Man Shoots At Intruders, Turns Out It Was A No-knock Raid. Now He Faces The Death Penalty

[QuickHitCurepon]

When police have a no knock warrant they have a legal right to be in your home (or wherever the warrant is for) and so it is up to you to PROVE they didn't announce.

How could anybody ever prove the police did not announce themselves at 5:30 in the morning before entering? Even if a home has cameras, there is no audio. You don't make any sense, and when there is a jury, that is important.

How can you prove it? Depositions and evidence. THat evidence being any radio logs, personal cameras, etc etc. I don't know about in the civilian world but we recorded every incident start to finish. And believe me, if there are 8 police officers involved here, you will know if lies are happening. 9 out of 10 times when a group like that lies, no matter who they are, there stories will all be identical. you see 8 identical stories, someones lying.

Oh, and as I said earlier, you don't actually have to PROVE it, you merely have to convince a jury that the police didn't announce their presence. The police on the other hand are not required to prove they did to negate your claim of self defense. It is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, meaning ALL the burden is on you to convince a jury that you did what you did for a reason. In this case that reason would be "I didn't know it was the police" well then logically you must reasonably show that you didn't know it was the police.

If he says the police did not announce themselves, and the police cannot prove that they did, a reasonable jury has to really wonder why the police wouldn't make an accounting then make a decision to believe the man.

 

[whitehall]

The death penalty for shooting at someone? I don't think so.

 

[Dana7360]

on that I differ with you...they are totally different cases and also totally different states with their own laws, Texas with a liberal Stand your Ground law...

On top of this, someone KNOCKING ON YOUR Door, is NOT IN ANY WAY the same thing as BREAKING THROUGH your window....

there is no good reason for anyone to NOT reasonably think the people breaking through their window, at 5:30am, are anything other than burglars or robbers and or murderers......unless the police identified themselves clearly before he began shooting...this man should not be charged in this case, in my humble opinion, from what little facts I do know on it.

UNLESS those people are screaming "police police police" as they do so. That changes things.

Although

Man Shoots At Intruders Turns Out It Was A No-knock Raid. Now He Faces The Death Penalty Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

is also true to, because the key is a jury . They are the ones you must convince that you had a reasonable fear. But that was my point, you have to PROVE you had a reasonable fear, which means you have to PROVE you didn't think it was the cops. Retired is WRONG, the state doesn't have to prove they were identifying themselves. Now, most of the time they WILL do so , just to go ahead and hammer that last nail in place, but they don't have to.

If they don't prove the police announced and the defense just remains silent on the matter any reasonable jury is going to assume that they announced. Wouldn't you? That's why self defense is an affirmative defense, you have to PROVE self defense, which in this case means proving you didn't know you were shooting at police.

No I wouldn't assume that at all.

The fact that the house was searched and no drugs or drug dealing found, shows that the owner of that house had no reason to be afraid of the police and shoot them.

Since there was nothing illegal going on at that house, there is no reason for the homeowner to be afraid of the police coming into their home.

If I was on that jury I wouldn't find that homeowner guilty.

When some stranger is coming through your window in the dark at 5:30 in the morning, that person isn't there for a friendly visit. Plus I don't know about you, but I've never heard of police going through a window.

They go through doors.

They cover all the exits including windows but I've never heard of the police raiding a house by going through a window in the dark at 5:30 in the morning.

When the police serve these warrants at the wrong address, as in this case, it is usually because of a clerical error , and as long as the officers serving the warrant believe in good faith that they are at the right address, they have a legal right to be there.

Therefor, once they make entry as long as they announce themselves it doesn't matter if you think "well they got no reason to be here, so fuck them"

The fact that yo don't know that bespeaks of the fact that you would make a terrible juror. But I'm sure the Judge explained it, however I'm explaining it to you now, but as usual instead of saying "oh here's someone who knows what he's talking about, perhaps I'll listen" you just have your ears shut.

As long as the cops thought they were at the right address and identified themselves as making entry, the shooter is in the wrong. End of discussion.

You're saying I said things I didn't say.

I said there was nothing illegal going on in that house so there was no reason for that homeowner to fear the police coming into his house.

I didn't say the police didn't have any right to be there.

I stated why I didn't believe the police announced themselves.

If I was on that jury and I was told there was nothing illegal going on in that house I would believe that homeowner had no reason to fear the police entering his home.

