Grand Jury Ups the Charges Against Ryan Frederick. Indicts.

Radley Balko | June 4, 2008

A Chesapeake, Virginia grand jury indicted 28-year-old Ryan Frederick on charges of capital murder yesterday. The more severe charge (he was originally charged with first-degree murder) means the state will likely seek the death penalty, though there has been no official announcement as of yet.

Last January, Frederick shot and killed Det. Jarrod Shivers during a drug raid on Frederick's home. Police were looking for a major marijuana growing operation in Frederick's garage. They didn't find one. Frederick had no prior criminal record, and had a misdemeanor amount of pot (he says a few joints) in his home at the time of the raid. His home had also been broken into a few days prior to the raid.

We now know that the police informant whose tip led to the raid was responsible for the break-in. We also know that informant had credit card fraud charges pending against him that were dropped just before the raid. What we still don't know is if his burglary of Frederick's home was done with the knowledge or consent of the police.

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.

The grand jury also indicted Frederick on a charge of manufacturing marijuana. Ebert hinted at this possibility a couple of weeks ago. I'm still trying to figure out what evidence they have for that charge. They found no plants in Frederick's home. They seized some grow lights and planting pots, but the guy is a gardener. His friends and neighbors—or one look at his backyard—confirm that.

It's unlikely that police had information of Frederick manufacturing marijuana other than the informant's tip prior to the raid, or they'd have included it in the affidavit to obtain the search warrant. That leaves only the possibility that they've rounded up someone since the raid who might testify that he bought drugs from Frederick, or witnessed Frederick's alleged marijuana operation. At this point, it would be prudent to be wary of any informants with criminal records the police may bring forward to testify against Frederick.

The police did no controlled buys to confirm the informant's tip. They say their "surveillance" consisted of a few drive-bys over a three-month period, during which they reported no unusual activity. They claim to have done an extensive background check on Frederick, and found only traffic tickets. Yet they felt compelled to break down his door after nightfall, based on a tip from a shady informant, and very little else.

Bad as all of this looks, there are a couple of glimmers of hope, here. The first is that Paul Ebert has a long and illustrious history of incompetence. He seems to be living up to that reputation here with his overcharging of Frederick. The other reason for hope is that judging from the comments threads at the Virginian-Pilot website, public opinion in Chesapeake seems to have shifted decidedly to Frederick's favor. The public is usually reflexively pro-police, particularly when a cop is killed in the line of duty. That there's now considerable doubt about this case is testament to just how poorly this raid was executed, and how poorly it's been handled since.

Prior coverage of the Frederick case here.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|6.4.08 @ 8:41AM|#

Ryan Frederick is getting railroaded just like Cory Maye. Welcome to America, with Liberty and Justice for All.

Taktix&#174|6.4.08 @ 8:57AM|#

I'm nearly reaching compound-in-Montana-level anger with the authorities. I figure, with the internet an' all, at least I wouldn't have to become a total hermit...

Fuck!

|6.4.08 @ 9:00AM|#

I was never in the military or police, but if I was going to make a raid on a place with windows, I'd have someone looking at them from the outside. That no one saw the suspect looking out should be a reason to send those in charge of the raid to months of basic how-not-to-get-your-fellow-officers-killed training. Of course, in their minds, if something bad happens it's never their fault.

This charge is an attempt at making a plea deal, plain and simple. The police are very embarrassed and afraid to pursue this, so they have to use fear and intimidation to get Frederick to plea to something. I hope it doesn't work, but I'm not the one facing a life sentence so I won't think less of Frederick if he takes some sort of plea. I'll still think less of police in general if this crap keeps happening, however.

Episiarch|6.4.08 @ 9:00AM|#

I certainly hope his defense attorney is good. A good attorney should be able to blow holes in the prosecution's bullshit wide enough to drive an armored police vehicle through.

|6.4.08 @ 9:05AM|#

Oh my F'ing G*D this makes me so angry.
Again - where are all these honest cops I keep hearing about?

LibertyPlease|6.4.08 @ 9:06AM|#

This severe degree of law enforcement incompetence should remain at the Federal level, not local or state.

