Second Arrest Made In Highway Shooting

Va. Cops: 16-Year-Old Suspect Is Friends With 19-Year-Old Man Arrested Earlier

(AP)  A manhunt for shooters whose potshots at passing cars shut down a mountain highway ended Friday when authorities stormed a central Virginia farm, arresting a teenager and firing at a man carrying a gun.

Investigators said they now believe the shootings that slightly injured two drivers were part of a long night of random gunfire in which the 19-year-old, a former high school athlete with a record of making trouble, and a 16-year-old also shot at a credit union and a residence.

"Everyone can, I think, rest compared to the state that we were in overnight," State Police Superintendent Steven Flaherty said at a news conference in Charlottesville.

Slade Allen Woodson, of Afton, was charged in the shootings at the home and the credit union early Thursday, as well as the Interstate 64 shootings, which stirred memories of the Washington-area sniper shootings six years ago that killed 10 people.

Authorities also charged a 16-year-old from Crozet whose name was not released.

Besides Woodson's charges in the building shootings, he and the other teen were charged with two felony counts of malicious wounding, one count of attempted malicous wounding, two counts of the use of a firearm in a felony and five counts of maliciously shooting at an occupied vehicle.

They were being held pending bond hearings Monday.

On a MySpace page attributed to Woodson, he described his occupation as "mechanic, sorta" and wrote, "Im just a country boy who keeps gettin his heart broken!!! Ive got my heart broken twice in less then a year... i dunno wat to do.... keep gettin my heart broke or stop caring!!! and i dont wanna stop caring."

Police declined to offer a possible motive in the highway shootings, which began early Thursday in central Virginia.

According to police, authorities took a call minutes after midnight from a driver in a car that had been shot. In the hours that followed, gunshots hit another car, a van, a tractor-trailer and an unoccupied dump truck.

Sometime between midnight and 2 a.m. Thursday, shots also were fired at the credit union and a residence in Waynesboro.

Investigators promptly shut down a 20-mile stretch of I-64 between Waynesboro and Charlottesville, home to the University of Virginia, reopening it around dawn.

Surveillance video at the credit union captured a light-colored AMC Gremlin around the time shots were fired there, and police found the car Thursday afternoon, abandoned along a road.

Authorities determined that Woodson owns a vehicle similar to the car in the video and accelerated a manhunt that wrapped up in a pre-dawn raid Friday.

Elaine Paley, who lives on a hill overlooking the horse and cattle farm near Crozet, said she was awakened at 4:40 a.m. by a helicopter shining a spotlight on the farm and surrounding woods.

State and county police moved in on the farm just before 5 a.m., shooting a man who confronted them with a handgun, police said. Woodson was taken into custody, and the man was taken to a hospital, where he was in stable condition. His identity wasn't released.

The Albemarle County police officer involved in the shooting is on administrative leave with pay, Chief John Miller said.

Police recovered a gun from the house that is the same caliber as most of the ballistic evidence from the shootings.

"I can't tell you that is the weapon, but it's of the same caliber," Flaherty said.

According to news reports and court records, Woodson was arrested Jan. 18, 2007, on allegations he stole two pickup trucks and set them on fire. Woodson, a former high school pole vaulter, was convicted of two misdemeanor counts of petit larceny and given a suspended sentence.

At Woodson's home in Afton, a handwritten statement was duct-taped to a blue-green Isuzu Trooper parked in front of a white split-level house with a wooden fence, a swingset in the yard and an American flag.

"All we can say is that we love our boy an(d) we hope the incident on I-64 is not related to him," the note stated. "We also want to say our hearts are with the innocent victim that was shot by police during our sons arrest."

People at the home declined to be interviewed.

Glen Woodson, the suspect's father, repeated those comments in a phone interview.

[nodemotwit]

A person cant be a legal felon until theyve been convicted. A problem is somebody can commit felonies and still buy a gun because their record is clean, at least until theyve been caught. How do we determine which buyers are legitimate citizens or which ones have criminal intentions?
Posted by Displeased

You can''t, unless you want to pretend your Tom Cruise in Minority Report.
And only the purest of Liberals have that kind of power
-eg: All law abiding gun owners are pre-criminals,
therefore make guns illegal, problem solved.