Concrete honest facts are what I would base my opinion on. The concrete honest facts are that there was nothing illegal going on in that house so there was no reason for that homeowner to pick up that gun and fire it if he knew that was the police.

My opinion isn't based on any gut feeling it's based on facts.

And the fact is ma'am under the law this guy will be required to PROVE that he didn't know it was the police. They don't have to prove that they identified themselves to him, the burden is on him, because stand your ground is an affirmative defense, meaning you admit you did but for legal reasons.

The fact that he didn't have any drugs, he wasn't doing anything illegal, would lead me to believe that he didn't have any reason to pick up that gun and fire to kill one of them and injure others.

The police would have to present a completely different reason for him to fear the police and shoot at them for me to believe that the police announced themselves.

Since there was no reason for him to fear the police entering his home through the window at 5:30 in the morning when it's dark, please, tell me why he would pick up that gun and shoot? There always has to be a motive for a crime. Especially murder.

The only reason I can see for him to do such a thing is because he didn't know it was the police.

That to me, is proof that the police didn't announce themselves. If the police told me they announced themselves and couldn't give me a motive for why he would start shooting, I would believe that the police are lying.

If I was on that jury I would not find that man guilty.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I suspect it will all be moot...because the cops will figure out a way to get him shanked before trial.

 

[Missourian]

As a relatively law abiding citizen, yelling "POLICE" as you bust though my window armed isn't going to save you. Since I am not engaged in any criminal activity that would warrant a "No-Knock" breach entry, I'd assume it was a ruse.

These officers would have likely been far better off had they entered the residence of an actual criminal...which begs the question, is the real secret behind the supposed "safety" of the No-Knock Warrant the fact that criminals choose not to kill police officers...seeing as this untrained citizen had no problem engaging the officers and didn't die in the process.

 

[Asclepias]

As a relatively law abiding citizen, yelling "POLICE" as you bust though my window armed isn't going to save you. Since I am not engaged in any criminal activity that would warrant a "No-Knock" breach entry, I'd assume it was a rouse.

These officers would have likely been far better off had they entered the residence of an actual criminal...which begs the question, is the real secret behind the supposed "safety" of the No-Knock Warrant the fact that criminals choose not to kill police officers...seeing as this untrained citizen had no problem engaging the officers and didn't die in the process.

There are a couple of cases of home invasions where the suspects claimed they were cops.

Fake Cops Commit Home Invasion - Montgomery County Police Reporter

3 arrested in fake officer home invasion Volusia deputies say News - Home

 

[BullKurtz]

If someone unidentified is coming through your window you are acting in self defense if you fire.

Which state are you referring to? If I shoot someone, the body will be found inside, not out. But it looks like Guy's problem was he was pumping rounds outside at them.

Go back to Ruby Ridge. A guy (I forgot his name) killed a federal agent and was acquitted by the jury because they saw it as self defense. The agent was in the woods outside the home.

Yep, Marchall Roderick threw stones at the cabin to check for dogs.....Weaver's son and Harris pursued not knowing who the man was.....the dog charged Roderick and was shot dead in front of the Weaver boy....Harris returned fire killing Roderick. So an FBI sniper named Lon Horiuchi was called in....he later shot Randy Weaver's wife dead as she opened the cabin door to see what was going on. Horiuchi was later named as one of the snipers who shot Mt.Carmel residents fleeing from a fire caused by flammable teargas. No-knocks warrants are rarely issued without proof the residents are heavily armed and will resist. Should police break your door down without warning...defend yourself....head shots or double tap thigh shots.

 

[Jarlaxle]

repeat after me: Aim at center mass and fire until the dude goes down.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Man Shoots at Intruders Turns Out it was a No-Knock Raid. Now He Faces the Death Penalty The Free Thought Project

On Friday, May 9, 2014, just after 5:30am in Killeen, Texas, Marvin Louis Guy was the target of a no knock raid.

The officers were looking for drugs, yet none were found in the home. There was some questionable paraphernalia, but nothing indicative of drug dealing- or anything damning enough for a reasonable person to feel the need to take an officers life.

Unfortunately the danger of no-knock raids is real. just ask the parents of baby Bou or the family of Detective Dinwiddie.

Detective Dinwiddie was one of the SWAT officers who broke into Guy’s house on May 9th, based on a seemingly bogus informant tip off about drugs being dealt from the home.

