Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
My thoughts are he's screwed. Your pathetic plea notwithstanding, if they are not IN your home you cannot claim self defense. Your clue that it's more of an op-ed piece is the broad brushing and trying to blur the issue with multiple accounts. It all has to be looked at on a case by case basis. I also have a hard time believing they didn't identify themselves.
Until they show a badge, what they say means shit. Good luck finding a jury that will convict. I think the prosecutor should be bitch slapped so hard that his eyes pop out of his head for being so stupid.
That's why SOP is to wear a shield on a lanyard around your neck, badge is right there.
the reason i bring it up, is because this man was NOT a criminal, and had no reason at all to believe it would be the police breaking through his window with a legal no knock warrant....NONE! Whereas, the white guy was a criminal, and the police were in his house already, and according to YOU they announced that they were cops upon entry as some sort of protocol, yet the white guy killed one of them, and it was assumed reasonable by the grand jury that he was afraid for his life and did not realize or acknowledge in the craziness of the raid, that it was the police, there in his home legally.... even though they had the vests on that said...police or swat or whatever.....Man Shoots At Intruders Turns Out It Was A No-knock Raid. Now He Faces The Death Penalty Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumAnd it IS REASONABLE to think this was self defense...
There is no article and no police report release that states the police officers announced themselves.....not ONE mention of it that I have read.
In the case with the white guy that I linked above, who also killed a cop in the no knock raid on his home....police supposedly announced they were cops but he was not prosecuted because the grand jury felt it was reasonable for this white guy to believe his home was being invaded by someone that was going to harm him....
AND HE DID have the illegal drugs that they had the warrant for....
It's REASONABLE to assume the police didn't follow protocol and announce themselves?
And I'm sorry but I missed your link.
click on that link above
post 175 and click to expand so you can read the article in full.....
this guy shot and killed a policeman in his home from a no knock, and grand jury did not indite him....AND this guy DID have illegal drugs and i believe he had a fire arm illegally as well.....?
So WHY is this man from this thread even being charged, when this other guy was not? State law enforcement doesnt appear to be consistent?
Why do you keep bringing up the issue of whether the person in the house was actually a criminal or not? It's irrelevant. A guy could have a thousand kilos of cocaine and 5 kidnapped women in his basement and if the police come in illegally and he shoots and kills one he WILL get off for self defense.
The key is the police have to be there legally whether the homeowner is a criminal or not.
I've explained this to you. Let's say you live at 123 Sunny Drive and a warrant is filled out for 132 Sunny Drive, but whoever types the warrant up accidentally writes in "123 Sunny Drive" , you're address.
Now, let's say the cops show up to your house and kick in your door and you shoot one of them. Do you think you could get a way with "they had no reason to be here?" Nope, because legally they had a right to be there, they were serving a warrant in good faith if they believed they were at the right address.
Again, know your rights. As for your link honestly I don't know enough to know why the grand jury refused to indict, but you gotta remember OJ was found not guilty. Juries sometimes just do strange things.
so this incident with this black man, being charged with first degree murder seems wrong and UNJUST to me....
the reason i bring it up, is because this man was NOT a criminal, and had no reason at all to believe it would be the police breaking through his window with a legal no knock warrant....NONE! Whereas, the white guy was a criminal, and the police were in his house already, and according to YOU they announced that they were cops upon entry as some sort of protocol, yet the white guy killed one of them, and it was assumed reasonable by the grand jury that he was afraid for his life and did not realize or acknowledge in the craziness of the raid, that it was the police, there in his home legally.... even though they had the vests on that said...police or swat or whatever.....Man Shoots At Intruders Turns Out It Was A No-knock Raid. Now He Faces The Death Penalty Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumAnd it IS REASONABLE to think this was self defense...
There is no article and no police report release that states the police officers announced themselves.....not ONE mention of it that I have read.
In the case with the white guy that I linked above, who also killed a cop in the no knock raid on his home....police supposedly announced they were cops but he was not prosecuted because the grand jury felt it was reasonable for this white guy to believe his home was being invaded by someone that was going to harm him....
AND HE DID have the illegal drugs that they had the warrant for....
It's REASONABLE to assume the police didn't follow protocol and announce themselves?
And I'm sorry but I missed your link.
click on that link above
post 175 and click to expand so you can read the article in full.....
this guy shot and killed a policeman in his home from a no knock, and grand jury did not indite him....AND this guy DID have illegal drugs and i believe he had a fire arm illegally as well.....?
So WHY is this man from this thread even being charged, when this other guy was not? State law enforcement doesnt appear to be consistent?
Why do you keep bringing up the issue of whether the person in the house was actually a criminal or not? It's irrelevant. A guy could have a thousand kilos of cocaine and 5 kidnapped women in his basement and if the police come in illegally and he shoots and kills one he WILL get off for self defense.
The key is the police have to be there legally whether the homeowner is a criminal or not.