But... :
a) small arms are manufactured around the world, not just in the US,
b) no US president, Dem or Repub, has been able to stop the flow of illegal
drugs into the US,
c) the illegal US drug trade generated upwards of $75B in ''07,
d) guns are essential to the illegal drug trade,
e) taken as a whole, US small arms manufactures are not valued in the Billions of dollars,
f) ergo, with $75 Billion per year the illegal drug trade can easily afford invest in
non-US small arm manufacturing plants, making copies of small arms as needed, and simply
include them in the tonnage of illegal drugs they already smuggle into the US every year,
g) and since the liberal law that drug-criminals can''t do business with non-drug-criminals, you have a gun black market, distributing to all criminals.

A long way of saying that making guns illegal in the US will just guarantee that, in the end, only the criminals will have guns.

(cont)

[nodemotwit]

(cont)

You could, however, take steps to make it more costly for individuals w/a history of violent misdemeanor convictions (but no felonies) to LEGALLY (key word) acquire guns. For example, for a period of time (5yrs ?) after their most recent violent misdemeanor conviction they could be required to adhere to NFA-like requirements (mug shot, prints, gun tax, gun registration, interstate transportation restrictions, etc.). That would be a way to try and dissuade these individuals from proceeding onto violent felony infractions, and make it easier to ID the ones that do. But to thwart the inevitable vindictive spousal units associated w/US divorce you would need some stiff penalties for staged events leading to false convictions.

[gunownerdan]

How can anyone be so stupid to think they can shoot at random people and cars and get away with it?
And no gun haters, it''s not the gun''s fault!

[billorights]

Well, I''m glad we can agree on at least one thing, there are a LOT of people who, although legally innocent, have in fact committed numerous felonies, and are legally entitled to buy a gun thanks to the efforts of people like you! - Posted by Candide777

Would you like to begin revoking the constitutional rights of everyone who MAY commit a crime? Maybe we should limit your right to free speech, because you have proven that you will inevitably say or write something inane. Or don''t you like the idea of prior restraint when it applies to you?

[billorights]

I wish I could see the look of incredulity on your face when Obama''s first appointment is confirmed - Posted by Candide777

His first appointment will be a consultation with his minister, scheduled during McCain''s inauguration. The look on my face will be a smile.

[billorights]

Our constitution guarantees that the rights of the citizen cannot be abridged except by due process. These rights include liberty, and freedom of speech, among others. This means that by merely accusing a person of some offense, their rights remain intact unless and until they are taken away by due processs.

In this country, if a citizen is accused of a felony, the courts cannot unilaterally decide to punish that person until they are convicted of the offense. If the government fails to prove their case against the accused, they are legally innocent. There are other legal systems that may do a better job of preventing criminals from commiting crimes, but people living in those countries pay a steep price for that kind of security. In this country, we are not willing to pay that price. Security, at the expense of liberty, is no security at all.

BillORights, you lost this one back when she posted this:

The truth is, you can commit felonies left and right, not get caught, and then legally purchase guns. The gun lobby defines "felon" not as some who commits felonies, but only as someone who is caught and then convicted. So, every day, there are people who commit felonies and then go out and legally purchase guns, thanks to the gun lobby. If you think they are not using those guns to commit more felonies, you''''re pretty naive.
Posted by Candide777 at 03:12 PM : Mar 30, 2008

She cannot understand the concept of our legal system of innocent until proven guilty as defined by our governing documents, not the NRA.

[billorights]

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people''s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

[billorights]

people like you have absolutely no credibility with half-intelligent scholars of the constitution - Posted by Candide777

Well, you got the half-intelligent part right, but that is all. You are definitely no scholar of the constitution. I wish that I could be there to see the look of incredulity on your face when the Supreme Court publishes their decision in the near future. Unless they decide to completely avoid the issue of individual rights, you are going to be a very unhappy camper.

[billorights]

Gee, if they meant "a proficient and skilled militia," I wonder why they didn''''t just say so, Scalia. LOL - Posted by Candide777

Gee, if they meant something other than The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed, why didn%u2019t they just say so, Rosie?

[billorights]

the RIGHT TO A JURY of one''''s peers is what''''s wrong with the U.S.A.! - Posted by Candide777

You are reading gibberish between the lines. I never implied that the Constitutional right to a trial by a jury of one%u2019s peers should be abolished. On the contrary, I believe it is one of our best safeguards of justice. However, do you believe the people serving on OJ%u2019s jury were his peers? Not hardly. Cochran paid a fortune to %u201Cjury consultants%u201D to help him exclude anyone with a brain particle from the jury. Presumably, you saw the outcome, too. Do you believe justice was served, or the spirit of the law was followed?

