CHESAPEAKE
Ryan Frederick was "stoned out of his mind" and "in an angry, blind rage" when he killed a Chesapeake detective during a drug raid a year ago and later told a jail inmate that if he had more ammunition, "he would have taken them all down," a prosecutor told jurors Wednesday.
"He's over there" in jail "bragging about it. He thinks he's going to beat this charge," James Willett, one of three prosecutors, told the jury during opening statements.
Frederick's attorney later disputed the scenario, telling the jury there was no evidence Frederick was stoned and that he thought he was protecting himself and his home from intruders.
As the widow of Detective Jarrod Shivers sat in the second row, Willett described in great detail the scene that night at 932 Redstart Ave. in the city's Portlock section:
Two vans pulled up to the house about 8:30. Nine officers, with a battering ram, went to the front door. Another group went behind the house to a detached garage, where police believed Frederick was growing marijuana.
An officer banged on the front door, shouting "Chesapeake police. Search warrant. Open the door." He repeated that three times. The officers gave Frederick 25 seconds to answer - which Willett timed for the jury - before striking the door with the 40-pound steel battering ram.
Shivers, a 34-year-old father of three, was third in line, with his foot at the bottom step of the front stoop. Wearing a protective vest, his body was turned sideways, his gun pointed at a front window to his right.
Inside, Frederick was in bed with the television on. He usually awoke at 4 a.m. for work so he was typically in bed by that time of night. His dogs started barking. He reached for his handgun and headed toward the front door.
As he began to hear the banging of the battering ram, and then see an arm reaching in through a split in the door, he fired. His gun jammed and as he tried to unjam it, it fired again.
" 'Is this idiot shooting at us?' " one officer outside thought to himself, according to Willett.
Frederick's first bullet struck Shivers just above the vest and just below his shoulder, entering his body sideways and tearing apart arteries in his chest, Willett said.
The officers retreated, dragging Shivers to a neighbor's house. They called for Frederick to surrender, which he did. He dropped his gun and walked out with his hands up.
"It was that person, under the influence," Willett said, pointing at Frederick, "that executed this tragedy."
Frederick's attorney, James Broccoletti, told the jury a different version, saying there was no evidence Frederick was stoned that night and a detective will testify that Frederick was sober during questioning.
With his dogs barking and his television blaring, Frederick never heard officers yelling "police," Broccoletti said. Officers pulled up in unmarked vans and wore dark clothing. Frederick also never saw any police insignia. The word "police" wasn't visible on Shivers' clothing, he said.
"Who would think that was the police?" Broccoletti asked the jury.
He said Frederick didn't realize it was the police at his door until they told him to walk out with his hands up. E ven then, Frederick thought a neighbor had called 911 to report the intruder to his home.
"A man has a right to be free from intrusions in his castle," he said. Frederick "had no understanding or expectation that this is happening at the hands of law enforcement."
Police found no marijuana plants, scales or packaging material, just a bong and a baggie of marijuana that Broccoletti said was for Frederick's personal use.
Frederick was so fearful of another break-in to his home - he was burglarized two or three days before - that earlier that night he had purchased dead bolts for his front door, Broccoletti said.
Those burglars are expected to testify later in the trial. One or both were police informants.
During a heated argument Wednesday over the role of the burglars, Broccoletti asked Circuit Court Judge Marjorie T. Arrington for a mistrial. She is expected to rule on that this morning. If she refuses the motion, the first prosecution witnesses will testify.
Tim McGlone, (757) 446-2343, tim.mcglone@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Ryan
My heart breaks for Mrs. Shivers, and for Ryan. I think this was a set up from Jump Street, with police relying on criminals for information. If Ryan was growing pot, where was it? What happened to the criminal who stole his plants? Why execute a search warrant at that particular time? So many questions - one truth. Too bad we will never know it.
Call a Cop?
My truck was burglarized...I didn't bother calling the police. My father beaten by security guards at a hospital he was treated for heart desease, cancer, etc. I called the police, big mistake. One of the security guards was an ex-cop. The police who came only took my name and address,D.O.B,phone# and then threatened me. Every cop I know in the neighborhood I grew up in, has a wife who has been psychologically abused, and is now alcoholic and the absolutly most wiped out speed freeks I have ever scene. It is sad,youcan't do anything about it. What could I do call a cop? No the Police are going to soon need us,to save them and others in positions of power. Think Mussolini,or Hitler. This last decade is parallel to the roaring twenties which brought on Facism and nazis and ultimately Judges,prosecuters and others (think of Mussolini hanging by his feet)to there knees.