Taktix&#174|6.4.08 @ 9:06AM|#

See, sometimes I want to say the sort of things that'd get me banned from Hit & Run. I'm not going to say those things, because I don't want to be banned from Hit & Run, but by God I'm thinking 'em really, really hard.

You mean things like:

Fuck these meat head, no neck, adrenaline junkie, brainless, power hungry donut jockeys and their heartless, bureaucratic, cover-your-ass-even-if-it-means-destroying-an-innocent-person's-life, face saving superiors and their partners in abject thuggery; the sleazy, self-aggrandizing, baby-kissing, whore fucking, wanna-be politician District Attorneys.

It's too bad I'm an atheist because I can't even take comfort in the fact that these scumbags would rot in hell if hell existed...

Taktix&#174|6.4.08 @ 9:09AM|#

I hope it doesn't work, but I'm not the one facing a life sentence so I won't think less of Frederick if he takes some sort of plea.

He may be facing death, actually...

ed|6.4.08 @ 9:11AM|#

Nephilium|6.4.08 @ 9:16AM|#

ed:
One would hope the jury would overturn... but considering even mentioning jury nullification can get you kicked right off a jury, and seeing how the process works in my county... I don't have much faith in juries...

Nephilium

Taktix&#174|6.4.08 @ 9:17AM|#

This is why we have trial by jury, no? Not to disagree with Radley's analysis and his take on the events as presented here, but let the wheels of justice grind and hopefully a jury will convict or acquit on the merits of the case.

I would have agreed with you until today, but stepping up the charges makes it seem like they want this guy silenced as permanently as possible, and the circumstances of this case that all parties agree on are unjust as hell...

|6.4.08 @ 9:20AM|#

let the wheels of justice grind and hopefully a jury will convict or acquit on the merits of the case

If only it were that simple. Even if the jury acquits, we're still dealing with a man whose life was significantly interrupted to the point where he may never be able to rebuild it to something that anywhere close to approximates what he had before.

Not to mention the ongoing assault tactics issue which does not go away by a simple acquittal.

Not to mention the lack of accountability that will occur after a simple acquittal.

No, an acquittal would be only minor (albeit welcome) justice.

Matt Moore|6.4.08 @ 9:21AM|#

ed - We don't have trial by jury so that prosecutors can throw any charges they want at a defendant in the hopes of getting a plea deal.

joe's right... that's all this is.

|6.4.08 @ 9:25AM|#

This charge is an attempt at making a plea deal, plain and simple.

Indeed. If he admits guilt even to the slightest degree, it makes them look justified and there's no need to discipline the police force that conducted the raid. The prosecutor also gets a mark in his conviction column.

Mike|6.4.08 @ 9:26AM|#

"let the wheels of justice grind and hopefully a jury will convict or acquit on the merits of the case"

Nice theory, if only those grinding wheels had any measurable connection to "justice".

Let the railroading begin!

|6.4.08 @ 9:28AM|#

I believe the one hope in this case is that the prosecutor has gone so far into fantasy-land that the jury will see through it.

BakedPenguin|6.4.08 @ 9:30AM|#

As Radley pointed out, one thing to be heartened by are the comments in the Virginian-Pilot's website. Even some people who thought Frederick was "a criminal" thought police were still in the wrong.

tijjer|6.4.08 @ 9:33AM|#

Insightful, incisive (also a little funny) posts from the Virginian-Pilot page:

CPD/Prosecutor's story to date (from news or as stated in court)

Submitted by wa1rus91 on Tue, 06/03/2008 at 8:55 pm.

