State Trooper killed in crash - Surry

GeorgeBush

GeorgeBush

Member
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
4,069
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
There might be a thread on this already but I didn't see it. Lots of stories about it floating around right now but this one:

https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesm...e-for-trooper-s-death-tWA5j0QKM0Gf7F0yBVOVlA/

...has good pics of the perps and car. Haven't seen if they've caught anyone yet so keep your eyes open. Pretty tragic for this community... I went to school with some guys that worked closely with him and they're all just devastated.

I didn't know the trooper personally so save your prayers for all of them and their families.
 
Last edited:
I saw that on the news this morning. Very tragic. Prayers to him and his family.
 
I believe this is the same woman after the Meth...

web1_harrison-1.jpg
 
Pink_Vapor said:
What say ye, do the checkpoints conflict the 4th Amendment?
Click to expand...

Hijack...

That's real sticky... If its an auto checkpoint for what's required to drive on the road, it's should be ok. If it's used as a fishing expedition, that might cross the line. I'll let the Constitutional Layers speak to that.

Not driving? Bad form, not good, nada, nope, not happening.

Back to reality...
The crash is tragic.
 
Last edited:
How are they charged with murder, seems unrealistic.
If the chase became too complicated for the cops, let them go and live to chase another day.

Are cold stops like that even constitutionally allowed?
 
Cowboy said:
The guy is in custody but I do not believe she has been charged with anything.
Click to expand...
Tailhunter said:
How are they charged with murder, seems unrealistic. If the chase became too complicated for the cops, let them go and live to chase another day.
Are cold stops like that even constitutionally allowed?
Click to expand...
"Dakota Kape Whitt, 22, is wanted for murder and felony flee to elude arrest in a motor vehicle causing a death."
http://myfox8.com/2018/05/22/troope...-portion-of-i-77-southbound-in-yadkin-county/
Felony/Murder seems a stretch. If a cop is doing a u-turn because I was speeding 10 mph over the limit and gets in a wreck, is it my fault?
 
Last edited:
Pink_Vapor said:
"Dakota Kape Whitt, 22, is wanted for murder and felony flee to elude arrest in a motor vehicle causing a death."
http://myfox8.com/2018/05/22/troope...-portion-of-i-77-southbound-in-yadkin-county/
Felony/Murder seems a stretch. If a cop is doing a u-turn because I was speeding 10 mph over the limit and gets in a wreck, is it my fault?
Click to expand...

He is currently in custody. As far as the charges pulling a u turn for a speeding ticket is not the same as a felony flea to elude pursuit which caused the accident. I am not an expert on felony murder rule so I could not really understand it myself.
 
Pink_Vapor said:
Felony/Murder seems a stretch. If a cop is doing a u-turn because I was speeding 10 mph over the limit and gets in a wreck, is it my fault?
Click to expand...
When I read it, I assumed that all four burglars would be charged with murder because they were accessories to a murder during the commission of a felony.
Edit: I believe I'm thinking of a different case... Never mind ...
 
Last edited:
RedneckFur said:
I personally feel that they do. At a checkpoint, everyone is treated like a potential criminal, even if there is no evidence that a crime has been committed.
Click to expand...

I agree on a philosophical level but you have to remember that driving on a public road it not a right. It is a privilege granted to you by the state and federal highway system under certain conditions. One of those conditions is having your lic, registration etc... with you while operating the car. They therefore can stop people at a check point to verify that you are in compliance. They either have to stop everyone or stop people by a predetermined randomization in order for it to be constitutional. It must be truly random like every 4th car or they have to see something that is not in compliance like expired tags or a violation is plane sight. If they are just pulling over Hispanic or white drivers that undermines the Constitutionality of the process. There may also be some variance based on state laws pertaining to who get stopped. IIRC when I live in WV they had to stop every car.
 
wvsig said:
I agree on a philosophical level but you have to remember that driving on a public road it not a right. It is a privilege granted to you by the state and federal highway system under certain conditions
Click to expand...
That may be technically accurate, but it is also a total crock of crap that has been used to justify all sorts of abuse. Perhaps 100+ years ago, back when the primary means of locomotion was a horse this was reasonable, but today when driving is a virtual necessity for the vast majority of the productive populace it's an absurd notion.
 
This guy should be punished to the fullest extent of the law but I'm having an issue with the murder charge and the resist charge too. The Felony speeding to elude causing death is the charge that was specifically written for circumstances such as this. The resist is the same factors that made the speeding to elude possible so isn't appropriate either.
 
Last edited:
noway2 said:
That may be technically accurate, but it is also a total crock of crap that has been used to justify all sorts of abuse. Perhaps 100+ years ago, back when the primary means of locomotion was a horse this was reasonable, but today when driving is a virtual necessity for the vast majority of the productive populace it's an absurd notion.
Click to expand...