Dr. Tabor; brpster
I think you are right, Dr. Tabor...WHERE is this brpster reciting this from? The internet on law? HA,HA,HA!! I, for one, would NOT wait to sit around and see if the person who FORCED their way into my home, was gonna go after me FIRST, before I tried to defend myself! Hey! Maybe Ryan should have stopped in his tracks, and said, "wait a minute here...can we talk about this? did you break my door down to just come in here for a cup of coffee and we could sit and watch some tv? or, did you come in here for what???" Yea, let's stop and have a nice conversation to ascertain just WHY they broke into the door, then if the cop didn't pop him FIRST, because of thinking they saw him with a gun, and then use the excuse THEY felt they were in fear of THEIR lives, well, here we go again...DOUBLE STANDARDS....go check out today's comments on the jurors going to his house today...new comments there...
Brpster, what is your cite?
That is not what Va Code 18.2-32 says.
That section defines first and second degree murder and says nothing about self defense.
Pattyobx
The death penalty is not on the table for this case. Life in prison is. But you are right, a life is a life, and the punishment needs to be metted out.
Hey notfiveo continued
implied it is MURDER.
Ryan is guilty of at least manslaughter, as would anyone who killed someone entering their house. Go back over the news the last year and look up all the home invasions where they kicked the door in, yet did not harm the occupants. Breaking in the door is NOT iminent danger.
Hey notfiveo
18.2-32 18.2-32 Self-defense is an affirmative defense and the state may cast upon the accused the burden of proving self-defense. Self-defense must meet the following criteria.1.Defense must be necessary to protect against grievious bodily harm.2. And the necessity must not arise out of accused's misconduct.3. Accused must retreat as far as he safely can before killing.4. To reduce the offense to killing in self-defense the accused must prove two things, a. that before the mortal blow was given he declined further combat and reteated as far as he could with safety and b. that he killed the deceased through the necesity of preserving his life or to save himself from great bodily harm.5. There must be an overt act by deceased to warrant a killing. 6. For fear alone that a man intends to commit murder will not suffice. Furthermore, Killing to resist entry of dwelling, The owner may resist the entry of his dwelling but he HAS NO RIGHT TO KILL, unless it be rendered necessary to prevent loss of life or great bodily harm.If he kills where there is not a reasonable ground or apprehension of imminent danger to his person or property, it is manslaughter, and if done with malice, express or
Yeah right
If they can send criminals to break into his house for them, they can certainly get criminals to lie about conversations they had with him.
brpstr
To add: I don't agree with capital punishment, just because he was an officer of the law. The Bible says: an eye for an eye....so, if someone is shot/killed, then everyone should receive capital punishment,right? Does God place an officer of the law above any other human? I don't think so. We are all great/good in whatever we choose to do with our lives. And to people hater....get real, buddy....guess you never saw a fruitcake who was stoned, then got angry and became beligerant? I have, unfortunately, and so, there you go. But, for the prosecutor to use that as an out for getting this man convicted is pretty petty. And to surround a house over a mere warrant to search for growing pot, and that time of night? LOTS AND LOTS OF UNTOLD TRUTHS THAT WE WILL NEVER KNOW, BECAUSE THEY WILL ALL HAVE EACH OTHERS' BACK, just to see this man convicted because one of their fellow men was shot/killed. Their department screwed up, and they are trying to cover up. Plain and simple.
Double sided coin
True, it's sad a life was lost. Sad to have a wife to testify in tears for almost half an hour....testify to what? That she was married to him and he was a great family man and husband? What purpose does that serve? To make the jury feel pity on her? They already know the circumstances. Why use pity to make them use that as a decision to convict a person. Had the coin been flipped, and a police officer had someone banging on his door and didn't hear them, but saw an arm come thru, and he had a gun ready to protect himself, etc., and he shot the person on the outside, would it be deemed allowable, because he was an outstanding officer of the law, and he was only protecting himself? Bet his butt would have gotten off, and there would not be any issues of capital punishment, now would there be? And, why would a whole slew of officers surround the house, just on a warrant over a possible issue of growing pot? And serving it that time of night? LOTS AND LOTS of UNTOLD TRUTHS that are being kept hushed, you can bet. And...everyone will back each other regardless if they know it's right to keep their mouths shut, or not. Their job would be on the line, and....they lost a fellow officer, s
Stoned and Enraged can't
Stoned and Enraged can't usually describe the same person in one particular point in time.
"breaking in a door is NOT a
"breaking in a door is NOT a design to do some serious bodily harm and is not imminent danger of carrying out the design."
Breaking in the door was necessary because the cops forgot to ask their informants to steal the key.
Next time I go to the gun range, I will need to practice patience. If someone breaks in my door now, I will just assume that the person coming in is not there to watch the Super Bowl or shake my hand.
Fortunately adrenaline and basic instincts to protect myself and property will prevail.