Likely alarmed by the men climbing through his windows at 5:30 in the morning, Guy and his wife sought to protect themselves and their property and fired on the intruders- in self defense.

Dinwiddie, along with three other officers were shot while attempting to breach the windows to the home, according to the department’s press release.

“The TRU was beginning to breach the window when the 49 year old male inside, opened fire striking four officers.”

Since the shooting occurred during the break in, a reasonable person would assume they had not yet identified themselves as police officers. How on earth is this not self defense?

Prosecutors are now seeking the death penalty against Guy. He is charged with capital murder in Dinwiddie’s death, as well as three counts of attempted capital murder for firing on the other officers during the shootout, injuring one other officer. Body armor protected others who were hit.

This announcement, given by the prosecutor in open court, comes one day after Governor Rick Perry presented Dinwiddie’s family with the Star of Texas award. This award is given out each year to police and first responders killed or injured in the line of duty, the Killeen Daily Herald reported.

Let’s flash back to December, in Texas, for a moment.

On December 19, also just before 6am, Burleson County Sgt. Adam Sowders, led a team in a no-knock marijuana raid on Henry Goedrich Magee’s mobile home in Somerville.

Also startled by these intruders, Magee opened fire, fearing for the safety of himself and his then pregnant girlfriend.


Read more at Man Shoots at Intruders Turns Out it was a No-Knock Raid. Now He Faces the Death Penalty The Free Thought Project

Thoughts?

And please any authoritarians who want to comment about bowing to police under all circumstances you are excused from this thread. Everyone knows your angle

If someone's first thought when somoene kicks in their front door is shoot defensively at them, to me that's an admission of being up to no good since usually that's suggestive of police.

 

[WinterBorn]

Man Shoots at Intruders Turns Out it was a No-Knock Raid. Now He Faces the Death Penalty The Free Thought Project

On Friday, May 9, 2014, just after 5:30am in Killeen, Texas, Marvin Louis Guy was the target of a no knock raid.

The officers were looking for drugs, yet none were found in the home. There was some questionable paraphernalia, but nothing indicative of drug dealing- or anything damning enough for a reasonable person to feel the need to take an officers life.

Unfortunately the danger of no-knock raids is real. just ask the parents of baby Bou or the family of Detective Dinwiddie.

Detective Dinwiddie was one of the SWAT officers who broke into Guy’s house on May 9th, based on a seemingly bogus informant tip off about drugs being dealt from the home.

Likely alarmed by the men climbing through his windows at 5:30 in the morning, Guy and his wife sought to protect themselves and their property and fired on the intruders- in self defense.

Dinwiddie, along with three other officers were shot while attempting to breach the windows to the home, according to the department’s press release.

“The TRU was beginning to breach the window when the 49 year old male inside, opened fire striking four officers.”

Since the shooting occurred during the break in, a reasonable person would assume they had not yet identified themselves as police officers. How on earth is this not self defense?

Prosecutors are now seeking the death penalty against Guy. He is charged with capital murder in Dinwiddie’s death, as well as three counts of attempted capital murder for firing on the other officers during the shootout, injuring one other officer. Body armor protected others who were hit.

This announcement, given by the prosecutor in open court, comes one day after Governor Rick Perry presented Dinwiddie’s family with the Star of Texas award. This award is given out each year to police and first responders killed or injured in the line of duty, the Killeen Daily Herald reported.

Let’s flash back to December, in Texas, for a moment.

On December 19, also just before 6am, Burleson County Sgt. Adam Sowders, led a team in a no-knock marijuana raid on Henry Goedrich Magee’s mobile home in Somerville.

Also startled by these intruders, Magee opened fire, fearing for the safety of himself and his then pregnant girlfriend.


Read more at Man Shoots at Intruders Turns Out it was a No-Knock Raid. Now He Faces the Death Penalty The Free Thought Project

Thoughts?

And please any authoritarians who want to comment about bowing to police under all circumstances you are excused from this thread. Everyone knows your angle

If someone's first thought when somoene kicks in their front door is shoot defensively at them, to me that's an admission of being up to no good since usually that's suggestive of police.

Or indicative of a home invasion.

 

[BullKurtz]

repeat after me: Aim at center mass and fire until the dude goes down.