2 or 16 officers went to Frederick's house at 8:05, 8:25 or 8:30 p.m. to serve a search warrant sworn out on the basis of an informant (who broke into Frederick's house 3 days before the raid, had a grudge against him and is now missing) claiming Frederick was growing pot in a detached garage and a thorough CPD investigation that included 5 drive-by looks at Frederick's house over 3 months during which Det Roberts "didn't see anything unusual" and a review of Frederick's criminal record which turned up an extensive list of some "traffic tickets." The CPD decided to search Frederick's house after dark and his normal bedtime. The police pounded on Frederick's door, announcing themselves 14 to 45 seconds to serve the search warrant, but decided to break down the door when they saw "a light change or motion in the house," indicating the raid was "compromised." Frederick then, with full knowledge and malice aforethought, shot and killed Det Shivers on the porch, on the steps or "in the front yard, really." CPD found gardening supplies, Japanese Maples and enough pot to justify a 1st possession misdemeanor.

Frederick's story to date (from news reports)

Submitted by wa1rus91 on Tue, 06/03/2008 at 9:19 pm.

Frederick was lying down in bed when he heard a crash at the front door and his dogs barking like crazy. He tried to find his phone to call 911, but couldn't find it in the dark. Instead, he found his handgun and went down the hall to see what made the noise. Frederick saw someone reaching through a broken portion of his front door and feared the person was breaking into the house to kill him (someone had broken into his house 3 days before, but he didn't report it because nothing seemed to be missing; he told this to police after being arrested and was told, "we know about that and who did it"). Frederick fired two shots toward the person breaking through his door. His gun jammed, so he retreated to look for the phone again. Four or five minutes later, when he realized there were police outside, he came out of the house unarmed, surrendering to the police without further incident. He said he didn't know the people breaking down his door were police officers, that he occassionally smokes marijuana and that he would have opened the door for them if they had just identified themselves.

Jeff Akston|6.4.08 @ 9:36AM|#

With all the "activist" judges around, I've always been curious why there aren't more "activist" politicians who make it their mission to pardon people in situations like this.

Forgetting about the pot issue. If they thought the guy was raping and killing women in their, it still doesn't forgive their actions or make the story any more likely that Frederick wasn't just defending himself against intruders.

Episiarch|6.4.08 @ 9:42AM|#

joe is correct that they are leaning on Frederick as hard as possible to get a plea. However, I think that this moron prosecutor has shot himself in the foot. What plea would Frederick possibly accept? What plea can they reasonably give him after charging him with capitol murder?

It's not like they can drop to MJ possession and reckless endangerment or some bullshit like that; it would put the lie to their charges. So at most they go down to manslaughter, and Fredericks is still looking at years in prison, a felony conviction, and a ruined life.

Fuck that shit. This case is so egregious that it's better to go to the jury and hope they are sane, and if they aren't, appeal, appeal, appeal until some judges throw this insanity out, or possibly the governor steps in. Either way you are in prison, but if you go with the plea, you are never exonerated when you finally get out.

BakedPenguin|6.4.08 @ 9:50AM|#

Um, guys - joe hasn't posted on this thread - it's "jon". But yes, he's right.

|6.4.08 @ 9:55AM|#

This is a good example why lady liberty was painted so damned ugly on that other thread.

Jury selection will be pivotal to this case. The fact that a grand jury supports the charge is more than a little scary.

|6.4.08 @ 9:59AM|#

It's not like they can drop to MJ possession and reckless endangerment or some bullshit like that; it would put the lie to their charges.

So? Integrity isn't at issue. Keeping the cops and the DA above the law is what a plea is designed to do. It doesn't matter how it looks, because they're still the ones with guns and badges, and if you don't play ball, we can have you put to death.

|6.4.08 @ 10:01AM|#

And let's not forget the whole justification for these forced entries is either to prevent the destruction of evidence or to surprise particularly dangerous subjects. You cannot flush a "major grow operation" and Ryan had no history of violence.
Without a reason, the police must be doing this sort of raid out of habit; a habit that has no place in a civilized nation.

ktc2|6.4.08 @ 10:03AM|#

If this case comes down to a jury this guy is screwed.

The jury system is manipulated beyond all hope of justice. It's only very, very rarely they actually refuse to give the state what it wants. Generally they take every cops word as solid fact againt any average joe.

Anybody know what the conviction rate is for our rigged juries these days?

|6.4.08 @ 10:16AM|#

I was never in the military or police, but if I was going to make a raid on a place with windows, I'd have someone looking at them from the outside.

