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

[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.

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

What? That is so convoluted it isn't even funny.

If he testifies and says "I thought it was a burglar" , the DA is of course going to say "Did the police identify themselves?" At which point he will have to prove they didn't and that is why he thought they were burglars.

Come on folks, this is common fucking sense.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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

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.

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

What? That is so convoluted it isn't even funny.

If he testifies and says "I thought it was a burglar" , the DA is of course going to say "Did the police identify themselves?" At which point he will have to prove they didn't and that is why he thought they were burglars.

Come on folks, this is common fucking sense.

You are not giving the guy a chance. Maybe, he can prove to the satisfaction of a jury that he believed it was a burglar. He cannot believe two different things. He either believed it was the police or a burglar, not both.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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

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.

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

What? That is so convoluted it isn't even funny.

If he testifies and says "I thought it was a burglar" , the DA is of course going to say "Did the police identify themselves?" At which point he will have to prove they didn't and that is why he thought they were burglars.

Come on folks, this is common fucking sense.

You are not giving the guy a chance. Maybe, he can prove to the satisfaction of a jury that he believed it was a burglar. He cannot believe two different things. He either believed it was the police or a burglar, not both.

Mother of God

In order to prove he reasonably feared it was a burgler he'd have to prove he didn't know it was the police.

My God , you idiots make me cry for this country.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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

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.

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

What? That is so convoluted it isn't even funny.

If he testifies and says "I thought it was a burglar" , the DA is of course going to say "Did the police identify themselves?" At which point he will have to prove they didn't and that is why he thought they were burglars.

Come on folks, this is common fucking sense.

You are not giving the guy a chance. Maybe, he can prove to the satisfaction of a jury that he believed it was a burglar. He cannot believe two different things. He either believed it was the police or a burglar, not both.

Mother of God

In order to prove he reasonably feared it was a burgler he'd have to prove he didn't know it was the police.

My God , you idiots make me cry for this country.

If it were a burglar, he has the legal right to shoot the intruder. Proving he thought he was acting rationally would be enough, and the whole police thing could be largely irrelevant to a jury. idk We will only know when the trial happens.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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

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.

What? That is so convoluted it isn't even funny.

If he testifies and says "I thought it was a burglar" , the DA is of course going to say "Did the police identify themselves?" At which point he will have to prove they didn't and that is why he thought they were burglars.

Come on folks, this is common fucking sense.

You are not giving the guy a chance. Maybe, he can prove to the satisfaction of a jury that he believed it was a burglar. He cannot believe two different things. He either believed it was the police or a burglar, not both.

Mother of God

In order to prove he reasonably feared it was a burgler he'd have to prove he didn't know it was the police.

My God , you idiots make me cry for this country.

If it were a burglar, he has the legal right to shoot the intruder. Proving he thought he was acting rationally would be enough, and the whole police thing could be largely irrelevant to a jury. idk We will only know when the trial happens.

You're right, you don't know, so shut the fuck up.

At this point only an IDIOT would believe the man would be able to say "didn't know it was the police" and not have to prove that he didn't know it was the police.

You sir are an idiot.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The jury might rely on appearances, which are it was 5:30 AM and the man was barely awake and confronted by an unknown climbing in the window which APPEARS to be a burglar.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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

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

What? That is so convoluted it isn't even funny.

If he testifies and says "I thought it was a burglar" , the DA is of course going to say "Did the police identify themselves?" At which point he will have to prove they didn't and that is why he thought they were burglars.

Come on folks, this is common fucking sense.

You are not giving the guy a chance. Maybe, he can prove to the satisfaction of a jury that he believed it was a burglar. He cannot believe two different things. He either believed it was the police or a burglar, not both.

Mother of God

In order to prove he reasonably feared it was a burgler he'd have to prove he didn't know it was the police.

My God , you idiots make me cry for this country.

If it were a burglar, he has the legal right to shoot the intruder. Proving he thought he was acting rationally would be enough, and the whole police thing could be largely irrelevant to a jury. idk We will only know when the trial happens.

You're right, you don't know, so shut the fuck up.