Yeah right....and send the round into their kevlar.....you never shot anybody, boy.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You need a round with enough steam on it that Kevlar is not a problem. Think: hot, hand-loaded .44 Magnum hardball (or steel-jacketed) on the LOW end of the power curve here. .454 Casull, .460 S&W, .500 S&W, .50 Action Express, etc. Even if a vest STOPPED a .500 S&W, it could easily be lethal...it would be like getting hit by a hammer swung by a professional powerlifter.

 

[BullKurtz]

You need a round with enough steam on it that Kevlar is not a problem. Think: hot, hand-loaded .44 Magnum hardball (or steel-jacketed) on the LOW end of the power curve here. .454 Casull, .460 S&W, .500 S&W, .50 Action Express, etc. Even if a vest STOPPED a .500 S&W, it could easily be lethal...it would be like getting hit by a hammer swung by a professional powerlifter.

No, you want a high velocity smaller caliber round to penetrate Kevlar....a cop's nightmare is a .22LR. Now stop spreading wrong information.

 

[Jarlaxle]

A .22LR? Dude, just stop. Unless it goes through his eye socket, he might not NOTICE a .22LR. (Even the fastest .22LR is <1800fps, most are under 1500.) A .222 or a .22-250 (or a steel-cored .223), sure...I'd bet a .22-250 (4000+fps) will go through even a rifle-rated vest like paper.

 

[Noomi]

Sounds like he had a right to defend himself, even though I haven't read all the article.

Interesting that he is black. If I was white I wonder if he would have been charged at all.

 

[BullKurtz]

A .22LR? Dude, just stop. Unless it goes through his eye socket, he might not NOTICE a .22LR. (Even the fastest .22LR is <1800fps, most are under 1500.) A .222 or a .22-250 (or a steel-cored .223), sure...I'd bet a .22-250 (4000+fps) will go through even a rifle-rated vest like paper.

Right....I'm an ex Army LRRP and you're telling me about firearms. STFU.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Here's a penny, call someone who gives a flying fuck at a rolling donut, pisshead.

Suck a shotgun.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Tough shit for him. Self defensive is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, meaning he would have to PROVE that the police did not identify themselves, not the other way around.

I'll go further, let's compare this to the situation where that retard shot the black girl who was banging on his door. He was rightfully convicted, the jury denied his claims of self defense, but he couldn't prove that he feared for his safety. Simply saying " I was skurred I was gonna die" isn't enough, self defense is an affirmative defense, meaning you have to PROVE you were scared for your life.

on that I differ with you...they are totally different cases and also totally different states with their own laws, Texas with a liberal Stand your Ground law...

On top of this, someone KNOCKING ON YOUR Door, is NOT IN ANY WAY the same thing as BREAKING THROUGH your window....

there is no good reason for anyone to NOT reasonably think the people breaking through their window, at 5:30am, are anything other than burglars or robbers and or murderers......unless the police identified themselves clearly before he began shooting...this man should not be charged in this case, in my humble opinion, from what little facts I do know on it.

UNLESS those people are screaming "police police police" as they do so. That changes things.

Although

Man Shoots At Intruders Turns Out It Was A No-knock Raid. Now He Faces The Death Penalty Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

is also true to, because the key is a jury . They are the ones you must convince that you had a reasonable fear. But that was my point, you have to PROVE you had a reasonable fear, which means you have to PROVE you didn't think it was the cops. Retired is WRONG, the state doesn't have to prove they were identifying themselves. Now, most of the time they WILL do so , just to go ahead and hammer that last nail in place, but they don't have to.

If they don't prove the police announced and the defense just remains silent on the matter any reasonable jury is going to assume that they announced. Wouldn't you? That's why self defense is an affirmative defense, you have to PROVE self defense, which in this case means proving you didn't know you were shooting at police.

No I wouldn't assume that at all.

The fact that the house was searched and no drugs or drug dealing found, shows that the owner of that house had no reason to be afraid of the police and shoot them.

Since there was nothing illegal going on at that house, there is no reason for the homeowner to be afraid of the police coming into their home.

If I was on that jury I wouldn't find that homeowner guilty.

When some stranger is coming through your window in the dark at 5:30 in the morning, that person isn't there for a friendly visit. Plus I don't know about you, but I've never heard of police going through a window.

They go through doors.

They cover all the exits including windows but I've never heard of the police raiding a house by going through a window in the dark at 5:30 in the morning.

When the police serve these warrants at the wrong address, as in this case, it is usually because of a clerical error , and as long as the officers serving the warrant believe in good faith that they are at the right address, they have a legal right to be there.