Tactically, if you really are going to do a forced entry raid, this is an excellent way to compromise the raid.

|6.4.08 @ 10:19AM|#

Why do grand juries even exist? Prosecutors seem to be able to get an indictment on anyone on any charge at any time.
As someone once said, the typical grand jury will indict a ham sandwich.

LibertyPlease|6.4.08 @ 10:19AM|#

Those are very good points.

I think it's also that they like to get all ninja'ed-up and delude themselves into thinking they're doing something important and dangerous (which explains all the bombastic statements like "we put our lives on the line every day..." when frickin' taxi-drivers have higher on-the-job death rates).

The vast majority of this activity (at the Federal, State, and local levels) is quite the opposite of important. It's a gross attack on the lives and liberty of the productive sector, and it is only dangerous because the mall-ninjas create these unnecessarily dangerous situations.

|6.4.08 @ 10:22AM|#

As much as it grieves me to say it, there should be a way to get the feds involved in stuff like this.

This case seems to be based purely on revenge. Aren't there laws against "malicious prosecution"? Unfortunately, the us-vs-them team mentality of "law enforcers" makes it unlikely that a federal investigation would do anything but put a stamp of approval on the process, same as local police review boards.

|6.4.08 @ 10:29AM|#

If the jury is made up of folks like several of my close family members, then he is screwed. The thinking would be that the police were raiding a drug house and they were fired upon by a man in with a quantity of pot. Since all drugs are evil, he must be found guilty. All other details come after the fact that he was a dope addict.
The pigs and the persecuting attorney will justify the raid based on the grass they found.
I hope I am wrong, but there's a lot of stupid, lazy and ignorant folks happy to be jurors in such a case.

#|6.4.08 @ 10:39AM|#

Anybody know what the conviction rate is for our rigged juries these days?

Low- to mid-nineties, depending on the jurisdiction. It dips into the high eighties in a few places.

Only rape trials have a reasonably low conviction rate anywhere. They're the fairest trials we have, so there's no end of agitation for conviction-forcing changes to the rules for them.

And remember, these rates are for people who won't plead out, and there are only three kinds of defendants in that group: the rich, famous, and/or well-connected, the crazy, and the innocent (of the specific charges).

Dude's fucked.

|6.4.08 @ 10:52AM|#

This is why we have trial by jury, no? Not to disagree with Radley's analysis and his take on the events as presented here, but let the wheels of justice grind and hopefully a jury will convict or acquit on the merits of the case.

ed, or should that be Pollyanna,

I don't know if you've been reading the news this past couple of decades, but if you have then you are certainly aware that innocent people have Often been convicted and sentenced because of perjuring LEOs, District Attorneys witholding evidence, medical examiners who are incompetent and judges and juries who give far to much credence to the authorities.

You would also be aware that those guilty of the malfeasance mentioned above are only rarely
held accountable.

If you live in Mayberry, I forgive your happy, happy, joy, joy optimism. If you live in a metropolitan area, I don't because then you'd be a myopic idiot.

ed|6.4.08 @ 11:10AM|#

Got a better system of justice, jaysub?
Let's hear it.

ktc2|6.4.08 @ 11:12AM|#

We HAD a better system of justice.

|6.4.08 @ 11:12AM|#

If I were in his position I'd try for a bench trial. Even if the judge is an anti-drug zealot, there are enough gaping holes in the prosecution's theory of the crime that a judge with any sense would find it hard to convict. (Especially since a judge would be aware of the poison-penned appellate justices waiting down the line if he screwed up, and the potential consequences for his own career.)

ktc2|6.4.08 @ 11:14AM|#

"Low- to mid-nineties, depending on the jurisdiction. It dips into the high eighties in a few places."

So we've reached the carry your suicide pill at all times stage.

|6.4.08 @ 11:16AM|#

The thing that I am most worried about for this case is something I have seen happen many times.
There can be many witnesses for the defense with good important testimony to offer and the judge can say it is not relevant, etc.

|6.4.08 @ 11:17AM|#

Ahem, Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.