Meanwhile, you can pretend that everything said and written by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, et al, regarding the right to keep and bear arms, has no relevance. They could never have imagined the technological advances of modern firearms, and would have cheerfully surrendered their right to self defense if they lived in modern times, right?

And finally, Well REGULATED, as used in the Second Amendment, had nothing to do with rules, laws or control by any government or military body. Its only meaning was proficient, or skilled.

[billorights]

lawmakers and judges need to use common sense in "regulating" the militia as mandated by the Second Amendment - Posted by Candide777

You should brush-up on your reading skills, while you are at it. The only thing mandated by the Second Amendment is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The need for a well regulated (aka proficient) militia (aka all of us) to maintain the security of a free state, explains why it is of benefit for the people to keep and bear arms. Argue and complain all you want. The Founding Fathers explained and documented it all quite clearly.

[billorights]

if something goes wrong during the trial and he gets acquitted, he can walk out of the courthouse go to his local gun store - Posted by Candide777

Are you serious? Would you like to abridge any other rights of innocent citizens? We all know that OJ did it (with a knife), but Cochran was able to stack the jury with morons. That is a big problem with our justice system. You should be far more concerned about that. Using your logic, any person accused of a crime should be locked up. Who needs a trial, right?

You should do a bit of research on your facts, too. Criminals rarely get their weapons from legal sources, like gun stores or gun shows. Most buy them from other criminals on the black market. In addition to convicted felons being prohibited from purchasing, owning or possessing guns, so are illegal aliens, drug addicts, dishonorably discharged veterans, and people adjudged mentally deficient. Your goal is obvious; disarm everyone. There are many places you could live where that is already the law of the land. Enjoy.

[rickferry]

Our young people often are at a loss about behavior due to an insulating exposure to violence in many forms. It was unthinkable in my day to randomly shoot a weapon. The response would be sudden and final from law enforcement of my day.

Today it has more to do with an absence of example and behavior. I enjoy owning, maintaining and safeguarding my firearms. I am also aware of what would happen to me if I abuse them. Woodson doesn''t seem to have an idea about behavior and consequences.

A person bent upon harming another will find a weapon or method to accomplish their objective. All murders and violent crimes are not accomplished by using a firearm. I doubt that the elimination of firearms would reduce the overall number of violent crimes against others.

[billorights]

LOL, another conservative who defines "felon" not as one who commits felonies, but only as one who is caught and convicted! LMAO! - Posted by singindick

OMG! You must be twins, at least. It is not possible for any one person to be that many kinds of stupid! Please seek help. Go buy a dictionary and have someone (not related to you by blood) teach you how to use it. Also, do not ever procreate, or vote!

[displeased]

Criminals (those who have committed felonies, but which your absurdly refuse to call "felons" simply because they were never convicted) are legally buying guns today, even as we speak, thanks to gun nuts like you!!!! Silly boy.
Posted by singindick

A person can''t be a legal felon until they''ve been convicted. A problem is somebody can commit felonies and still buy a gun because their record is clean, at least until they''ve been caught. How do we determine which buyers are legitimate citizens or which ones have criminal intentions?

[billorights]

Wow, conservatives are really brain dead! Now they are taking the position that all felons get convicted and sent to jail! - Posted by singindick

This is really quite an excellent example of someone who just cannot comprehend. I will try again to explain so that you might understand. Here goes: If you commit a crime, you ARE a criminal, even if you get away with it. If you get caught, and are convicted of a felony, then, and ONLY then, are you a felon. That is the way it works. And to get back to where this started...convicted felons are prohibited by law from owning or possessing firearms. That law has been in place in every state for a LOOOONG time.

[mommajommah]

or better yet, why don''t we get rid of woodson?

[bozworth4]

I got an idea, how ''''bout you get rid of the guns and then you won''''t have to worry about it?! It''''s going to be sadly ironic when I read in the paper about you getting run over by your own car! I promise not to laugh though!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by singindick at 11:25 PM : Mar 28, 2008

Be glad to! The sign at the end of my drive will read "Welcome, this is a gun free zone. Please leave if you have a gun or guns. You may be confronted with a set of car keys on a ring and hurt if you bring your gun. Or you might have a car wreck if you steal my car." Or I could just say "Keep out". I''m sure that you with all the answers will advise which sign is best. I await your input. OOOPS! No won''t wait! Sorry this is a dead horse being whipped. Nothing new here. A fresh idea would be nice. Have a good day.

[fibonacci_]

Oh my God this guy is such a hick...look at his myspace page:

http://www.myspace.com/bakyrdbogn

Look at his friend, LOOOL!