“imminent danger”
Hey BRPSTER it is reasonable to assume imminent danger if someone is breaking your door down.
wolfy
sharonm34849: "Maybe they didn't test this fellow for drugs, but - he looked plenty high to me in those first photos of him upon arrest."
Well Sharonm, let's see the police try to break into your home at 3am as you sleep in your pajamas and see how wide open (and sleepy) your eyes appear when your picture is taken. Oh my.. these comments can only make you laugh.
More lol comments: "Anyone who would defend the killer of a police officer, however, as many fellow commentators have, has it wrong. (Yea, unless the police were in the wrong - like in this case.) They put their lives on the line every day for every one of us." And that means they never do wrong - and even if they act like criminals (I.E. Ryan Fredrick case)since they put our...opps their lives on the line...they should always be excused. At any rate, Ryan is a vicious criminal..he had a bong! Case closed. Stay tuned for another episode of CSI.
It is interesting that no one actually responded to my point that 99.9 percent of officers would have said that Ryan did the right thing..if Ryan was a police officer. You don't respond because you know it is true! Hypocrites indeed.
Hey Al, here is VA case law and precedent for you
The “bare fear” of serious bodily injury, or even death,
however well-grounded, will not justify the taking of human
life. . . . “There must [also] be some overt act indicative of
imminent danger at the time.” (citations omitted). In other
words, a defendant “must wait till some overt act is done[,] .
. . till the danger becomes imminent.” (citation omitted).
In the context of a self-defense plea, “imminent danger” is
defined as “[a]n immediate, real threat to one's safety . . .
.” (citation omitted). “There must be . . . some act menacing
present peril . . . [and] [t]he act . . . must be of such a
character as to afford a reasonable ground for believing there
is a design . . . to do some serious bodily harm, and imminent
danger of carrying such design into immediate execution.”
Commonwealth v. Sands, 262 Va. 724, 729, 553 S.E.2d 733, ___ (2001).
breaking in a door is NOT a design to do some serious bodily harm and is not imminent danger of carrying out the design.
Jarrodd Shivers
Maybe they didn't test this fellow for drugs, but - he looked plenty high to me in those first photos of him upon arrest. Anyone who would defend the killer of a police officer, however, as many fellow commentators have, has it wrong. They put their lives on the line every day for every one of us. I simply so not believe Ryan Frederick is innocent, but would bet (if I had any money) on the testimony that he was high, and intended to kill.
Witness
People...relax. Regardless of which side of this case you come down on , be advised, this is relevant evidence and evidence which has been deemed admissible by all courts in Virginia and is routinely admitted in every homicide case. Indeed, the commonwealth attorney must prove, as an element of the case that a living human being was killed . How do you accopmlish that without a stipulation by the Defense attorney or testimony by a friend or family member. Remember, the prosecution has the burden of proof and the jury comes in as a "blank slate". That is, they are assumed to know nothing. Only what is proven in court may be used by them in reaching a verdict. Are you really so blinded by anger over what you perceive as an injustice that you submit that both the Circuit Court Judge, a veteran of 20 or more years in prosecution, and Broccoletti, a veteran as both a prosecutor and Defense attorney,would allow this if it was wrong? Get hold of yourselves and let the process work. P.S. "Witness" has a much broader definition than just "someone who was there".
sour deal
If someone was attempting to break down my door, his arm already inside my house, I am not going to run to the window to look outside, nor will I try to locate my telephone. With only seconds to think, My only thought will be getting to my nearest GUN, and protecting myself and family from this DEATH THREAT!!! (which is just what he did) If someone is breaking down my door, its obvious their not comming in for tea and cookie's!!! The THREAT was there, and was responded to in a proper manner... In reality, the police should have waited for him to open his door, this was not a known criminal, just a ordinary citizen that had been set-up by some low-life's trying to get out of their own trouble by causing trouble for someone else.... FREE RYAN!!!!!!!
Crazy decisions by Court
Things are going on in this courtroom that I have never seen in over 800 trials. It seems the Shivers family was friends with all these people and they are waging a personal emotional war against Ryan. All this because a couple robbers thought it would be fun to lie to the police about what this guy had in his garage. What did ryan do to Wright? I have worked with a couple of these prosecutors. I have never seen them work so hard to ensure a guilty verdict. What about upholding justice?
Robertm99871
".....from the comments that I read about half of those who think that Ryan is getting a raw deal have more trouble with the current drug laws, than than they do with this young man's future....."
You miss the point. We have a problem with the current drug laws because of the impact they have on this, and many other, young men's futures. Presidents Obama, Bush and Clinton have all acknowledged drug use. Would they have been better off if they had been the subjects of law enforcement attention because of their drug use? Would the country? In most cases, the enforcement of these drug laws does more harm than the drugs themselves.