At this point only an IDIOT would believe the man would be able to say "didn't know it was the police" and not have to prove that he didn't know it was the police.

You sir are an idiot.

And you do know exactly how the trial will go!

 

[WinterBorn]

It seems to me that, since they found no drugs or signs of illegal activity, his testimony that he didn't know it was the police would be sufficient. Why would he shoot police officers?

Also, there is the assumption of innocence unless they prove his guilt.

 

[BullKurtz]

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

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.

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

What? That is so convoluted it isn't even funny.

If he testifies and says "I thought it was a burglar" , the DA is of course going to say "Did the police identify themselves?" At which point he will have to prove they didn't and that is why he thought they were burglars.

Come on folks, this is common fucking sense.

You are not giving the guy a chance. Maybe, he can prove to the satisfaction of a jury that he believed it was a burglar. He cannot believe two different things. He either believed it was the police or a burglar, not both.

Mother of God

In order to prove he reasonably feared it was a burgler he'd have to prove he didn't know it was the police.

My God , you idiots make me cry for this country.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove he knew it was cops. Most judges won't grant no-knocks so determined prosecutors will judge-shop by calling in favors if they want to make an example of somebody. Remember, the judiciary is mostly leftists who couldn't make a living as a lawyer so they grab a bench when they can. They hate our firearms and unable to seize them, they make their use in self-defense, a crime whenever they can. Anywhere but in the South and Southwest, defending yourself with a firearm isn't legal in the eyes of the stalinists.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

It seems to me that, since they found no drugs or signs of illegal activity, his testimony that he didn't know it was the police would be sufficient. Why would he shoot police officers?

Also, there is the assumption of innocence unless they prove his guilt.

wrong you are

In an AFFIRMATIVE defense, you admit you did it but have to prove you did it for legal reasons, which means you have to PROVE you didn't know it was the police

why are you people so illogical and stupid?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The jury might rely on appearances, which are it was 5:30 AM and the man was barely awake and confronted by an unknown climbing in the window which APPEARS to be a burglar.

If the jury is made up of idiots, like this thread is, then anything can happen, but in LEGAL terms this man will have to prove the facts that led him to shoot at the cops. Namely his claim that he didn't know it was the police.

 

[WinterBorn]

It seems to me that, since they found no drugs or signs of illegal activity, his testimony that he didn't know it was the police would be sufficient. Why would he shoot police officers?

Also, there is the assumption of innocence unless they prove his guilt.

wrong you are

In an AFFIRMATIVE defense, you admit you did it but have to prove you did it for legal reasons, which means you have to PROVE you didn't know it was the police

why are you people so illogical and stupid?

There is nothing illogical or stupid about it. Because there is absolutely no way to prove what you did not know.

They would have to prove that I knew who it was, or my testimony would be sufficient. If there is no proof that they announced themselves as they climbed thru my window, I would have the benefit of the doubt.

The only difference between what happened and criminal trespass/breaking & entering is the warrant. Unless they have proof I was aware of the warrant and the identity of the people climbing in my window at 5:30am, the courts will have to let me go.

 

[WinterBorn]

The jury might rely on appearances, which are it was 5:30 AM and the man was barely awake and confronted by an unknown climbing in the window which APPEARS to be a burglar.

If the jury is made up of idiots, like this thread is, then anything can happen, but in LEGAL terms this man will have to prove the facts that led him to shoot at the cops. Namely his claim that he didn't know it was the police.

And just how does one prove what they did not know? You are claiming that everyone arguing with you is an idiot, but your claim is based on the ability to prove a what one man did not know, and apparently his word is not good enough.

 

[Care4all]

It seems to me that, since they found no drugs or signs of illegal activity, his testimony that he didn't know it was the police would be sufficient. Why would he shoot police officers?

Also, there is the assumption of innocence unless they prove his guilt.

wrong you are

In an AFFIRMATIVE defense, you admit you did it but have to prove you did it for legal reasons, which means you have to PROVE you didn't know it was the police

why are you people so illogical and stupid?

There is nothing illogical or stupid about it. Because there is absolutely no way to prove what you did not know.

