edwardo wong; cop killer

Posted in the Newton Forum

“ BRING BACK PUBLIC HANGINGS!!!”

Since: Feb 07

PARTS UNKNOWN

#1 Jul 18, 2010
WAYNESVILLE — Attorneys for the man accused of killing a state trooper during a traffic stop say they still might question during trial whether the stop was legal despite a judge's ruling last week.WWW.CITIZEN-TIMES.COM

During a weeklong pretrial hearing, attorneys for Edwardo Wong argued there were no legal grounds to pull him over and asked the judge to suppress evidence taken after the stop.

That evidence includes recordings made from Trooper David Shawn Blanton's patrol car camera, which captured the sound of him being shot and pleading that he not be shot again because he had a newborn baby.

Judge Nathaniel Poovey instead agreed with prosecutors. They said Blanton had legal reason for the June 17, 2008, traffic stop because he couldn't find information in a police database about the license plate on Wong's truck and the car it was towing.

The judge also said Haywood County Sheriff's deputies had authority to chase and arrest Wong after the shooting based on the information they had about him and his truck.

Defense attorney Mark Melrose said the judge's finding doesn't mean he can't take the matter to the jury.

“We are going to do our very best to tell the whole story,” he said.“We want the jury to hear everything that happened that night.”

Both sides will have a chance to file what are known as “motion in limine” requests, which ask the judge to rule that certain evidence may or may not be used before the jury.

Typically, the defense makes these requests to limit the state's evidence, but prosecutors could also try to limit the defense's evidence.

District Attorney Michael Bonfoey declined comment for this article.

The weeklong hearing that ended Friday made public new details of the high-profile murder case.

Among them:

Blanton had been looking for illegal drug activity the night he was killed.

He asked Canton police dispatch to send a narcotics dog officer to a traffic stop about 30 minutes before pulling over Wong's truck, though he ended up canceling the request and letting the
TheOracle

Pasadena, CA

#2 Jul 25, 2010
Wong had no warrant in taking the life of the officer; However it seems to me the officer had no warrant in detaining Wong and telling him he was going to have to pat him down and put him in the back of his car. The case is a tragedy on both sides. I cannot see him being accused of Murder in the First.. Its the 3rd or 2nd degree at most and definitely not a death penalty case. I would give him a life sentence of 25 years based on the evidence I've heard.. which certainly doesn't qualify me to hand out any sentence. The guy seems to have a history of crime but it appears that everything checks out with his tags and the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him.. and even if he did I think that the fact the officer elevated the stop to a full detention and perhaps an arrest.. especially given what the officer said on the tapes and Wong's response was "I havn't done anything wrong" or something similar. Perhaps Wongs reaction could be explained by his past... He was in a public place minding his own business and had not committed any crime in driving down the road.. was perfectly legal. Then he is pulled over an harassed about "what he's doing, where he's going, and where he's coming from". The officer had no basis by the laws of the State and was possibly violating the United States Constitution in detaining this individual and more importantly elevating the detention to what would have been as a matter of law an arrest.

Terry vs. Ohio says a law officer may conduct a "frisk or pat down" if AND ONLY IF the officer first has reasonable suspicion that a crime has taken place, is taking place, or about to take place AND the officer has "Good Reason" to believe the subject of his investigation may be armed!

Now its easy to say the officer was just as its apparent that Wong had a gun as well as other contraband however that is not a valid reason for a fourth amendment intrusion on a person.

Before the officer elevated the situation in which he told Wong he was going to pat him down and cuff him and put in his cruiser... essentially an arrest as a matter of law.. The officer had the option of allowing Wong to remain in his vehicle and not invade him anymore then necessarily given the knowledge and circumstances know the the officer at that particular moment of time. He would have. It seems to me the evidence shows that Wong was cooperative in telling the officer his business.. where he came from and where he was headed and an explanation of the plates and about the dealer tag. Why didn't the officer go back and sit in his car and recheck the plates? Why did he have to inform this law abiding citizen that he would be frisked and detained (arrested) and put into his cruiser? It seems the officer has a record of making "bad stops" or stops that American Citizens Constitutional Rights on many occasions. Just because there is a tragedy at hand don't assume this officer was a perfect saint.. and most importantly give Wong a fair trial. He is innocent until proven guilty. I dont' care if you see him on a video kill a man.. Men of our country kill men every day and come home as heros.. They protect our State and our constitution right? Perhaps Wong acted in self defense? I believe the Constitution protects people who resist and flight a false arrest.. I'm not suggesting this was the case but it should be considered if Justice is to be served.
Californians Suck