I've explained this to you. Let's say you live at 123 Sunny Drive and a warrant is filled out for 132 Sunny Drive, but whoever types the warrant up accidentally writes in "123 Sunny Drive" , you're address.
Now, let's say the cops show up to your house and kick in your door and you shoot one of them. Do you think you could get a way with "they had no reason to be here?" Nope, because legally they had a right to be there, they were serving a warrant in good faith if they believed they were at the right address.
Again, know your rights. As for your link honestly I don't know enough to know why the grand jury refused to indict, but you gotta remember OJ was found not guilty. Juries sometimes just do strange things.
so this incident with this black man, being charged with first degree murder seems wrong and UNJUST to me....
the reason i bring it up, is because this man was NOT a criminal, and had no reason at all to believe it would be the police breaking through his window with a legal no knock warrant....NONE! Whereas, the white guy was a criminal, and the police were in his house already, and according to YOU they announced that they were cops upon entry as some sort of protocol, yet the white guy killed one of them, and it was assumed reasonable by the grand jury that he was afraid for his life and did not realize or acknowledge in the craziness of the raid, that it was the police, there in his home legally.... even though they had the vests on that said...police or swat or whatever.....Man Shoots At Intruders Turns Out It Was A No-knock Raid. Now He Faces The Death Penalty Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumAnd it IS REASONABLE to think this was self defense...
There is no article and no police report release that states the police officers announced themselves.....not ONE mention of it that I have read.
In the case with the white guy that I linked above, who also killed a cop in the no knock raid on his home....police supposedly announced they were cops but he was not prosecuted because the grand jury felt it was reasonable for this white guy to believe his home was being invaded by someone that was going to harm him....
AND HE DID have the illegal drugs that they had the warrant for....
It's REASONABLE to assume the police didn't follow protocol and announce themselves?
And I'm sorry but I missed your link.
click on that link above
post 175 and click to expand so you can read the article in full.....
this guy shot and killed a policeman in his home from a no knock, and grand jury did not indite him....AND this guy DID have illegal drugs and i believe he had a fire arm illegally as well.....?
So WHY is this man from this thread even being charged, when this other guy was not? State law enforcement doesnt appear to be consistent?
Why do you keep bringing up the issue of whether the person in the house was actually a criminal or not? It's irrelevant. A guy could have a thousand kilos of cocaine and 5 kidnapped women in his basement and if the police come in illegally and he shoots and kills one he WILL get off for self defense.
The key is the police have to be there legally whether the homeowner is a criminal or not.
I've explained this to you. Let's say you live at 123 Sunny Drive and a warrant is filled out for 132 Sunny Drive, but whoever types the warrant up accidentally writes in "123 Sunny Drive" , you're address.
Now, let's say the cops show up to your house and kick in your door and you shoot one of them. Do you think you could get a way with "they had no reason to be here?" Nope, because legally they had a right to be there, they were serving a warrant in good faith if they believed they were at the right address.
Again, know your rights. As for your link honestly I don't know enough to know why the grand jury refused to indict, but you gotta remember OJ was found not guilty. Juries sometimes just do strange things.
so this incident with this black man, being charged with first degree murder seems wrong and UNJUST to me....
Had the cops shot and killed this guy while finding no illegal activity, they would have said it was his fault for them having to kill him. This crap has got to stop with overzealous cops shooting first and asking questions later. In one incident after another, cops are killing innocent people and getting away with murder because they can. Then when someone actually defends themself and kills a cop in self-defense, they are supposed to be charged with capital murder. This country is becoming a joke.
the reason i bring it up, is because this man was NOT a criminal, and had no reason at all to believe it would be the police breaking through his window with a legal no knock warrant....NONE! Whereas, the white guy was a criminal, and the police were in his house already, and according to YOU they announced that they were cops upon entry as some sort of protocol, yet the white guy killed one of them, and it was assumed reasonable by the grand jury that he was afraid for his life and did not realize or acknowledge in the craziness of the raid, that it was the police, there in his home legally.... even though they had the vests on that said...police or swat or whatever.....Man Shoots At Intruders Turns Out It Was A No-knock Raid. Now He Faces The Death Penalty Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumIt's REASONABLE to assume the police didn't follow protocol and announce themselves?
And I'm sorry but I missed your link.
click on that link above
post 175 and click to expand so you can read the article in full.....
this guy shot and killed a policeman in his home from a no knock, and grand jury did not indite him....AND this guy DID have illegal drugs and i believe he had a fire arm illegally as well.....?
So WHY is this man from this thread even being charged, when this other guy was not? State law enforcement doesnt appear to be consistent?
Why do you keep bringing up the issue of whether the person in the house was actually a criminal or not? It's irrelevant. A guy could have a thousand kilos of cocaine and 5 kidnapped women in his basement and if the police come in illegally and he shoots and kills one he WILL get off for self defense.
The key is the police have to be there legally whether the homeowner is a criminal or not.