Therefor, once they make entry as long as they announce themselves it doesn't matter if you think "well they got no reason to be here, so fuck them"

The fact that yo don't know that bespeaks of the fact that you would make a terrible juror. But I'm sure the Judge explained it, however I'm explaining it to you now, but as usual instead of saying "oh here's someone who knows what he's talking about, perhaps I'll listen" you just have your ears shut.

As long as the cops thought they were at the right address and identified themselves as making entry, the shooter is in the wrong. End of discussion.

You're saying I said things I didn't say.

I said there was nothing illegal going on in that house so there was no reason for that homeowner to fear the police coming into his house.

I didn't say the police didn't have any right to be there.

I stated why I didn't believe the police announced themselves.

If I was on that jury and I was told there was nothing illegal going on in that house I would believe that homeowner had no reason to fear the police entering his home.

Concrete honest facts are what I would base my opinion on. The concrete honest facts are that there was nothing illegal going on in that house so there was no reason for that homeowner to pick up that gun and fire it if he knew that was the police.

My opinion isn't based on any gut feeling it's based on facts.

You are clearly stupid and have no idea about your rights.

You ABSOLUTELY can legally shoot and kill a police officer if he is NOT performing his legal duty and tries to affect in illegal arrest

These police , however, were affecting a LEGAL arrest because they were acting in good faith, they thought they were at the right location. Whether the occupants actually broke any laws or not is irrelevant once the police identify themselves.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

When police have a no knock warrant they have a legal right to be in your home (or wherever the warrant is for) and so it is up to you to PROVE they didn't announce.

How could anybody ever prove the police did not announce themselves at 5:30 in the morning before entering? Even if a home has cameras, there is no audio. You don't make any sense, and when there is a jury, that is important.

How can you prove it? Depositions and evidence. THat evidence being any radio logs, personal cameras, etc etc. I don't know about in the civilian world but we recorded every incident start to finish. And believe me, if there are 8 police officers involved here, you will know if lies are happening. 9 out of 10 times when a group like that lies, no matter who they are, there stories will all be identical. you see 8 identical stories, someones lying.

Oh, and as I said earlier, you don't actually have to PROVE it, you merely have to convince a jury that the police didn't announce their presence. The police on the other hand are not required to prove they did to negate your claim of self defense. It is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, meaning ALL the burden is on you to convince a jury that you did what you did for a reason. In this case that reason would be "I didn't know it was the police" well then logically you must reasonably show that you didn't know it was the police.

So according to you, if he says he did not know it was the police, the cops don't have to do anything? That is not how the law works. The prosecution must affirm the cops identified themselves or end of case.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You're wrong. Do you know what an affirmative defense is ? Fuck dude, I showed you the definition, the defendant must PROVE he had a legal right to do what otherwise would be illegal. Killing another human being is otherwise illegal, so you must PROVE that you had a legal right to do so, meaning you have to PROVE you didn't know they were police.

You better learn your rights before you go around shooting people. Seriously. You wiki link doesn't say anything about police serving no knock warrants either fool.

I know I've shown you this twice already, but apparently you are too stupid to understand it , or too stubborn to even look at it.

Affirmative defense - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In an affirmative defense, the defendant may concede that he committed the alleged acts, but he proves other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse his otherwise wrongful actions, or otherwise overcome the plaintiff's claim. In criminal law, an affirmative defense is sometimes called a justification or excuse defense.[2] Consequently, affirmative defenses limit or excuse a defendant's criminal culpability or civil liability.[citation needed]

now from your own link

In the United States, stand-your-ground law states that an individual has a right to self-defense

Now CLEARLY I've established that stand your ground is a claim of self defense, and clearly I've shown that self defense is an AFFIRMATIVE defense, which means the defense must PROVE the facts that led the defendant to believe he had a right to shoot.

Which duh you fucking brain dead moron, means the defendant must prove that he didn't know it was the police which means he must prove that they didn't identify themselves

Could that be any clearer you fucking retard?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

You're wrong. Do you know what an affirmative defense is ? Fuck dude, I showed you the definition, the defendant must PROVE he had a legal right to do what otherwise would be illegal. Killing another human being is otherwise illegal, so you must PROVE that you had a legal right to do so, meaning you have to PROVE you didn't know they were police.

He can prove he believed there was a burglar breaking in, which then proves he didn't know it was the police.