They would have to prove that I knew who it was, or my testimony would be sufficient. If there is no proof that they announced themselves as they climbed thru my window, I would have the benefit of the doubt.

The only difference between what happened and criminal trespass/breaking & entering is the warrant. Unless they have proof I was aware of the warrant and the identity of the people climbing in my window at 5:30am, the courts will have to let me go.

He should not have been charged in the first place...from all that I have read....

and sadly, in this case, the only difference that I can see verses this case I am going to link to in Texas is that one man is white and one man is Black...

Murder Charge Dropped Against Man who Killed Cop in No-Knock Raid
By Matt Agorist on February 10, 2014


Grand jury sides with self defense, Fourth Amendment

Adan Salazar
Infowars.com

In an astonishing decision, a Texas grand jury refused to indict a Central Texas man Wednesday for shooting and killing an officer who entered his home serving a warrant unannounced, an outcome the man’s attorney says he’s never witnessed in his half-century long career.



Capital murder charges against 28-year-old Henry Goedrich Magee (pictured) dropped.

On Dec. 19 just before 6 a.m., Burleson County Sgt. Adam Sowders, 31, led a team of investigators in a no-knock marijuana raid conducted on 28-year-old Henry Goedrich Magee’s mobile home in Somerville, 90 miles northwest of Houston.



An informant had told a sheriff’s investigator he had seen 10 to 12 marijuana plants in Magee’s home, along with rifles and a pistol, which were later determined to be legally owned, and that he was a well-known dealer in the area.

Sgt. Sowders obtained a “no-knock” warrant from the county judge on the grounds that an announced entry could rattle a guard dog or would give Magee time to destroy evidence, and would ultimately be “dangerous, futile, or would inhibit the effective investigation.”

When Magee heard strange noises coming from within his home, he “thought he was being burglarized, reached for a gun and opened fire,” Magee’s attorney, Dick DeGuerin, argued in court.

Magee was charged with capital murder, at which point prosecutors had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knew Sowders was a peace officer before he killed him.

“This was a terrible tragedy that a deputy sheriff was killed,” DeGuerin stated in an interview, “but Hank Magee believed that he and his pregnant girlfriend were being robbed.”

Burleson County District Attorney Julie Renken was tasked with proving Magee murdered Sowders in cold blood, and contended that officers did indeed make an announcement prior to entering.

The events “occurred in a matter of seconds amongst chaos,” Renken said. “I believe the evidence also shows that an announcement was made,” she argued, according to the Associated Press. “However, there is not enough evidence that Mr. Magee knew that day that Peace Officers were entering his home.”

According to the D.A.’s own admission, however, a capital murder charge was pursued with full knowledge that there was insufficient evidence to establish the case.





Sgt. Adam Sowders (Photo courtesy Burleson County Sheriff’s Office, via PoliceOne.com)

“If there was not enough evidence that Magee knew Sowders was a cop rather than an armed robber, why did Renken try to indict Magee for capital murder?” asks Forbes contributor Jacob Sullum. “It was the police, not Magee, who created the ‘chaos’ in which Sowders was killed.”



Additionally, says Sullum, the demonstrably futile “war on drugs” is to blame. “His death is doubly senseless: because violence is not an appropriate response to cultivation of an arbitrarily proscribed plant and because, even if we take pot prohibition as a given, there is no need to enforce it by breaking down people’s doors while they are sleeping, a tactic that inevitably results in tragedies like this one.”

The grand jury’s decision is a win-win for everyone; after all, the Fourth Amendment reaffirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..”

The decision also respects legislation outlined in S.B. No. 378, Texas’ version of the “castle doctrine,” which permits the use of deadly force when an “actor” believes someone has “unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation..”

As Magee’s attorney correctly summarized, “He did what a lot of people would have done. He defended himself and his girlfriend and his home.”

“Well we feel that the grand jury acted fairly and reasonably and had all of the information that it needed to make the decision that it did. That is that this was a justified shooting and, but we need to say that this is a tragedy,” DeGuerin added.

The move to pursue a capital murder charge despite lack of evidence illustrates how far police attorneys will go to defend their own, while at the same time unwittingly attempting to undermine their own rights.