I've explained this to you. Let's say you live at 123 Sunny Drive and a warrant is filled out for 132 Sunny Drive, but whoever types the warrant up accidentally writes in "123 Sunny Drive" , you're address.
Now, let's say the cops show up to your house and kick in your door and you shoot one of them. Do you think you could get a way with "they had no reason to be here?" Nope, because legally they had a right to be there, they were serving a warrant in good faith if they believed they were at the right address.
Again, know your rights. As for your link honestly I don't know enough to know why the grand jury refused to indict, but you gotta remember OJ was found not guilty. Juries sometimes just do strange things.
so this incident with this black man, being charged with first degree murder seems wrong and UNJUST to me....
Had the cops shot and killed this guy while finding no illegal activity, they would have said it was his fault for them having to kill him. This crap has got to stop with overzealous cops shooting first and asking questions later. In one incident after another, cops are killing innocent people and getting away with murder because they can. Then when someone actually defends themself and kills a cop in self-defense, they are supposed to be charged with capital murder. This country is becoming a joke.
That's hilarious because that's exactly what this homeowner did.
the reason i bring it up, is because this man was NOT a criminal, and had no reason at all to believe it would be the police breaking through his window with a legal no knock warrant....NONE! Whereas, the white guy was a criminal, and the police were in his house already, and according to YOU they announced that they were cops upon entry as some sort of protocol, yet the white guy killed one of them, and it was assumed reasonable by the grand jury that he was afraid for his life and did not realize or acknowledge in the craziness of the raid, that it was the police, there in his home legally.... even though they had the vests on that said...police or swat or whatever.....Man Shoots At Intruders Turns Out It Was A No-knock Raid. Now He Faces The Death Penalty Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
click on that link above
post 175 and click to expand so you can read the article in full.....
this guy shot and killed a policeman in his home from a no knock, and grand jury did not indite him....AND this guy DID have illegal drugs and i believe he had a fire arm illegally as well.....?
So WHY is this man from this thread even being charged, when this other guy was not? State law enforcement doesnt appear to be consistent?
Why do you keep bringing up the issue of whether the person in the house was actually a criminal or not? It's irrelevant. A guy could have a thousand kilos of cocaine and 5 kidnapped women in his basement and if the police come in illegally and he shoots and kills one he WILL get off for self defense.
The key is the police have to be there legally whether the homeowner is a criminal or not.
I've explained this to you. Let's say you live at 123 Sunny Drive and a warrant is filled out for 132 Sunny Drive, but whoever types the warrant up accidentally writes in "123 Sunny Drive" , you're address.
Now, let's say the cops show up to your house and kick in your door and you shoot one of them. Do you think you could get a way with "they had no reason to be here?" Nope, because legally they had a right to be there, they were serving a warrant in good faith if they believed they were at the right address.
Again, know your rights. As for your link honestly I don't know enough to know why the grand jury refused to indict, but you gotta remember OJ was found not guilty. Juries sometimes just do strange things.
so this incident with this black man, being charged with first degree murder seems wrong and UNJUST to me....
Had the cops shot and killed this guy while finding no illegal activity, they would have said it was his fault for them having to kill him. This crap has got to stop with overzealous cops shooting first and asking questions later. In one incident after another, cops are killing innocent people and getting away with murder because they can. Then when someone actually defends themself and kills a cop in self-defense, they are supposed to be charged with capital murder. This country is becoming a joke.
That's hilarious because that's exactly what this homeowner did.
The difference is that this man's home was being invaded. He had no reason to expect cops to be entering his home in the manner that they did. Hell, being woken at 5:30 in the morning he probably had no clue who was entering but knew he had to protect his family. When we continually protect law enforcement for acting criminally, eventually it will be us they come after.
bull crap, he is not toast....just because of that statement...especially since HE WAS NOT RESISTING ARREST....where in the heck did you get that this man was resisting arrest? no one was arresting him, he thought criminals were breaking in to his house and were going to harm him....AS I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT, MY PARENTS WOULD HAVE THOUGHT, AS MY HUSBAND WOULD HAVE THOUGHT AS MY NEIGHBOR WOULD HAVE THOUGHT AS MY SISTER WOULD HAVE THOUGHT AND AS EVEN YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT....when waking up to men breaking through your window.the reason i bring it up, is because this man was NOT a criminal, and had no reason at all to believe it would be the police breaking through his window with a legal no knock warrant....NONE! Whereas, the white guy was a criminal, and the police were in his house already, and according to YOU they announced that they were cops upon entry as some sort of protocol, yet the white guy killed one of them, and it was assumed reasonable by the grand jury that he was afraid for his life and did not realize or acknowledge in the craziness of the raid, that it was the police, there in his home legally.... even though they had the vests on that said...police or swat or whatever.....Why do you keep bringing up the issue of whether the person in the house was actually a criminal or not? It's irrelevant. A guy could have a thousand kilos of cocaine and 5 kidnapped women in his basement and if the police come in illegally and he shoots and kills one he WILL get off for self defense.