Necessity of driving has nothing to do with it being constitutional or not. People will argue that health care is a necessity, education is a necessity, gun control. All these are necessary. But it doesn't make them being included or excluded constitutional. It could just as easily be argued that since it is a virtual requirement that the majority of the productive populace uses the highway and road system that the enforcement of licensing laws be enforced even tighter to prevent abuse of the system.

I am not a fan of the searches either. But the notion of "need" does not redefine what is or is not constitutional.
 
@noway2 I'm not picking on you but if you change the topic of what you said to be the 2ndA...

That may be technically accurate, but it is also a total crock of crap that has been used to justify all sorts of abuse. Perhaps 100+ years ago, back when the primary weapon was a flintlock, this was reasonable, but today when guns aren't a virtual necessity for the vast majority of the productive populace it's an absurd notion.
Click to expand...

Incoming!!
 
Last edited:
@B00ger and @rdinatal without belaboring the going through and quoting of historical documents, I do believe that the founders intended for there to be free travel, flow, and unrestricted movement of the population. That such behavior has indeed become a need today supports the wisdom of the underlying principle. While perhaps not explicitly stated, or perhaps it was, I do believe that this intent is and was clear. Just as the 2nd not applying to flint locks only, the same principle of unrestricted travel should apply to more than just the horse and buggy. Hence, declaring driving a privilege is a total crock that should never have been allowed or tolerated. In fact, I see it as one more thing that needs to be undone and one more power that is expressly declared consent withdrawn. It strikes me as yet another example of illegitimate government claiming something is not a violation or infringement simply because "they" want it to be so. The fact that it has become the basis for clear infringement under the guise of "implied consent" is just further evidence to it being a violation.

Edit to add, I will also say that when this came on the TV this morning, my wife commented on how many times, especially on US 421 which she frequents, that she sees the HP driving in a manner that would certainly result in lesser citizens getting a passing grade, if you catch my meaning. There is clearly an attitude of the law is for the, not me, attitude amongst that organization.
 
Last edited:
noway2 said:
@B00ger and @rdinatal without belaboring the going through and quoting of historical documents, I do believe that the founders intended for there to be free travel, flow, and unrestricted movement of the population. That such behavior has indeed become a need today supports the wisdom of the underlying principle. While perhaps not explicitly stated, or perhaps it was, I do believe that this intent is and was clear. Just as the 2nd not applying to flint locks only, the same principle of unrestricted travel should apply to more than just the horse and buggy. Hence, declaring driving a privilege is a total crock that should never have been allowed or tolerated. In fact, I see it as one more thing that needs to be undone and one more power that is expressly declared consent withdrawn. It strikes me as yet another example of illegitimate government claiming something is not a violation or infringement simply because "they" want it to be so. The fact that it has become the basis for clear infringement under the guise of "implied consent" is just further evidence to it being a violation.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion, and well spoken for sure. I have no doubt that the founding fathers did, in fact, encourage freedom of movement. This discussion, and our disagreement on it, is best served in another thread at another time as I do not want it to distract from this loss of life.
 
Just read that they let the girl go because she was trying to exit the vehicle after he ran.
 
So I haven't been able to find a real good explanation of what caused the trooper to wreck and at what point in the chase he wrecked. I'm not sure murder is the best charge for this situation unless they are trying to get him to plead down to a manslaughter charge or negligent homicide. My mind could be changed depending on the details of the chase and stop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NKD
The charge against the driver is correct. His actions caused the Troopers actions and resulted in the Troopers death. No one else in the eluding vehicle should be charged since they can claim that they were unwilling participants.

Prayers to both families.....
 
"BREAKING: Judge orders Dakota Whitt to jail with no bond. He will be appointed a capital defender. WATCH WXII 12 NEWS at Noon for the very latest."
 
wvsig said:
I agree on a philosophical level but you have to remember that driving on a public road it not a right. It is a privilege granted to you by the state and federal highway system under certain conditions. One of those conditions is having your lic, registration etc... with you while operating the car. They therefore can stop people at a check point to verify that you are in compliance. They either have to stop everyone or stop people by a predetermined randomization in order for it to be constitutional. It must be truly random like every 4th car or they have to see something that is not in compliance like expired tags or a violation is plane sight. If they are just pulling over Hispanic or white drivers that undermines the Constitutionality of the process. There may also be some variance based on state laws pertaining to who get stopped. IIRC when I live in WV they had to stop every car.
Click to expand...

Freedom of travel is a right, just like free speech and firearms.

Stopping drivers at checkpoints is no more legal than a "stop and frisk" would be on a sidewalk to determine which pedestrians might be carrying something illegal in their pocket.

To claim that freedom of travel doesn't apply to automobiles because the founding fathers couldn't have foreseen them at the time, is no different than saying that the 1A doesn't apply to computers and email, or the 2A doesn't apply to AR15's for the same reason.
 
