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

[Iceweasel]

All states have self defense statutes. Whether you can legally shoot someone depends on the circumstances. I'm guessing the prosecutor is more familiar with state law than the lopsided boraod brushed agenda driven op-ed piece.

I am guessing the only reason the prosecutor is pursuing the case is that the victim is a cop.

Well, I suppose that's true since civilians aren't tasked with the job of entering homes in no knock searches.

 

[Iceweasel]

I know this because the grandson of a friend of mine was shot because he was with a group of kids that were breaking onto cars along a street, and one of the owners decided to go after them. He ended up killing the grandson down the street and drug him back in front of his house.

The fact that he drug him back should speak to you. Or are you saying it's legal to kill someone and drag them back to your property to make it look good?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[So you're a lawyer familiar with Texas law then. Good, please explain:
"SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor."

The deadly force section below it refers back to this one. It reads like you have to be convinced the only way to save your car is to shoot the guy. How can that be if you never call out or anything? You'd have to articulate a good reason why you believe he would have taken the vehicle regardless. I would not want to take that gamble.

I never claimed to be a lawyer, I just noted that you are ignorant about the law in Texas. Your claim was that it is flat out illegal to shoot anyone outside your house, it isn't, as you just proved.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, I suppose that's true since civilians aren't tasked with the job of entering homes in no knock searches.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the only valid reason to issue a no knock warrant is if there is probable cause to believe that the police would be in imminent danger of they tried to serve a warrant by knocking on the door. Once you supply the probable cause for the no knock warrant in this particular case you will get an explanation from me while you are full of shit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The fact that he drug him back should speak to you. Or are you saying it's legal to kill someone and drag them back to your property to make it look good?

The fact that the prosecutor refused to charge him tells me that, any other stupid questions?

 

[Iceweasel]

I never claimed to be a lawyer, I just noted that you are ignorant about the law in Texas. Your claim was that it is flat out illegal to shoot anyone outside your house, it isn't, as you just proved.

You're proving you're a bonehead. We were discussing a particular case, Einstein. I have a carry permit and can use lethal force outdoors in this state as it is in Texas.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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 **** 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.

You have no evidence the cops identified themselves. As far as I know the cops have not even claimed that.

 

[Iceweasel]

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the only valid reason to issue a no knock warrant is if there is probable cause to believe that the police would be in imminent danger of they tried to serve a warrant by knocking on the door. Once you supply the probable cause for the no knock warrant in this particular case you will get an explanation from me while you are full of shit.

Hey shitface, they had the warrant apparently signed by the judge or it wouldn't have been served. Go tell them it was illegal.

 

[Iceweasel]

The fact that he drug him back should speak to you. Or are you saying it's legal to kill someone and drag them back to your property to make it look good?

The fact that the prosecutor refused to charge him tells me that, any other stupid questions?

Do you make anything but idiotic drive by comments? Address the point instead of flopping around. Why was he drug back?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The burden of proof ALWAYS rests with the state, not the defendant..

Come on, educate yourselves. The bolded statement simply is not true.

If you use an affirmative defense, the burden of proof rests with YOU. If you claim self defense you have to PROVE you were defending yourself, the state doesn't have to prove you were not defending yourself

That's absurd...there's no such stipulation in an affirmative defense....the burden of PROOF rests with the state to prove their case, not disprove the defendant's case. The facts in evidence are uncontested here ie the defendant killed the cop...he had the means and the opportunity. The case swings to MOTIVE...did he have a reasonable belief his home was being invaded by criminals? Yes he did given the circumstances. The onus of PROOF is on the state to disprove that was an assumption most people would have.

Sir, educate yourself, You are proving what a moron you are. I have posted the definition of an affirmative defense several times .

An affirmative defense is admitting you did it then proving that you did it for legal reasons.

An affirmative defense shifts the burden to you. The prosecutor is NOT obligated to prove you did not do it for legal reasons.

Folks, this is the route people who hate guns are going to use to take your guns. They are going to point out that idiots who don't know their rights are going around illegally shooting people.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You don't know much about the law, do you? In Texas you can legally shoot a person who is breaking into your parked car while you are standing on the porch of your house.

So you're a lawyer familiar with Texas law then. Good, please explain:
"SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor."

The deadly force section below it refers back to this one. It reads like you have to be convinced the only way to save your car is to shoot the guy. How can that be if you never call out or anything? You'd have to articulate a good reason why you believe he would have taken the vehicle regardless. I would not want to take that gamble.

The bolded is what will **** this idiot up if he claims self defense and can't prove he didn't know it was the police. Because if he does that he will have to use an affirmative defense and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't know it was the police.

 

[Iceweasel]

The bolded is what will **** this idiot up if he claims self defense and can't prove he didn't know it was the police. Because if he does that he will have to use an affirmative defense and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't know it was the police.

Yes because most burglars run around in groups dressed in tactical gear with probably SWAT or something like that on them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're proving you're a bonehead. We were discussing a particular case, Einstein. I have a carry permit and can use lethal force outdoors in this state as it is in Texas.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hey shitface, they had the warrant apparently signed by the judge or it wouldn't have been served. Go tell them it was illegal.

What makes you think I haven't? It isn't like this story just happened yesterday.

Still waiting for an explanation of why a no knock raid was needed in this case.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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?

It most certainly would NOT be legal to shoot someone and then drag them to another location my friend. At a MINIMUM that is tampering with a crime scene.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

I would assume that if the cops outside where wearing vests that the cop coming in the window would also be wearing a vest.

IF this guy claims stand your ground he will have to prove he didn't know the guy coming through his window was the police. If he makes his case he goes free, if not , well see you in 15-20. I don't know why people are making it more difficult than that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It most certainly would NOT be legal to shoot someone and then drag them to another location my friend. At a MINIMUM that is tampering with a crime scene.

Yet the prosecutor filed no charges, and I am pretty sure he knows the laws in Texas better than you do.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

And 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.

Announcing before entry is begun in any manner is protocol in a surprise no-knock raid? Link?