Next, a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Lastly, a country that maintains repressive control over the people by means of police.

Think any of these apply?

|6.4.08 @ 11:29AM|#

Got a better system of justice, jaysub?
Let's hear it.
Pollyanna,

A better sytem, Hmm.

1. I'll start with prosecuting LEOs for perjury.
2. I'll prosecute DAs who withhold evidence.
3. I'll revamp the jury selection process that presently ensures their makeup consists of people troo stupid to avoid it or have no real life and enjoy the spectacle.
4. I'll consider [gasp!] professional jurors with actual qualification requirements. Bubba the slack jawed yokel should not be deciding a person's fate. Call me an elitedst, but I contend that a significanyt portion of the jury pool is just too fucking stupid to be trusted with the task of determining guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. Perhaps jurors should be empaneled for a specific length of time, compenated so they don't lose money being away from their jobs with employment protections similar to the Family Medical Leave Act.
6. Public defenders need to be allocated resources similar to what the state brings to the battle. If Steven Haynes can be trotted out as an expert witness, the defense should be given the resources to have rebutting experts. If the state operated crime lab says this gun fired this bullet, the defense should have the resources to hire their own investigators.

That's just an off the top of my head list of things we can do. The system is broken. I'm the type of person who believes broken things should be repaired.

|6.4.08 @ 11:31AM|#

I have a question for the erudite folks here on the H&R comments thread ... can a normal everyday citizen call up the CPD and give them a piece of their mind? What if we started flooding their phone lines with protest calls? Is that permissible under law?

|6.4.08 @ 11:36AM|#

I know many law enforcement officers and some are good friends, I am grateful for what they do. However, you are always going to have a my side, your side issue. I have heard that there are divisions of opinion on the part of these officers.
You are right though to understand that if persons on a jury think the charged person is guilty of any crime, they must be guilty of the charge they are hearing.
It may be a good thing that this is such an overblown charge if the 2 officer thing is true and the neighbors who said it was just 2 officers would be allowed to testify. Remember there is also said to have been a barking dog inside. When my little dog was alive and he barked if he heard something, believe me, I couldn't hear anything from outside. I thought the officers were trying to keep the "raid" from being compromised and were being very quiet until the knock.
No one I know in their right mind would ever murder anyone over a misdemeanor, so if they believe Ryan did that then perhaps he was temporarily insane?!
This whole thing is so sad, for the officers family, for Ryan and his friends and family and for our community and our country. It is getting harder and harder for me to trust anyone!

Steve Verdon|6.4.08 @ 11:45AM|#

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.

If a prosecutor presented a jury with this kind of lamm ass theory and I was on the jury there would be no way I'd ever vote for a conviction. It is stupid. You'd have to give me something more, like the guy is insane, high on drugs, a violent career criminal, something. But the above story just sounds so stupid I'd expect to come from a complete sub-human like Mike Nifong.

|6.4.08 @ 11:47AM|#

Pollyanna,

I forgot to add -
We can end the War on ~~Drugs~~ Sanity as well.

|6.4.08 @ 12:07PM|#

Boy, that sounds risky. However, with a competent defense attorney, and plenty of reporters in the gallery, it might actually be a good strategy. But if the judge can hobble the defense in a jury trial, he can walk into a bench trial with the verdict and sentence already written on a sheet of paper in his pocket.

ed|6.4.08 @ 12:08PM|#

Name-calling is silly and childish, jaysub. Your "system" consists mostly of adjusting the current system or enforcing rules and laws already on the books. That's the best you can do? Ending the war on drugs is immaterial by the way.

The Wine Commonsewer|6.4.08 @ 1:28PM|#

I swear to God, I read the headline and I laughed.

I'm not a sick man, it is just so unbelievable as to be laughable. Except this poor sap is going to get the needle in the end. So, no, it isn't funny ha, ha. It is so insane as to be laughable. I did say insane, right? Yes.