The key is the police have to be there legally whether the homeowner is a criminal or not.
I've explained this to you. Let's say you live at 123 Sunny Drive and a warrant is filled out for 132 Sunny Drive, but whoever types the warrant up accidentally writes in "123 Sunny Drive" , you're address.
Now, let's say the cops show up to your house and kick in your door and you shoot one of them. Do you think you could get a way with "they had no reason to be here?" Nope, because legally they had a right to be there, they were serving a warrant in good faith if they believed they were at the right address.
Again, know your rights. As for your link honestly I don't know enough to know why the grand jury refused to indict, but you gotta remember OJ was found not guilty. Juries sometimes just do strange things.
so this incident with this black man, being charged with first degree murder seems wrong and UNJUST to me....
Had the cops shot and killed this guy while finding no illegal activity, they would have said it was his fault for them having to kill him. This crap has got to stop with overzealous cops shooting first and asking questions later. In one incident after another, cops are killing innocent people and getting away with murder because they can. Then when someone actually defends themself and kills a cop in self-defense, they are supposed to be charged with capital murder. This country is becoming a joke.
That's hilarious because that's exactly what this homeowner did.
The difference is that this man's home was being invaded. He had no reason to expect cops to be entering his home in the manner that they did. Hell, being woken at 5:30 in the morning he probably had no clue who was entering but knew he had to protect his family. When we continually protect law enforcement for acting criminally, eventually it will be us they come after.
You seem to be exceptionally slow witted.
What he had reason to expect is entirely irrelevant. No reasonable person actually expects their home to ever be invaded by anyone. It's a statistical rarity.
Further, these police were NOT acting criminally. Why you can't get that through your head is beyond me.
I haven't actually found the Texas statute yet, but the Florida one actually even has an exemption in it for police who are performing their LAWFUL duty, you have no claim of self defense when police are executing their lawful duty, this includes both castle doctrine and stand your ground. I fully expect that Texas has similar.
IF the police believe they are serving a lawful warrant to the correct address that is called good faith and they are not acting illegally, even if they ARE at the wrong house, or even if turns out that there is nothing illegal going on in that house.
edited to add, i just found this
Texas Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground 101
2. You will not be justified in using force to resist arrest or search being made by a police officer. Even if the arrest or search is ultimately proven to be unlawful.
This guy is fucked whether the police identified themselves or not as long as the warrant was valid.
As I suspected, there is an exemption in the law dealing with police who are performing their duties.
bull crap, he is not toast....just because of that statement...especially since HE WAS NOT RESISTING ARREST....where in the heck did you get that this man was resisting arrest? no one was arresting him, he thought criminals were breaking in to his house and were going to harm him....AS I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT, MY PARENTS WOULD HAVE THOUGHT, AS MY HUSBAND WOULD HAVE THOUGHT AS MY NEIGHBOR WOULD HAVE THOUGHT AS MY SISTER WOULD HAVE THOUGHT AND AS EVEN YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT....when waking up to men breaking through your window.the reason i bring it up, is because this man was NOT a criminal, and had no reason at all to believe it would be the police breaking through his window with a legal no knock warrant....NONE! Whereas, the white guy was a criminal, and the police were in his house already, and according to YOU they announced that they were cops upon entry as some sort of protocol, yet the white guy killed one of them, and it was assumed reasonable by the grand jury that he was afraid for his life and did not realize or acknowledge in the craziness of the raid, that it was the police, there in his home legally.... even though they had the vests on that said...police or swat or whatever.....
so this incident with this black man, being charged with first degree murder seems wrong and UNJUST to me....
Had the cops shot and killed this guy while finding no illegal activity, they would have said it was his fault for them having to kill him. This crap has got to stop with overzealous cops shooting first and asking questions later. In one incident after another, cops are killing innocent people and getting away with murder because they can. Then when someone actually defends themself and kills a cop in self-defense, they are supposed to be charged with capital murder. This country is becoming a joke.
That's hilarious because that's exactly what this homeowner did.
The difference is that this man's home was being invaded. He had no reason to expect cops to be entering his home in the manner that they did. Hell, being woken at 5:30 in the morning he probably had no clue who was entering but knew he had to protect his family. When we continually protect law enforcement for acting criminally, eventually it will be us they come after.
You seem to be exceptionally slow witted.
What he had reason to expect is entirely irrelevant. No reasonable person actually expects their home to ever be invaded by anyone. It's a statistical rarity.
Further, these police were NOT acting criminally. Why you can't get that through your head is beyond me.
I haven't actually found the Texas statute yet, but the Florida one actually even has an exemption in it for police who are performing their LAWFUL duty, you have no claim of self defense when police are executing their lawful duty, this includes both castle doctrine and stand your ground. I fully expect that Texas has similar.