Unable to get the murder rap to stick, the district attorney says felony drug and weapon charges against Magee will be “fully prosecuted.” He remains in jail with bond set at $50,000.

And 1st degree murder is premeditated killing, how in the world can the prosecutor charge him with PREMEDITATED MURDER and ask for his DEATH??????

 

[WinterBorn]

Now, if they had found drugs or some other evidence of criminal activity, they could show he had a reason to fire on the law enforcement officers. But since, by all accounts, the man was a law abiding citizen, he would have absolutely nothing to gain by shooting cops. That is, for lack of any other extenuating circumstances, would show a lack of motive and thereby give credibility to his statement that he was unaware that the people breaking in were cops.

 

[Care4all]

note the article for this other guy in same position:

Magee was charged with capital murder, at which point prosecutors had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knew Sowders was a peace officer before he killed him.

 

[Care4all]

Now, if they had found drugs or some other evidence of criminal activity, they could show he had a reason to fire on the law enforcement officers. But since, by all accounts, the man was a law abiding citizen, he would have absolutely nothing to gain by shooting cops. That is, for lack of any other extenuating circumstances, would show a lack of motive and thereby give credibility to his statement that he was unaware that the people breaking in were cops.

NOPE....this white guy above had the marijuana, but the grand jury still did not let the attorney general prosecute him....

 

[Ravi]

It seems to me that, since they found no drugs or signs of illegal activity, his testimony that he didn't know it was the police would be sufficient. Why would he shoot police officers?

Also, there is the assumption of innocence unless they prove his guilt.

wrong you are

In an AFFIRMATIVE defense, you admit you did it but have to prove you did it for legal reasons, which means you have to PROVE you didn't know it was the police

why are you people so illogical and stupid?

There is nothing illogical or stupid about it. Because there is absolutely no way to prove what you did not know.

They would have to prove that I knew who it was, or my testimony would be sufficient. If there is no proof that they announced themselves as they climbed thru my window, I would have the benefit of the doubt.

The only difference between what happened and criminal trespass/breaking & entering is the warrant. Unless they have proof I was aware of the warrant and the identity of the people climbing in my window at 5:30am, the courts will have to let me go.

I think he is right. If the guy pleads self-defense, he will have to prove he acted in self-defense. If he pleads not guilty, the state will have to prove he committed murder.

I'm sure you've heard of the Trayvon Martin shooting....Zimmerman did not plead self-defense and therefore the state had to prove him guilty to convict. It would have been another ballgame if Z pleaded self-defense.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Now, if they had found drugs or some other evidence of criminal activity, they could show he had a reason to fire on the law enforcement officers. But since, by all accounts, the man was a law abiding citizen, he would have absolutely nothing to gain by shooting cops. That is, for lack of any other extenuating circumstances, would show a lack of motive and thereby give credibility to his statement that he was unaware that the people breaking in were cops.

you're not listening.

It matters not that they didn't find anything illegal. They were there on good faith, they believed they were at the right house.

The guy could have a thousand kilos of cocaine in his house and if a cop kicked in the window without announcing police and he shot them, he'd claim stand your ground, prove the cop didn't announce his presence and walk.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

It seems to me that, since they found no drugs or signs of illegal activity, his testimony that he didn't know it was the police would be sufficient. Why would he shoot police officers?

Also, there is the assumption of innocence unless they prove his guilt.

wrong you are

In an AFFIRMATIVE defense, you admit you did it but have to prove you did it for legal reasons, which means you have to PROVE you didn't know it was the police

why are you people so illogical and stupid?

There is nothing illogical or stupid about it. Because there is absolutely no way to prove what you did not know.

They would have to prove that I knew who it was, or my testimony would be sufficient. If there is no proof that they announced themselves as they climbed thru my window, I would have the benefit of the doubt.

The only difference between what happened and criminal trespass/breaking & entering is the warrant. Unless they have proof I was aware of the warrant and the identity of the people climbing in my window at 5:30am, the courts will have to let me go.

He should not have been charged in the first place...from all that I have read....

and sadly, in this case, the only difference that I can see verses this case I am going to link to in Texas is that one man is white and one man is Black...