I'm not laughing now, but that was my first reaction. Absurd humor morphing into Gallows Humor morphing into intense anger and frustration with the futility his plight.

|6.4.08 @ 1:39PM|#

4. I'll consider [gasp!] professional jurors with actual qualification requirements. Bubba the slack jawed yokel should not be deciding a person's fate. Call me an elitedst, but I contend that a significanyt portion of the jury pool is just too fucking stupid to be trusted with the task of determining guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I agree with this as well as other voir dire changes. First of all, all voir dire is is jury stacking in favor of the State. In drugs cases here, the Judge asks whether any of the jurors believe that they could not convict because the drug war is bullshit. So the idea that you get a jury pool that is representative of the community is a fucking myth.

You get slack jawed yokels who are thinking more about whether they can get free lunch. I've listened to many jurors and their reasoning and it is absolutely frighting some of the things jurors look at. "cops don't lie." "the defendant didn't smile enough" "the defendant smiled too much." "he looked guilty."

|6.4.08 @ 2:46PM|#

Great, another day-ruiner. Just what I needed.

I am incapable of adequately expressing the amount of outrage I have over this case.

Maybe this stuff always went on in some form and we just hear about it more often now. But the 'law & order' types who condone this shit simply astound me. As if it couldn't happen to them or their loved ones.

|6.4.08 @ 3:02PM|#

sorry Radley, my comment was off the subject and thanks for looking after me cause it probably could have pissed off all the wrong people.

About poor Frederick, another decent family destroyed by the war on drugs, plus wives without a husband, children without a father, community without a busness, a yard & garden going to pot, a good man on death row and huge amounts of money spend on a cover-up. Shit, I'll drink to that. I think the bad guys are winning.

|6.4.08 @ 3:12PM|#

Oh, for fuck's sake. How do such scumbags end up in positions of power?

Radley is validating my inherent distrust of authoritah.

|6.4.08 @ 3:35PM|#

Regarding a jury or bench trial: it would be absolute insanity to ask for a bench trial in a capital murder case.

Just consider the numbers. In a bench trial, theres only one person judging the facts, so you have to convince that one person that there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In a jury trial, there are twelve people. You only need one holdout to get a hung jury and a mistrial. Sometimes thats just enough.

A bench trial can be best if its a rather complex or technical defense, or if there is highly prejudicial evidence that will be admitted (i.e. prior bad acts evidence of a convicted child molester, which is notoriously easy to get in front of a jury). I don't see anything like that in this case.

|6.4.08 @ 3:45PM|#

The first is that Paul Ebert has a long and illustrious history of incompetence.

Unfortuntely, he also has a long history of successfully seeking death sentences.

|6.4.08 @ 3:59PM|#

High conviction rates aren't necessarily a sign of "rigged juries". Even in the absence of any concerns about justice, time and resource concerns lead prosecutors to avoid bringing a case to trial unless they're sure they have enough evidence to get a conviction.

It's not like they're randomly bringing in people off the street, putting them on trial, and getting 90% conviction rates.

|6.4.08 @ 4:10PM|#

but let the wheels of justice grind and hopefully a jury will convict or acquit on the merits of the case.

Besides being a rather quaint view of the reality of the legal system, the comment is pure question begging. It makes no sense at all to say "let the wheels of justice grind" when the fundamental issue at hand is whether they should even be grinding on this guy in the first place.

The next most important issues, once he is charged at all, are whether the charges are grossly overstated and inappropriate, and if there is police or prosecutor misconduct in support of the charges. To those issues it also makes absolutely no sense to offer "let the wheels of justice grind" as a response.

Ending the war on drugs is immaterial by the way.

This is just nonsense to the point of absurdity, by the way.

|6.4.08 @ 4:56PM|#

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but aren't grand juries a one sided show anyway? To hear the story only from the police side, it's easy to see why the grand jury would indict. But convincing everyone in a jury of capitol murder is a long shot, and will probably fail.

Based from what I currently know about the facts, there is no way I would vote guilty of murder.

I will be very curious to see the cops' sworn claims during discovery. But what's the odds there will be a gag order.