IF the police believe they are serving a lawful warrant to the correct address that is called good faith and they are not acting illegally, even if they ARE at the wrong house, or even if turns out that there is nothing illegal going on in that house.
edited to add, i just found this
Texas Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground 101
2. You will not be justified in using force to resist arrest or search being made by a police officer. Even if the arrest or search is ultimately proven to be unlawful.
This guy is fucked whether the police identified themselves or not as long as the warrant was valid.
As I suspected, there is an exemption in the law dealing with police who are performing their duties.
I'm sorry and saddened by this policeman being killed, but taking away this man's life as well is simply WRONG.
the reason i bring it up, is because this man was NOT a criminal, and had no reason at all to believe it would be the police breaking through his window with a legal no knock warrant....NONE! Whereas, the white guy was a criminal, and the police were in his house already, and according to YOU they announced that they were cops upon entry as some sort of protocol, yet the white guy killed one of them, and it was assumed reasonable by the grand jury that he was afraid for his life and did not realize or acknowledge in the craziness of the raid, that it was the police, there in his home legally.... even though they had the vests on that said...police or swat or whatever.....Why do you keep bringing up the issue of whether the person in the house was actually a criminal or not? It's irrelevant. A guy could have a thousand kilos of cocaine and 5 kidnapped women in his basement and if the police come in illegally and he shoots and kills one he WILL get off for self defense.
The key is the police have to be there legally whether the homeowner is a criminal or not.
I've explained this to you. Let's say you live at 123 Sunny Drive and a warrant is filled out for 132 Sunny Drive, but whoever types the warrant up accidentally writes in "123 Sunny Drive" , you're address.
Now, let's say the cops show up to your house and kick in your door and you shoot one of them. Do you think you could get a way with "they had no reason to be here?" Nope, because legally they had a right to be there, they were serving a warrant in good faith if they believed they were at the right address.
Again, know your rights. As for your link honestly I don't know enough to know why the grand jury refused to indict, but you gotta remember OJ was found not guilty. Juries sometimes just do strange things.
so this incident with this black man, being charged with first degree murder seems wrong and UNJUST to me....
Had the cops shot and killed this guy while finding no illegal activity, they would have said it was his fault for them having to kill him. This crap has got to stop with overzealous cops shooting first and asking questions later. In one incident after another, cops are killing innocent people and getting away with murder because they can. Then when someone actually defends themself and kills a cop in self-defense, they are supposed to be charged with capital murder. This country is becoming a joke.
That's hilarious because that's exactly what this homeowner did.
The difference is that this man's home was being invaded. He had no reason to expect cops to be entering his home in the manner that they did. Hell, being woken at 5:30 in the morning he probably had no clue who was entering but knew he had to protect his family. When we continually protect law enforcement for acting criminally, eventually it will be us they come after.
You seem to be exceptionally slow witted.
What he had reason to expect is entirely irrelevant. No reasonable person actually expects their home to ever be invaded by anyone. It's a statistical rarity.
Further, these police were NOT acting criminally. Why you can't get that through your head is beyond me.
I haven't actually found the Texas statute yet, but the Florida one actually even has an exemption in it for police who are performing their LAWFUL duty, you have no claim of self defense when police are executing their lawful duty, this includes both castle doctrine and stand your ground. I fully expect that Texas has similar.
IF the police believe they are serving a lawful warrant to the correct address that is called good faith and they are not acting illegally, even if they ARE at the wrong house, or even if turns out that there is nothing illegal going on in that house.
edited to add, i just found this
Texas Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground 101
2. You will not be justified in using force to resist arrest or search being made by a police officer. Even if the arrest or search is ultimately proven to be unlawful.
This guy is fucked whether the police identified themselves or not as long as the warrant was valid.
As I suspected, there is an exemption in the law dealing with police who are performing their duties.
who was being arrested and resisting arrest? WHO?bull crap, he is not toast....just because of that statement...especially since HE WAS NOT RESISTING ARREST....where in the heck did you get that this man was resisting arrest? no one was arresting him, he thought criminals were breaking in to his house and were going to harm him....AS I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT, MY PARENTS WOULD HAVE THOUGHT, AS MY HUSBAND WOULD HAVE THOUGHT AS MY NEIGHBOR WOULD HAVE THOUGHT AS MY SISTER WOULD HAVE THOUGHT AND AS EVEN YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT....when waking up to men breaking through your window.Had the cops shot and killed this guy while finding no illegal activity, they would have said it was his fault for them having to kill him. This crap has got to stop with overzealous cops shooting first and asking questions later. In one incident after another, cops are killing innocent people and getting away with murder because they can. Then when someone actually defends themself and kills a cop in self-defense, they are supposed to be charged with capital murder. This country is becoming a joke.
That's hilarious because that's exactly what this homeowner did.
The difference is that this man's home was being invaded. He had no reason to expect cops to be entering his home in the manner that they did. Hell, being woken at 5:30 in the morning he probably had no clue who was entering but knew he had to protect his family. When we continually protect law enforcement for acting criminally, eventually it will be us they come after.
You seem to be exceptionally slow witted.
What he had reason to expect is entirely irrelevant. No reasonable person actually expects their home to ever be invaded by anyone. It's a statistical rarity.
Further, these police were NOT acting criminally. Why you can't get that through your head is beyond me.
I haven't actually found the Texas statute yet, but the Florida one actually even has an exemption in it for police who are performing their LAWFUL duty, you have no claim of self defense when police are executing their lawful duty, this includes both castle doctrine and stand your ground. I fully expect that Texas has similar.
IF the police believe they are serving a lawful warrant to the correct address that is called good faith and they are not acting illegally, even if they ARE at the wrong house, or even if turns out that there is nothing illegal going on in that house.
edited to add, i just found this
Texas Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground 101
2. You will not be justified in using force to resist arrest or search being made by a police officer. Even if the arrest or search is ultimately proven to be unlawful.
This guy is fucked whether the police identified themselves or not as long as the warrant was valid.
As I suspected, there is an exemption in the law dealing with police who are performing their duties.
I'm sorry and saddened by this policeman being killed, but taking away this man's life as well is simply WRONG.
I have concluded that you are just stupid.
I mean seriously read the fucking law it says you can not claim castle doctrine if you shoot a cop who was making an arrest OR conducting a search. These cops were getting ready to conduct a search.
I'm done with you Care, I thought you were just not understanding the law, but the truth is you're stupid and unworthy of any more of my time.
bull crap, he is not toast....just because of that statement...especially since HE WAS NOT RESISTING ARREST....where in the heck did you get that this man was resisting arrest? no one was arresting him, he thought criminals were breaking in to his house and were going to harm him....AS I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT, MY PARENTS WOULD HAVE THOUGHT, AS MY HUSBAND WOULD HAVE THOUGHT AS MY NEIGHBOR WOULD HAVE THOUGHT AS MY SISTER WOULD HAVE THOUGHT AND AS EVEN YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT....when waking up to men breaking through your window.Had the cops shot and killed this guy while finding no illegal activity, they would have said it was his fault for them having to kill him. This crap has got to stop with overzealous cops shooting first and asking questions later. In one incident after another, cops are killing innocent people and getting away with murder because they can. Then when someone actually defends themself and kills a cop in self-defense, they are supposed to be charged with capital murder. This country is becoming a joke.
That's hilarious because that's exactly what this homeowner did.
The difference is that this man's home was being invaded. He had no reason to expect cops to be entering his home in the manner that they did. Hell, being woken at 5:30 in the morning he probably had no clue who was entering but knew he had to protect his family. When we continually protect law enforcement for acting criminally, eventually it will be us they come after.
You seem to be exceptionally slow witted.
What he had reason to expect is entirely irrelevant. No reasonable person actually expects their home to ever be invaded by anyone. It's a statistical rarity.
Further, these police were NOT acting criminally. Why you can't get that through your head is beyond me.
I haven't actually found the Texas statute yet, but the Florida one actually even has an exemption in it for police who are performing their LAWFUL duty, you have no claim of self defense when police are executing their lawful duty, this includes both castle doctrine and stand your ground. I fully expect that Texas has similar.
IF the police believe they are serving a lawful warrant to the correct address that is called good faith and they are not acting illegally, even if they ARE at the wrong house, or even if turns out that there is nothing illegal going on in that house.
edited to add, i just found this
Texas Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground 101
2. You will not be justified in using force to resist arrest or search being made by a police officer. Even if the arrest or search is ultimately proven to be unlawful.
This guy is fucked whether the police identified themselves or not as long as the warrant was valid.
As I suspected, there is an exemption in the law dealing with police who are performing their duties.
I'm sorry and saddened by this policeman being killed, but taking away this man's life as well is simply WRONG.
I have concluded that you are just stupid.
I mean seriously read the fucking law it says you can not claim castle doctrine if you shoot a cop who was making an arrest OR conducting a search. These cops were getting ready to conduct a search.
I'm done with you Care, I thought you were just not understanding the law, but the truth is you're stupid and unworthy of any more of my time.
Guy, who woke from a dead sleep to find the officers entering his home, is now facing the death penalty in Texas for shooting a cop.
Unbelievably, this is not the first time it happened in Texas. In December 2013, another man shot a police officer when they conducted a no-knock raid to look for drugs.
In that case, the jury refused to indict, noting that Henry Goedrich Magee had a right to defend his home and his pregnant girlfriend from what he believed were intruders.
His lawyer agreed.
“This was a terrible tragedy that a deputy sheriff was killed, but Hank Magee believed that he and his pregnant girlfriend were being robbed,” Dick DeGuerin, told the Associated Press. “He did what a lot of people would have done. He defended himself and his girlfriend and his home.”
In this case, however, Guy, who is 49, is being charged not only with capital murder for Dinwiddie’s death, but for three cases of attempted capital murder for the other cops injured while crawling into the home.
The prosecutor Bell County District Attorney Henry Garza has also said he plans to seek the death penalty against Guy, despite the precedent set when Magee was ultimately not charged at all.
Some point out that the fact Guy is black and Magee is white may be one of the reasons for seeking the ultimate punishment.
Others think that it is a sign of a police force and legal system gone amok.
“Had the man in the dark of night been a burglar, Guy would be a Texas hero. They would hold a parade for him and name a day “Marvin Louis Guy Day” to celebrate how he took out some scuzzball who nobody cared about anyway,” criminal justice blogger Scott Greenfield wrote, “But Dinwiddie was a cop, even though there was no way Guy could have known that. Even in Killeen, smoking some crack* isn’t that big a deal.”[/QUOTE]
Should He Face the Death Penalty Texas Man Shoots Intruder Turns Out It Was a Cop - Latest
Apparently there is precedent for this man to get off. But continue calling others stupid if you really believe that will make you seem more intelligent.
It doesn't matter what you believe, It only matters what you can convince a jury of.
Most people are smarter than this, i hope.
Why did you shoot that guy, did you know he was a cop?
"Uh hell no, I didn't take time to out, I just shot him
Go to jail
Unless you get a stupid jury. Which is of course possible.
I don't know why yall can't get it through your heads that when you use an affirmative defense you have to prove YOUR case beyond a reasonable doubt, because you've already done the prosecutors job for him. you can't claim self defense without admitting you shot the other person. That's all the prosecution needs, you've confessed unless you prove your reasons for doing so.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
Let me turn this around. Let's say a cop is driving down the road and gets a radio call that a bank is being robbed, he hauls ass to the bank and jumps out and shoots the first black person he sees.
When you ask him why he did that he said "well shit, he was black, I thought for sure he was the bank robber"
Do you convict the guy for murder? Of course you do, because he didn't prove that he had a legal right to shoot the guy.
You shoot someone and claim self defense, and the castle doctrine and stand your ground are BOTH self defense then you have to prove you were actually defending yourself against someone who was acting illegally.
Now, remember that last part, because listen, if the police serve a warrant at the wrong address but believe they are at the right address they have a right to LEGALLY enter that house, they've done nothing wrong and so when you shoot one of them it is NOT self defense unless you can PROVE (again beyond a reasonable doubt) that you didn't know it was a cop. Just simply saying "I didn't know it was a cop" won't cut it.
And agian, a jury can do whatever in a case, but that has nothing to do with whether charges should be filed or not.
You seem to be exceptionally slow witted.
What he had reason to expect is entirely irrelevant. No reasonable person actually expects their home to ever be invaded by anyone. It's a statistical rarity.
Further, these police were NOT acting criminally. Why you can't get that through your head is beyond me.
I haven't actually found the Texas statute yet, but the Florida one actually even has an exemption in it for police who are performing their LAWFUL duty, you have no claim of self defense when police are executing their lawful duty, this includes both castle doctrine and stand your ground. I fully expect that Texas has similar.
IF the police believe they are serving a lawful warrant to the correct address that is called good faith and they are not acting illegally, even if they ARE at the wrong house, or even if turns out that there is nothing illegal going on in that house.
edited to add, i just found this
Texas Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground 101
2. You will not be justified in using force to resist arrest or search being made by a police officer. Even if the arrest or search is ultimately proven to be unlawful.
This guy is fucked whether the police identified themselves or not as long as the warrant was valid.
As I suspected, there is an exemption in the law dealing with police who are performing their duties.
You speak with great flatulence. Hence your screen name I assume.I am a bonehead?
My claim was that in Texas it is perfectly legal to shoot someone who is outside your house as long as you are defending the property or another person. It is even legal to shoot them if it isn't your personal property. Your claim was that the law in every single state made it illegal to shot anyone outside your house. In an attempt to prove how smart you are you proved me right.
Feel free to keep proving I am a bonehead, it makes you look more idiotic every single time you try.
I missed your explanation, maybe you could tone down the flatulence level a bit there quantum gasbag. Obviously he drug him back because he knew he would be in deep shit so you're wrong. You can't just shoot anyone for stealing anywhere, read the law and quit posting what you think the law should be.Do you make anything but idiotic drive by comments? Address the point instead of flopping around. Why was he drug back?
You asked me to explain why I thought it was legal to drag him back in front of his house, I explained why I thought it was. How deos that not address your pathetic post?
What an asshole. Your posts are getting real old real fast. I said in the beginning that it would depend on circumstances. You hopped into the thread without reading anything apparently. What's wrong with you? I also said I would most definitely not be shooting at people outside my house. I think that's what really got him in hot water. And since you haven't read shit, I also said I'll wait for the facts to come out. Unlike some of you.Yes because most burglars run around in groups dressed in tactical gear with probably SWAT or something like that on them.
The cops broke his window from outside and then tried to climb in. Tell me that you would stop under those circumstances to look out the window and check to see if they were wearing vests and I will calll you a liar, and enjoy it.
Think george zimmerman for a good example of stand your ground.
Why would anyone use Zimmerman as an example of Stand Your Ground? That's bizarre.
zimmerman wasn't in a house. At the end of the trial the judge instructed the jury about stand your ground and to apply it even though zimmerman wasn't claiming stand your ground.
One poster said the person has to be inside the house for it not to be murder.
Stand your ground removes that requirement.
That's fascinating since the OP is about a man named Marvin Louis Guy.July 10, 2014
Man Who Shot at Cops During No-Knock Raid Acquitted on All Charges
After a 9 hour deliberation, a jury has found Adrian Perryman, not guilty on all four counts of aggravated assault on a peace officer.
The incident that led to the charges against Perryman happened during the pre-dawn hours of October 26, 2010 in San Antonio, TX.
SAPD’s tactical response unit was executing a no-knock search warrant. The occupants in the house at the time were Perryman, his girlfriend Rebecca Flores, and Flores’s 3 year old grand daughter Savannah.
When Flores saw two shadowy men on the security cameras, she woke up Perryman, and tossed him his gun.
Man Who Shot at Cops During No-Knock Raid Acquitted on All Charges The Free Thought Project
Explain THIS THEN: this man killed 2 people that robbed his neighbor's house, used the Castle Doctrine as his defense and he was CLEARED....I missed your explanation, maybe you could tone down the flatulence level a bit there quantum gasbag. Obviously he drug him back because he knew he would be in deep shit so you're wrong. You can't just shoot anyone for stealing anywhere, read the law and quit posting what you think the law should be.Do you make anything but idiotic drive by comments? Address the point instead of flopping around. Why was he drug back?
You asked me to explain why I thought it was legal to drag him back in front of his house, I explained why I thought it was. How deos that not address your pathetic post?
Man Cleared for Killing Neighbor s Burglars - ABC NewsHome> Cuomo on the Case
Man Cleared for Killing Neighbor's Burglars
June 30, 2008
By CHRIS BURY and HOWARD L. ROSENBERG via Nightline
A Texas man who shot and killed two men he believed to be burglarizing his neighbor's home won't be going to trial. A grand jury today failed to indict Joe Horn, a 61-year-old computer technician who lives in an affluent subdivision in Pasadena, Texas.
In the Lone Star state, where the six-gun tamed the frontier, shooting bad guys is a time-honored tradition, and Horn's case centered on a Texas state law based on the old idea that "a man's home is his castle." The "castle law" gives Texans unprecedented legal authority to use deadly force in their homes, vehicles and workplaces. And no longer do they have an obligation to retreat, if possible, before they shoot.
"I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson told reporters at the courthouse. "The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances. ... In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."
null
null
'I'm Gonna Shoot!' Horn called 911 in November to report a burglary in broad daylight at the house next door.
"I've got a shotgun; you want me to stop him?" Horn asked the dispatcher.
"Nope. Don't do that," the dispatcher replied. "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"
Horn was clearly upset by the dispatcher's response.
"I'm not gonna let them get away with it," he said. "I can't take a chance getting killed over this, OK."
Despite the dispatcher's protects, Horn said, "I'm gonna shoot! I'm gonna shoot!"
The 911 dispatcher warned Horn to stay inside at least a dozen separate times, telling him, "An officer is coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house."
Then Horn sounding angrier by the moment cited the new Texas law.
"OK, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir," he said. "And you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it and I know it."
Moments later, Horn saw two burglars leave his neighbor's house, one of them carrying a bag filled with cash and jewelry.
"I'm gonna kill him," Horn said. "Stay in the house," the dispatcher said. "They're getting away," Horn replied. "That's all right," the dispatcher said. "Property's not worth killing someone over. OK?" "---damn it," said Horn, who then defied the dispatcher.
"Well, here it goes, buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going," he said.
"Don't go outside," the dispatcher warned.
Self-Defense? Horn says he came out his front door, down his porch and confronted the two burglars. The next sounds heard on the 911 tape are Horn ordering the two men to stop & and then shooting them both.
"Move you're dead," he said, and fired his shotgun three times.
"Both suspects were shot in the back," Pasadena Police Captain A.H. "Bud" Corbett said. "Not at the same angle, but both suspects were hit in the back."
Horn fatally shot the burglars, two illegal immigrants from Colombia named Diego Ortiz and Miguel de Jesus. Stephanie Storey, De Jesus' fiancée, wanted to see Joe Horn prosecuted.
"This man took the law into his own hands," she said. "He shot two individuals in the back after having been told over and over to stay inside. It was his choice to go outside and his choice to take two lives."
Horn turned down an ABC News request for an interview but his attorney Tom Lambright insists Horn was entirely justified.