Hendersonville, NC

#3 Aug 9, 2010
What is wrong with you? The man execuated a State Trooper at point-blank range! A police officer that went out there every day to make this nation a safer place for you and me and everyone else to live in. He put his life on the line to defend our freedom, safety and way of life. I don't even believe in the death penalty but they should stap wong to an electric chair, light him up and put the whole thing on TV to make an example for the next moron who wants to take the life of an officer of the law.
TheOracle wrote:
Wong had no warrant in taking the life of the officer; However it seems to me the officer had no warrant in detaining Wong and telling him he was going to have to pat him down and put him in the back of his car. The case is a tragedy on both sides. I cannot see him being accused of Murder in the First.. Its the 3rd or 2nd degree at most and definitely not a death penalty case. I would give him a life sentence of 25 years based on the evidence I've heard.. which certainly doesn't qualify me to hand out any sentence. The guy seems to have a history of crime but it appears that everything checks out with his tags and the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him.. and even if he did I think that the fact the officer elevated the stop to a full detention and perhaps an arrest.. especially given what the officer said on the tapes and Wong's response was "I havn't done anything wrong" or something similar. Perhaps Wongs reaction could be explained by his past... He was in a public place minding his own business and had not committed any crime in driving down the road.. was perfectly legal. Then he is pulled over an harassed about "what he's doing, where he's going, and where he's coming from". The officer had no basis by the laws of the State and was possibly violating the United States Constitution in detaining this individual and more importantly elevating the detention to what would have been as a matter of law an arrest.
Terry vs. Ohio says a law officer may conduct a "frisk or pat down" if AND ONLY IF the officer first has reasonable suspicion that a crime has taken place, is taking place, or about to take place AND the officer has "Good Reason" to believe the subject of his investigation may be armed!
Now its easy to say the officer was just as its apparent that Wong had a gun as well as other contraband however that is not a valid reason for a fourth amendment intrusion on a person.
Before the officer elevated the situation in which he told Wong he was going to pat him down and cuff him and put in his cruiser... essentially an arrest as a matter of law.. The officer had the option of allowing Wong to remain in his vehicle and not invade him anymore then necessarily given the knowledge and circumstances know the the officer at that particular moment of time. He would have. It seems to me the evidence shows that Wong was cooperative in telling the officer his business.. where he came from and where he was headed and an explanation of the plates and about the dealer tag. Why didn't the officer go back and sit in his car and recheck the plates? Why did he have to inform this law abiding citizen that he would be frisked and detained (arrested) and put into his cruiser? It seems the officer has a record of making "bad stops" or stops that American Citizens Constitutional Rights on many occasions. Just because there is a tragedy at hand don't assume this officer was a perfect saint.. and most importantly give Wong a fair trial. He is innocent until proven guilty. I dont' care if you see him on a video kill a man.. Men of our country kill men every day and come home as heros.. They protect our State and our constitution right? Perhaps Wong acted in self defense? I believe the Constitution protects people who resist and flight a false arrest.. I'm not suggesting this was the case but it should be considered if Justice is to be served.
anonymus

Charlotte, NC

#4 Aug 16, 2010
no law enforcement officer makes a wrong stop. if so did that give this animal the right to slaughter him? he is a criminal and should be shot just like he shot the trooper. if we do not get control of the crime in this country we better all start carrying guns. look at the record of this thug. why was he on the streets? i should be called for jury duty and i would put him on death row and suggest a fast death by shooting.i can not imagine what a heartache his wife and family have.my son is a police officer and i worry about him every day but someone must try to stop this crime. laws should change and punishment should be more severe like other countries.
TheOracle

Pasadena, CA

#5 Aug 16, 2010
Its a shame North Carolinians don't believe in the Constitution anymore...Its rather a reflection of all of America these days. "No Trooper makes a bad stop" ..is that so? I could give you personal examples of NC Troopers doing so. The only two moving violaton's I've ever had in my life were from Trooper Kevin Bray... both were because of his own misconduct. Look him up! You will see he was eventually fired as a Trooper for doing over 100 mph off duty and moved to central NC somewhere.. I grew up and lived in Hendersonville 20 years.. and then 3 years in Charlotte where I obtained a degree from The University of North Carolina at Charlotte. So "Californians Suck" ..don't be so ignorant.