I'm coming to the conclusion that cops shooting innocent people, for a wide range of reasons, is not against the law. Very few criminal prosecutions ever result in a guilty verdict. Maybe we need to acknowledge that as a reality and work to change the law.

|6.4.08 @ 4:59PM|#

"""In a jury trial, there are twelve people. You only need one holdout to get a hung jury and a mistrial. Sometimes thats just enough.""""

Yeah all you need is one juror thinking if the cops busted into my house like that, they would get shot too. And that possible in VA.

|6.4.08 @ 8:55PM|#

Me: "I was never in the military or police, but if I was going to make a raid on a place with windows, I'd have someone looking at them from the outside."

RC Dean: "Tactically, if you really are going to do a forced entry raid, this is an excellent way to compromise the raid."

Me again: That's a way to see if the raid is compromised. If someone looking through binoculars sees someone in a window looking out at the staging area, I think they'd know the surprise raid wouldn't be a surprise. And then they could call it off, on, or whatever. That there was no supervision of this raid is obvious and the police's story/stories is obviously bullshit. These police are lying to cover up their own stupidity, which is just as plain and simple as the fact that they're aiming for the fences with the charges. I wasn't suggesting you get John Belushi up there with a ladder looking in from the windowboxes, just that if you're going after a major drug operation there should be a major effort to reduce the risks to officers involved in raiding such an establishment. Clearly the police didn't have many worries, took this raid for granted, and it ended up biting them on the ass and getting one of them killed. And they want to pin it on someone who they've lied about ever since.

|6.4.08 @ 9:16PM|#

We need some truculent libertarians. Real truculent. The type that just love to get physical with the factotums of fascism.

|6.5.08 @ 1:52AM|#

If the prosecutor is expounding theories in the press without any evidentiary support, he should be disbarred. In fact, he should be removed from the case for saying anything in public at all, other than the nature of the charges and the identity of the party or parties.

Dave W.|6.5.08 @ 8:45AM|#

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=a66747fc-1161-48bc-8077-c9b4dad229aa

|6.5.08 @ 11:21AM|#

I have followed this case since the original breaking news about the raid. Even then I felt there was "something rotten in Chesapeake". Although I am sorry for the loss of a good officer, this travesty of justice will not bring him back. This man attempted to defend his home as any of us would do and he had too much to lose as the consequences of his actions to have dilliberatly decided to kill a peace officer. May God bless him and his family and I pray that true justice is served.

|6.5.08 @ 11:41AM|#

Ever since Bill Clinton introduced his "Drug Zaar" (emphasis on the "Zaar") we have seen an increase in these incidents with the police and their "everyone is guilty until proven innocent" attitude. Take the house, take the car, oh, oops, you aren't a drug dealer, we had the wrong house and then you think you'll get an apology, LOL! You're lucky if they haven't already auctioned you belongings before they realize the mistake. Funny how police officers are nearly always found innocent (if they are brought up on charges at all) when they kill an innocent person, but if an officer is killed the defendent is nearly always charged and convicted. I agree with Pam, the bad guys do seem to keep winning.

|6.5.08 @ 11:54AM|#

Cathy of Va Beach-
Please see my post above at 9;16 pm.

How can you assume that the cop who lost his life 'was a good officer?" Why did he lose his life? What was he doing when he lost his life? He was acting the part of the thug, the totalitarian. He was invading the private property of another. He had it coming.

We need not shed any tears for those who would invade the homes of others, armed to the teeth, and done so under the color of law.

|6.6.08 @ 5:51AM|#

if you have a chance to get on the jury, don't say anything during questioning that will make the persecuters, excuse me, prosecutors know you're sympathetic to Ryan. There's a life at stake here, and lying to the monsters is not wrong, it's necessary and righteous.

Red |6.6.08 @ 9:16AM|#

Just keep saying it,and it will come to be...RYAN'S IS INNOCENT AND GOING TO WALK.If there is any justice in the world. The 2nd ammendment is at stake.It truely seems sad that people have to die in order to make things change.

Pedantic Paul|6.9.08 @ 12:54PM|#

(emphasis on the "Zaar")

God I hope that was an intentional butchering of Czar or Tsar, the alternative is just too embarrassing.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements