Petition to Acquit Man for Killing Cop During Unjust No-Knock Raid Goes Viral

[timslash]

Petition to Acquit Man for Killing Cop During Unjust No-Knock Raid Goes Viral The Free Thought Project
On Friday, May 9, 2014, just after 5:30am in Killeen, Texas, Marvin Louis Guy was the target of a no-knock raid.

The officers were looking for drugs, yet no drugs were found in the home.

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

Likely alarmed by the men climbing through his windows at 5:30 in the morning, unannounced, Guy and his wife sought to protect themselves and their property and fired on the intruders- in self-defense.
People protect thug from punishment? Or maybe he wasn't guilty? What do you think guys? Should the person who injured cop(of course he saw that these were policemen in his home, not burglars)be punished, or it is his property and he did everything right?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Petition to Acquit Man for Killing Cop During Unjust No-Knock Raid Goes Viral The Free Thought Project
On Friday, May 9, 2014, just after 5:30am in Killeen, Texas, Marvin Louis Guy was the target of a no-knock raid.

The officers were looking for drugs, yet no drugs were found in the home.

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

Likely alarmed by the men climbing through his windows at 5:30 in the morning, unannounced, Guy and his wife sought to protect themselves and their property and fired on the intruders- in self-defense.
People protect thug from punishment? Or maybe he wasn't guilty? What do you think guys? Should the person who injured cop(of course he saw that these were policemen in his home, not burglars)be punished, or it is his property and he did everything right?

He did what was right. I don't blame him for defending himself in his own home. He should've killed all of them to set an example. I wouldn't have stopped shooting until I ran out of ammo. It's not like society lost anything.

 

[Roadrunner]

Petition to Acquit Man for Killing Cop During Unjust No-Knock Raid Goes Viral The Free Thought Project
On Friday, May 9, 2014, just after 5:30am in Killeen, Texas, Marvin Louis Guy was the target of a no-knock raid.

The officers were looking for drugs, yet no drugs were found in the home.

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

Likely alarmed by the men climbing through his windows at 5:30 in the morning, unannounced, Guy and his wife sought to protect themselves and their property and fired on the intruders- in self-defense.
People protect thug from punishment? Or maybe he wasn't guilty? What do you think guys? Should the person who injured cop(of course he saw that these were policemen in his home, not burglars)be punished, or it is his property and he did everything right?

He did what was right. I don't blame him for defending himself in his own home. He should've killed all of them to set an example. I wouldn't have stopped shooting until I ran out of ammo. It's not like society lost anything.

There is no excuse for no-knock drug raids.

No-knock is barely excusable in a situation where terrorists are suspected and public safety at risk.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

No such thing as an unjust no-knock raid. All raids are no-knock. "Hi it's the police, we're raiding your home, may we come in please?" That never happens.

If the police were in someone's home, but the home owner hadn't yet seen them, got a weapon, and fired the moment a target presented itself, you might convince a jury it was defensive. But you have no affirmative defense based on the lawfulness of the raid itself since you wouldn't know whether the search warrant was lawful or what law they used to conduct the raid when it's happening. You don't learn about that until much later. And you certainly have no right to shoot recognized police under any state 'castle amendment' type law. The assumption is if police are in your home it's lawful for them to be there.

The home owner's facing execution and rightly so unless he fired immediately upon seeing a target not knowing they were police.

 

[Sonny Clark]

No such thing as an unjust no-knock raid. All raids are no-knock. "Hi it's the police, we're raiding your home, may we come in please?" That never happens.

If the police were in someone's home, but the home owner hadn't yet seen them, got a weapon, and fired the moment a target presented itself, you might convince a jury it was defensive. But you have no affirmative defense based on the lawfulness of the raid itself since you wouldn't know whether the search warrant was lawful or what law they used to conduct the raid when it's happening. You don't learn about that until much later. And you certainly have no right to shoot recognized police under any state 'castle amendment' type law. The assumption is if police are in your home it's lawful for them to be there.

The home owner's facing execution and rightly so unless he fired immediately upon seeing a target not knowing they were police.