I am scheduled for an arraignment here in Huntington Beach in Orange County California this Thursday on charges of "possession of a gravity knife". I was standing on a public side walk minding my own business... completely legal and was harassed and searched by a police officer.. could have been cause he didn't like they way I looked.. I mean I was parked 200 feet from "Bentley LN" and I guess I just looked like I didn't belong there. My father is a very upstanding citizen in western NC.. a self employed auto mechanic for 40 years there. Growing up working with him it was very customary to cary a pocket knife.. as it is for many people in the area. But apparently here a knife is considered a deadly weapon....Its called Illegal search and seizure.. something that is a guaranteed right under the 4th and 14th Amendment under the constitution of the United States of America.

Further more if an officer of the law should violate this right the US Supreme Court has many times upheld that the person subject to an illegal arrest may use all necessary force to defend against such a constitutional violation even until the point of killing the officer.. "and it way be no greater than 'manslaughter' if even that. see John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529 or this link.. www.dailypaul.com/node/73897

Wong was completely cooperative until this Trooper told him he was gonna have to frisk him and cuff him and put him in his car. He had no "founded suspicion" that warranted Probable cause as outlined in the 4th Amendment. Wong even asked: "Am I under arrest sur?" He responded "No your not under arrest but I need to 'search you and cuff you and lock you in my car' for my safety. The law clearly holds such actions as this as an arrest as it has restrained the liberties of "freedom of movement". At which point Wong was faced with an illegal arrest or fighting it which the law grants.

Don't forget that police officers get this thing called "Qualified Immunity" which means that they are immune from violations of a persons constitutional rights. The court held that if there is an illegal invasion of a persons rights ie without probable cause then the officer is no longer acting under the "color of the law" and therefore the subject of the 'investigation has the right to defend himself as an officer has the right and a gun to defend himself equally.

Let me just show you a story here in which an innocent man was executed by police..Zac Champommier http://witnessla.com/lasd/2010/admin/zac-cham...

The other guy evolved was accused of "looking into cars" the same as I was 3 weeks earlier. Neither of us were but were detained and searched illegally. Perhaps had I been able to make a difference with my case before this happened another innocent individual would not have lost his life.

Here is another one for ya.. Oscar Grant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shoo...

There is a thing called DUE PROCESS OF LAW.. its part of the 14th Amendment. There is a thing called FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES and that NO WARRANT SHALL ISSUE WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE nor without AND OATH OR AN AFFIRMATION ..the fourth Amendment.

Every officer by means of the constitution has to SWEAR and OATH to uphold this!
TheOracle

Pasadena, CA

#7 Aug 16, 2010
woops.. sorry for the double post
TheOracle

Pasadena, CA

#8 Aug 16, 2010
"no law enforcement officer makes a wrong stop"

you better hope your right cause your President just made an executive order allowing the international police to have full ability to operate in the US having full immunity from State and Federal Laws and the Constitution. http://libertypundits.net/article/obama-exemp...
TheOracle

Pasadena, CA

#9 Aug 17, 2010
"The essence of a divine oath is an invocation of divine agency to be a guarantor of the oath taker's own honesty and integrity in the matter under question. By implication, this invokes divine displeasure if the oath taker fails in their sworn duties. It therefore implies greater care than usual in the act of the performance of one's duty, such as in testimony to the facts of the matter in a court of law."

"A person taking an oath indicates this in a number of ways. The most usual is the explicit "I swear," but any statement or promise that includes "with * as my witness" or "so help me *," with '*' being something or someone the oath-taker holds sacred, is an oath. Many people take an oath by holding in their hand or placing over their head a book of scripture or a sacred object, thus indicating the sacred witness through their action: such an oath is called corporal."

"In law, oaths are made by a witness to a court of law before giving testimony and usually by a newly-appointed government officer to the people of a state before taking office. In both of those cases, though, an affirmation can be usually substituted. A written statement, if the author swears the statement is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is called an affidavit. The oath given to support an affidavit is frequently administered by a notary, who will certify the giving of the oath by affixing her or his seal to the document. Willfully delivering a false oath (or affirmation) is the crime of perjury."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

"The current oath administered is as follows:
“I,[name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.[So help me God.]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_t...
PLEASE READ.. http://www.emich.edu/cerns/downloads/papers/P...

Doesn't seem police even know what an Oath is and half of them have never read the constitution or don't know what the first 10 Amendments are and not one of them can recite all of the 10 Amendments.
Now.. I'd like to clarify a few things. I'm not a cold person by any means. It does enrage me though that people including the media bash this guy and yet hold no objective means for this mans rights. The title here is "edwardo wong; cop killer". I don't deny he killed a cop. Killing someone is not a crime. Murder is a crime. He is charged with Murder in the 1st and facing the death penalty. Our military kills innocent people every day and come home as heros. There is a thing called DUE PROCESS and a concept that one is INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY. All I've heard from the posters here and the media is that he is accused of "killing the Trooper" ..again not a crime. I've yet to see an article or a poster accuse him of Murder.

This story is a tragedy. I feel for the Trooper's family. I also feel for Wong as everyone wants to hang him before giving him a fair trial. It reminds me of what they did to that truck driver that hit and killed Mimi Page. It was also a tragedy but how can you pin it on a truck driver trying to make a living and then he almost loses his own life because a driver failed to pull to the side of the road when having car trouble? You tell me?
JUST FYI

Valdese, NC

#10 Aug 17, 2010
A police officer can search and cuff someone while they do a vehicle search for their own safety...in fact they are taught to do so. There would have been no problem if Wong would have not been breaking the law. Blanton had reasonable cause to pull him over and reasonable cause to search the vehicle, given the tag did not match. Now, tell me he isn't guilty as sin ... he took Blanton's gun and that found it in Wong's truck ... so not only did he kill Blanton but stole property ... hummmmm?
justice

United States

#11 Sep 14, 2010
i say forget the trial and hang him or shoot him as the same while he begs for life,
after reading his history of crimes before why waste tax dollars and making him famous for killing a troop? i'll be cheering when he gets the death pentaly which he doesn't seem to be scare of in the begin with or he would being compliance with the law. he deserves no trial
justice need to be done, to put a closure to this family feeling like a victims of some animal that has no remorse or acts as if he would do it again.

Since: Jul 08

United States

#12 Sep 17, 2010
Now I know whats wrong with you- you are another stupid bleeding heart liberal- besides the fact that you live in California- the land of fruit and nuts.
oh and he's your president not mine- I didn't vote for him.

"no law enforcement officer makes a wrong stop"

you better hope your right cause your President just made an executive order allowing the international police to have full ability to operate in the US having full immunity from State and Federal Laws and the Constitution

Since: Jul 08

United States

#13 Sep 17, 2010
the last post was intended for- TheOracle(the nut from long beach CA)
okwhatevr

Morganton, NC

#14 Oct 26, 2010
put all the politics and all the finger pointing aside let the first one who has not sinned cast the first stone....it rains on the just and unjust equally....let God be the judge of this man....the trooper had his reasons to pull wong and wong had his reason to shoot the officer...let God determine who was in the wrong that night not a jury of 12 sinners. this man was beatin after his arrest and officers openly admitted it without suffering any consequences where is officer integrity? wong u were a good man who made a bad decision..
TheOracle

Huntington Beach, CA

#15 Dec 2, 2010
@ JUST FYI:
“A police officer can search and cuff someone while they do a vehicle search for their own safety”
Wrong! See US Supreme Court Decision “Gant vs Arizona” and NC Supreme Court Decision “State v. Johnson” and where these searches all started “Terry vs Ohio”. JUST FYI… FYI its called a “Terry Stop” and an officer cannot just search or cuff someone. First the officer must have objective facts that suggest the suspect is armed and second they may only pat them down for weapons on the outer most layer of clothing ie they cannot stick their hands in your pockets or remove them unless they find something that would fall under the “Plain Feel” doctrine.
“[T]here would have been no problem if Wong would have not been breaking the law.”
Its seems though through the course of the trial that Wong was not breaking the law.. At least according the reasons for the warrantless seizure.
“Blanton had reasonable cause to pull him over and reasonable cause to search the vehicle, given the tag did not match.”
Again, it seems the tag did match. I would put money on it that the officer intentionally misstated the tag when calling it in. Even if not that is not PROBABLE CAUSE! I don’t think the 4th Amendment says anything about “Reasonable Suspicion”.. of wait a minute.. in fact it doesn’t. That came from Terry vs Ohio when essentially the US Supreme Court amended the Constitution without 2/3 vote in congress or 2/3 votes from the state legislatures.
“he took Blanton's gun”
If I was defending myself against a kidnapping and had to shoot a man knowing he is armed, I think I would disarm him as well before taking off. Just the traumatic event of having to take a life is enough to cause unusual and catastrophic behavior.