Bailey Boat said:
The charge against the driver is correct. His actions caused the Troopers actions and resulted in the Troopers death.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time reconciling the"he made me do it" argument with the notion of personal responsibility. While the death is tragic, the deceased made a decision to take actions that lead to his death.

Any reasonable person could not believe the guy in custody intended for harm to come to the deceased, and in my mind, some level of intent is necessary to charge someone with a capital crime.

Tragic, yes.....and no doubt the guy who ran isn't a model citizen. But the Trooper made a choice - ultimately a costly one. Rather than try and pin it on some lowlife, perhaps use it as a teaching moment on risk assessment and decision making to prevent future tragedy...
 
Last edited:
SPM said:
I have a hard time reconciling the"he made me do it" argument with the notion of personal responsibility. While the death is tragic, the deceased made a decision to take actions that lead to his death.

Any reasonable person could not believe the guy in custody intended for harm to come to the deceased, and in my mind, some level of intent is necessary to charge someone with a capital crime.

Tragic, yes.....and no doubt the guy who ran isn't a model citizen. But the Trooper made a choice - ultimately a costly one. Rather than try and pin it on some lowlife, perhaps use it as a teaching moment on risk assessment and decision making to prevent future tragedy...
Click to expand...

This is what I was getting at. I'm more ok with the felony murder rules in a situation like this:
3 people break in to your home while you are there. You shoot and kill one in defense. The other two are apprehended and are charged with murder because their accomplice died during the commission of their crime. In this case, the 3 people had a criminal intent to attack you in your home. I'm not sure that I believe the intent is the same in this case. That's why I'm a little dicey on the charge of murder specifically.
 
SPM said:
I have a hard time reconciling the"he made me do it" argument with the notion of personal responsibility. While the death is tragic, the deceased made a decision to take actions that lead to his death.

Any reasonable person could not believe the guy in custody intended for harm to come to the deceased, and in my mind, some level of intent is necessary to charge someone with a capital crime.

Tragic, yes.....and no doubt the guy who ran isn't a model citizen. But the Trooper made a choice - ultimately a costly one. Rather than try and pin it on some lowlife, perhaps use it as a teaching moment on risk assessment and decision making to prevent future tragedy...
Click to expand...
This is definitely the part that needs discussing.
There is some truth here.
 
Tailhunter said:
Why not? A discussion is just that. Sure it’s a horrible thing but maybe a discussion is needed.
Click to expand...
Because this threads idea wasn't intended for debating that, it was intended as somewhat if a memorial thing. Should have started a thread to debate the legality of what happened? /Shrug
 
Scari said:
So an officers death turns into a constitutional argument? Classy
Click to expand...

If the possibility of his death being caused, either directly or indirectly, is a result of exceeding the authority granted to his employer, then is it not worth discussing if the goal is to address the issue and prevent its recurrence?
 
You could say I was a little surprised at the turn this thread took... but anyway.

Since when have cops not had the authority to setup roadblocks and checkpoints? They do it all the time to catch drunks and interstate felons?

Lately on this stretch of 77 and nearby 421 they have been busting meth traffickers; a huge problem in this and surrounding counties.
 
SPM said:
Any reasonable person could not believe the guy in custody intended for harm to come to the deceased, and in my mind, some level of intent is necessary to charge someone with a capital crime.
Click to expand...
I can't help but think of that line from Westworld where Maeve says, "These violent delights have violent ends."

Scari said:
So an officers death turns into a constitutional argument? Classy
Click to expand...
This is a real peeve of mine. Why should someone's death be considered more tragic just because they chose a certain profession? When the "bad" guy/girl is caught, it will be a second life ended, yet, I don't think that there will be nearly as much consideration given to how tragic it is; and it will be equally, if not more so for their family.

GeorgeBush said:
Since when have cops not had the authority to setup roadblocks and checkpoints? They do it all the time to catch drunks and interstate felons?
Click to expand...
Just because they've been doing it for far too long doesn't mean it was right to begin with. The State assumes it has a lot of "authority" that it granted itself that it really doesn't, it's just that the majority of the population is too ignorant or too apathetic to do something about it.

Lately on this stretch of 77 and nearby 421 they have been busting meth traffickers; a huge problem in this and surrounding counties.
Click to expand...
Yet another area where "Government" has assumed a false "authority", telling people what they are and are not permitted to put in their bodies. "Government" action, via policing has gone a long way into making the drug problem into a violent crime problem.

I sympathize for the loss and pain of the family, I can't say the same for the institution(s) that lead to these tragic endings as I see them as culpable.
 
Last edited:
You know if one of those meth-heads detonates in Walmart while mixing up their vice... it infringes upon my life, liberty and happiness?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom