determined that “[h]e was lying in wait” or that “he knew why” they were there (I vaguely remember that he may have been followed home on suspicion of drunk driving, but I can’t say for sure), though that may have been a reasonable conclusion based upon more facts probably not easily relatable in a blog comment. I recall that, at the time, and based upon the facts then available, I thought it reasonable to give the police the benefit of the doubt.
I simply wonder why, under the facts of this case, a man in his own home does not receive the same benefit. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable question to ask, if the situations are at all analogous.
I have repeatedly supported the 2nd amendment. If my fellow gays would exercise this Constitutional right, particularly when lobbying anti-gay legislators in Richmond such as Delegate Marshall, there would be no need for any gay hate crime legislation in Virginia, let alone in Prince William County.
There is no “need for any gay hate crime legislation in Virginia” or anywhere else for that matter, Tom. Crimes against gays are still crimes, and should be prosecuted like any other crimes. “Hate crimes” are thought crimes, and prosecuting thoughts and ideas violates the First Amendment.
This whole case is a puzzler to me, so I’m going to have to wait to hear the evidence. It appears that the defendant had no criminal record, had no history of violence, and was a little guy. Something just doesn’t jive here. I’m not sure why the police thought they had to take the dramatic route in to arrest him over a couple pot plants. I guess it will come out in trial.
I should say over a couple pot plants that weren’t really pot plants, although they apparently did find some pot, right?
It seems to me that someone may have been using/abusing the criminal justice system to satisfy a personal grievance, and as a result, a man died.
My opinions of those who use/abuse the criminal justice system to satisfy a personal grievance are well known.
James Young @4:19
I would have to say, you bring up a valid possibility. NO ONE is above the law and that INCLUDES the law.
James Young said on 4 Jun 2008 at 10:32 pm:
I seem to recall that the gentleman who was shot by the police in his bed had an argument at a party with his wife. He left the party and went home. He had no keys to the house so he broke a window to gain access. A neighbor called the police because of the noise and broken window. The police found the subject asleep in his bed. A police officer supposedly shook his foot and when he awakend the subject made a sudden movement and was shot. That is what I recall happened. It may not be exactly like I stated but I believe it is close enough to what the news reports reported. The police were not charged in the shooting.
The above post is in reference to a shooting that took place a number of years ago by the police.
Well, “Red Dawn,” my point is not so much that the officers should be prosecuted; they could have been as innocent victims as anyone else.
My point is that, IF it was someone using/abusing the criminal justice system to satisfy a personal grievance, the person doing so may be prosecutable for negligent or reckless indifference homicide.
‘Course, my legal expertise is admittedly fairly narrow; that feeling may arise from too many “Law and Order” reruns.
Conservatives, Let’s chalk up another victory in the wildly successful “War on Drugs”. What a tragic story from beginning to end. All over a quiet guy and his pot. Pathetic.
So, “ouchmd,” do we discern from your comment that we should surrender in the “War on Drugs,” too?
Thanks for clearing that up.
James, some of your statements are accurate in regard to the Dumfries shooting. But, some are not. I know you realize that not all you read in the newspapers is accurately depicted. There were many independent witnesses who were interviewed during the shooting investigation. Their statements and observations (ie announcing their - police- presence loud enough to wake the neighbors) helped clear the officers. The call came in as a burglary in progress. The officers arrived to find the broken glass and apparent entry.
They announced many times. The man did have a gun and did point it at the officers who, in self-defense, fired. This was a complex case leading back originally to the domestic abuse of his wife, alcohol involvement, etc.
I can only reiterate that the officers were cleared in a fair and impartial investigation. I will not/cannot elaborate on it anymore than to say in this particular case it is unfair to make a comparison to the case initially brought up in this blog to these officers.
I understand the concept you are trying to depict, but these cases do not appear to be similar in nature in any fashion. Please be fair to our fine PWCPD officers who placed their lives in jeopardy on that night in Dumfries.
Click here to check outThe Free Ryan Frederick!
“LegalPWCCitizen,” as I’ve said before, I have no reason to question the outcome of the situation in Dumfries. But I don’t think it’s unfair to those police officers to raise it in relation to this case as one where a very different outcome occurred, and why, in a case where a man was arguably defending his home, vigorous prosecution occurs.
I fail to see why you’re so sensitive about that.
James, not “so sensitive about that”, just wanted to make sure that those reading this blog were given more information to make a more informed opinion when the PWC incident was brought up under the same heading as the Chesapeake incident. I don’t quite see them in the same light.
A different outcome due to different circumstances, perhaps ?
Truce.