@ justice:
“i'll be cheering when he gets the death pentaly which he doesn't seem to be scare of in the begin with or he would being compliance with the law.“
Its seems though through the course of the trial that Wong was not breaking the law.. At least according the reasons for the warrantless seizure.
he deserves no trial”
So you are a Tyrant? You don’t believe in Article 3 or the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution? You know the only law the Constitution creates is tyranny against The United States of America?
“justice need to be done, to put a closure to this family feeling like a victims of some animal that has no remorse or acts as if he would do it again.”
Should a man who acted in self defense feel remorse? Especially when there are people like you that don’t care what he says, feels, etc? People like you that don’t want to give him a trial which in essence you don’t want to hear his apology or remorse as you are with prejudice.
TheOracle

Huntington Beach, CA

#16 Dec 2, 2010
@ somebelieve:
“Now I know whats wrong with you- you are another stupid bleeding heart liberal- besides the fact that you live in California- the land of fruit and nuts.
oh and he's your president not mine- I didn't vote for him.”
Did you read my posts or were you too full of emotion or prejudice to read them and try to understand them? You know I grew up right in the mountains?
From the 5th Post, My second post:
“grew up and lived in Hendersonville 20 years.. and then 3 years in Charlotte where I obtained a degree from The University of North Carolina at Charlotte. So "Californians Suck" ..don't be so ignorant.”
And no I didn’t vote for Obama either. I’m guessing you voted Republican? And if so you should note that it was the Great Republican Ronald Reagan that first introduced that bill.
I tend to vote Libertarian although independent. It was Ron Paul that introduced a bill into congress to stop Obama and reverse the executive order. Furthermore it is Ron Paul that sponsors a bill to end “The War On Drugs”.. ya the war that claimed the life of the trooper. If it hadn’t been for the government nosing into people’s private business then he wouldn’t have had the altercation. Wong wasn’t out prowling around looking for people to shoot at and kill. If you were to put yourself in his paradigm for one second you couldn’t deny the fact that he was defending his Civil Rights and Human Rights. He had not motive to harm anyone but at the same time he wasn’t going to allow a tyrannical government to take his life from him. Perhaps his record is due to this fact and that he is not a “bad man” and perhaps maybe a victim of circumstances. How about Wong as a victim? Do you not think there was a violation of privacy? Of Civil Rights? Or would you be the socialist that when it comes to a soccer mom carrying her kids in the minivan gets pulled over for such a thing and the officer pulls her out and throws her on the ground and taeses her in front of her children?
@ okwhatevr: Finally an individual who values life and its preciousness. One who realizes the world can be a terrible place and can look not only from their viewpoint but look at another’s paradigm and open their mind. Someone who understands the tragedy that occurred. Someone that would have made an excellent juror or perhaps was a juror. Someone without prejudice.
atlhockeymom

Lawrenceville, GA

#18 Jan 11, 2011
In response to "Post #3": Sir,it's quite obvious from the legal jargon you attempt to use in a correct manner, and your inability to cite a quote correctly that you are full of baloney and know neither your facts or "the law".

For the record, Trooper Kevin Bray DID NOT get fired and was in fact promoted to 1st Sgt. and continues to honorably serve and protect communities and uphold the law. As all law enforcement officers do, he puts his life on the line (even for whiners like you)every time he dons the badge, and even when he's 'off the clock'. LEOs are on the clock 24/7, paid or unpaid, because of their intense desire to protect, regardless of who the person in danger is.
I have know this Trooper for 30 years and he is as honest, loyal, and decent as they come.

You sir, obviously got "caught" doing something you thought you could get away with. Thankfully Trooper Bray apprehended you first. Stop whining, man up, and take your dose of punishment. And furthermore, if your going to "act" like an attorney, pass the bar first.

People like you are always the first ones to call our brave men and women in blue when in distress, BUT ALWAYS find something to bitch about afterwards.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Newton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ohio home wrecker 5 min Repeatly 2
Hickory is gay ! 29 min State of Florida 2
Hickory NC most racist place I've ever been (an... (Mar '11) 7 hr Liberal forever 217
Fiserv (Dec '09) 11 hr cstephens 34
Unifour Pain Clinic 20 hr Mark Stewart 1
Hickory doctor 21 hr Mark Stewart 2
driver cam (Feb '13) Thu 3finger saluter 15
Newton Dating
Find my Match

Newton People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Newton News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Newton

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:43 pm PST

Bleacher Report 1:43PM
Jason Avant to Chiefs: Latest Contract Details, Analysis and Reaction
NFL 2:19 PM
Jason Avant signs with Kansas City Chiefs
NBC Sports 2:24 PM
Column: NFL should realign after NFC South debacle - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 2:32 PM
Roman Harper fined $8,268 for unnecessary roughness
NBC Sports 2:32 PM
Roman Harper fined $8,268 for unnecessary roughness