The Virginian-Pilot
©
CHESAPEAKE
The state's highest court has denied Ryan Frederick's appeal of his conviction for voluntary manslaughter in the shooting death of a city detective.
Eric Korslund, Frederick's lawyer, said he learned Friday that the Virginia Supreme Court rejected without comment his request that it hear his full argument. The decision was dated Tuesday.
Korslund has contended that the Circuit Court jury shouldn't have been given the option of choosing manslaughter, and questioned what a magistrate was told before issuing a search warrant that led police to Frederick's door the night of the fatal shooting.
The Supreme Court decision ends Frederick's state appeals.
Korslund said he'd have to talk to Frederick to see whether they'd want to pursue other issues in federal court.
Frederick claimed self-defense against unknown attackers to explain why he fired a shot as police broke into his South Norfolk home in January 2008.
That shot killed Jarrod Shivers, a 34-year-old father of three.
A jury in February 2009 convicted Frederick, then 29. A judge in May 2009 imposed the jury's recommended maximum sentence of 10 years, which Frederick is serving at the Mecklenburg Correctional Center.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Get your popcorn,
it's a lookmano and rooster throwdown.
Thank you Va Supreme Court
Rot in prison...
authority argument
First off, those who use the "you must have a problem with authority" argument to refute any criticism of police procedure are clearly intellectually bankrupt. Those who use the "it's the law -so stop complaining" argument are morally bankrupt. Why?
The fact that you blindly support unjust laws (and our drug laws are clearly unjust in every respect) confirms your allegiance to a system that is all about using coercive/immoral methods to maintain power.
A police officer died while enforcing an unjust law. Simple as that...
For those intellectually bankrupt forum participants who believe that using an ad hominem argument is an effective way of making a point, I have never used illicit drugs. I do, however, use the most dangerous drug in the world -tobacco. All substances should be legal.
Re: "you must have a problem with authority"
You obviously do have a problem with authority and I pray for you if anyone you know or are related to is a victim of a crime, since most crimes are related to illegal drugs, and you do not call 911 because you obviously do not like police officers.
I not only support the police department I would stop and help one in trouble. I believe all illegal drugs should be destroyed, as they have destroyed persons, families and innocent bystanders.
I will do my part and report every single crach head, drunk driver, street thug I come in contact with, maybe you, and protect my family by exercising my constitutional right to keep and carry fire arms...
I Would Venture To Say, "WOLFYBARKS",
that the majority of those forum folks, characterized by you as morally and/or intellectually bankrupt, apply pretty much the same descriptive terms to those who blithely call for the legalization of all substances, regardless of their toxicity.
Further, your claim, "A police officer died while enforcing an unjust law. Simple as that...", is nowhere NEAR as simple as you would have other readers believe. It's just easier to make such a pat, neatly-wrapped, blanket statement as that in the hopes that by doing so, one's position may be bolstered.
And, finally, if I may, tobacco is not a drug. It is a plant. You probably knew that, but I felt compelled to point it out, nonetheless.
If tobacco is not a drug, but a plant
what, pray tell, is marijuana?
I think it is also a plant, and used with a lot less chemical additives than tobacco.
Cigarettes are nothing more than a delivery system for one of the most highly addictive drugs in the world: nicotine.
And the amounts of nicotine and other additives have been precisely measured by the cigarette manufacturers to make that addiction very profitable as well as very effective.
BTW, heroin is from poppies and cocaine from cocoa plants. All natural ingredients.
Meth, on the other hand, not so much.
Amen
Amen. Problem is, only those who stand on principle can even comprehend what you're talking about. Agreeing with a court or government because their decisions fall in line with one's morals and principles is sound judgement and living with integrity. Calling something "right" solely because a court or government says so it morally bankrupt.
yes it is that simple
Quote: "Further, your claim, "A police officer died while enforcing an unjust law. Simple as that...", is nowhere NEAR as simple as you would have other readers believe." Either he was enforcing an unjust law that fails to recognize that every individual owns his or her body - or not. In the end, he was defending tyranny. When slavery was legal in this country those who defended the law were supporting an unjust/immoral law.
Yes, it is that simple. The fact that you and others on this forum are having so much difficulty comprehending it clearly confirms your intellectual/moral bankruptcy.
Tobacco is a mood and mind altering substance (hence can be considered a "drug")-so is marjuana, ect.
What You Won't Accept, Wolfybarks,
Or are ignorant of, is the fact that police officers are NOT empowered to enforce those laws they agree with and overlook those they have disdain for, the principle of police discretionary powers notwithstanding. End of story.
And golly, there you go again, slinging around that tiresome bankruptcy thing; my, you are, if nothing else, quite predictable.
Finally, as to your last, let's try this - repeat after me:
"The active, mood-influencing ingredient in tobacco is nicotine, that's N-I-C-O-T-I-N-E."
"The active, mood-influencing ingredient in marijuana is Tetrahydrocannabinol, that's T-....um, make that T-H-C."
And no matter how hard you wish to the contrary, Wolfybarks, tobacco and marijuana are, in fact, plants.
"I was just doing my job" excuse
"Or are ignorant of, is the fact that police officers are NOT empowered to enforce those laws they agree with and overlook those they have disdain for, the principle of police discretionary powers notwithstanding. End of story."
They are, however, capable of deciding to not join the police force. Hence, the officer in question decided to enforce unjust laws. He is no victim (except the victim of his own poor decisions).
"And golly, there you go again, slinging around that tiresome bankruptcy thing; my, you are, if nothing else, quite predictable."
It may be a tiresome word for you. Nevertheless, your statement does nothing to damage the argument I made.
"The active, mood-influencing ingredient in tobacco is nicotine, that's N-I-C-O-T-I-N-E." Point made..I was referring to the drug and method of administration by naming the product..ok, SORRY.