Murder Charge Dropped Against Man who Killed Cop in No-Knock Raid
By Matt Agorist on February 10, 2014


Grand jury sides with self defense, Fourth Amendment

Adan Salazar
Infowars.com

In an astonishing decision, a Texas grand jury refused to indict a Central Texas man Wednesday for shooting and killing an officer who entered his home serving a warrant unannounced, an outcome the man’s attorney says he’s never witnessed in his half-century long career.



Capital murder charges against 28-year-old Henry Goedrich Magee (pictured) dropped.

On Dec. 19 just before 6 a.m., Burleson County Sgt. Adam Sowders, 31, led a team of investigators in a no-knock marijuana raid conducted on 28-year-old Henry Goedrich Magee’s mobile home in Somerville, 90 miles northwest of Houston.



An informant had told a sheriff’s investigator he had seen 10 to 12 marijuana plants in Magee’s home, along with rifles and a pistol, which were later determined to be legally owned, and that he was a well-known dealer in the area.

Sgt. Sowders obtained a “no-knock” warrant from the county judge on the grounds that an announced entry could rattle a guard dog or would give Magee time to destroy evidence, and would ultimately be “dangerous, futile, or would inhibit the effective investigation.”

When Magee heard strange noises coming from within his home, he “thought he was being burglarized, reached for a gun and opened fire,” Magee’s attorney, Dick DeGuerin, argued in court.

Magee was charged with capital murder, at which point prosecutors had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knew Sowders was a peace officer before he killed him.

“This was a terrible tragedy that a deputy sheriff was killed,” DeGuerin stated in an interview, “but Hank Magee believed that he and his pregnant girlfriend were being robbed.”

Burleson County District Attorney Julie Renken was tasked with proving Magee murdered Sowders in cold blood, and contended that officers did indeed make an announcement prior to entering.

The events “occurred in a matter of seconds amongst chaos,” Renken said. “I believe the evidence also shows that an announcement was made,” she argued, according to the Associated Press. “However, there is not enough evidence that Mr. Magee knew that day that Peace Officers were entering his home.”

According to the D.A.’s own admission, however, a capital murder charge was pursued with full knowledge that there was insufficient evidence to establish the case.





Sgt. Adam Sowders (Photo courtesy Burleson County Sheriff’s Office, via PoliceOne.com)

“If there was not enough evidence that Magee knew Sowders was a cop rather than an armed robber, why did Renken try to indict Magee for capital murder?” asks Forbes contributor Jacob Sullum. “It was the police, not Magee, who created the ‘chaos’ in which Sowders was killed.”



Additionally, says Sullum, the demonstrably futile “war on drugs” is to blame. “His death is doubly senseless: because violence is not an appropriate response to cultivation of an arbitrarily proscribed plant and because, even if we take pot prohibition as a given, there is no need to enforce it by breaking down people’s doors while they are sleeping, a tactic that inevitably results in tragedies like this one.”

The grand jury’s decision is a win-win for everyone; after all, the Fourth Amendment reaffirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..”

The decision also respects legislation outlined in S.B. No. 378, Texas’ version of the “castle doctrine,” which permits the use of deadly force when an “actor” believes someone has “unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation..”

As Magee’s attorney correctly summarized, “He did what a lot of people would have done. He defended himself and his girlfriend and his home.”

“Well we feel that the grand jury acted fairly and reasonably and had all of the information that it needed to make the decision that it did. That is that this was a justified shooting and, but we need to say that this is a tragedy,” DeGuerin added.

The move to pursue a capital murder charge despite lack of evidence illustrates how far police attorneys will go to defend their own, while at the same time unwittingly attempting to undermine their own rights.

Unable to get the murder rap to stick, the district attorney says felony drug and weapon charges against Magee will be “fully prosecuted.” He remains in jail with bond set at $50,000.

And 1st degree murder is premeditated killing, how in the world can the prosecutor charge him with PREMEDITATED MURDER and ask for his DEATH??????

Not all murder is first degree murder dear, but when a person murders a police officer who is performing his duty I believe ALL states allow that to be upgraded to first degree murder. That doesn't mean it always WILL happen, but it can.