FYI - Anyone can buy and get their hands on a police uniform. Uniforms and badges are easy to get. Just because someone is wearing a uniform and has a badge doesn't mean they're cops. I'd shoot first and ask questions later if I saw them coming through a door or window. Cops can do the right thing and knock, and wait to be recognized by a homeowner. COPS aren't GOD.

 

[Roadrunner]

No such thing as an unjust no-knock raid. All raids are no-knock. "Hi it's the police, we're raiding your home, may we come in please?" That never happens.

If the police were in someone's home, but the home owner hadn't yet seen them, got a weapon, and fired the moment a target presented itself, you might convince a jury it was defensive. But you have no affirmative defense based on the lawfulness of the raid itself since you wouldn't know whether the search warrant was lawful or what law they used to conduct the raid when it's happening. You don't learn about that until much later. And you certainly have no right to shoot recognized police under any state 'castle amendment' type law. The assumption is if police are in your home it's lawful for them to be there.

The home owner's facing execution and rightly so unless he fired immediately upon seeing a target not knowing they were police.

If it was a uniformed cop, he probably was not justified.

No uniform, well the cops were stupid.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

No such thing as an unjust no-knock raid. All raids are no-knock. "Hi it's the police, we're raiding your home, may we come in please?" That never happens.

If the police were in someone's home, but the home owner hadn't yet seen them, got a weapon, and fired the moment a target presented itself, you might convince a jury it was defensive. But you have no affirmative defense based on the lawfulness of the raid itself since you wouldn't know whether the search warrant was lawful or what law they used to conduct the raid when it's happening. You don't learn about that until much later. And you certainly have no right to shoot recognized police under any state 'castle amendment' type law. The assumption is if police are in your home it's lawful for them to be there.

The home owner's facing execution and rightly so unless he fired immediately upon seeing a target not knowing they were police.

FYI - Anyone can buy and get their hands on a police uniform. Uniforms and badges are easy to get. Just because someone is wearing a uniform and has a badge doesn't mean they're cops. I'd shoot first and ask questions later if I saw them coming through a door or window. Cops can do the right thing and knock, and wait to be recognized by a homeowner. COPS aren't GOD.

If you can't show the local spate of gang members wearing police uniforms you're never gonan convince a jury you had a reasonable belief they weren't actual police officers. That's retarded to even try using.

Cops aren't God no. If a cop does something illegal you're free to file a complaint and win a million dollar lawsuit at trial. But there's next to no situation conceivable where a home owner is going to be justified shooting police conducting a raid. And certainly not in Texas. Ask the Davidians.

 

[Roadrunner]

No such thing as an unjust no-knock raid. All raids are no-knock. "Hi it's the police, we're raiding your home, may we come in please?" That never happens.

If the police were in someone's home, but the home owner hadn't yet seen them, got a weapon, and fired the moment a target presented itself, you might convince a jury it was defensive. But you have no affirmative defense based on the lawfulness of the raid itself since you wouldn't know whether the search warrant was lawful or what law they used to conduct the raid when it's happening. You don't learn about that until much later. And you certainly have no right to shoot recognized police under any state 'castle amendment' type law. The assumption is if police are in your home it's lawful for them to be there.

The home owner's facing execution and rightly so unless he fired immediately upon seeing a target not knowing they were police.

FYI - Anyone can buy and get their hands on a police uniform. Uniforms and badges are easy to get. Just because someone is wearing a uniform and has a badge doesn't mean they're cops. I'd shoot first and ask questions later if I saw them coming through a door or window. Cops can do the right thing and knock, and wait to be recognized by a homeowner. COPS aren't GOD.

If you can't show the local spate of gang members wearing police uniforms you're never gonan convince a jury you had a reasonable belief they weren't actual police officers. That's retarded to even try using.

Cops aren't God no. If a cop does something illegal you're free to file a complaint and win a million dollar lawsuit at trial. But there's next to no situation conceivable where a home owner is going to be justified shooting police conducting a raid. And certainly not in Texas. Ask the Davidians.

I am sorry, but in a free country, the warrant must be served before there is forced entry.

If suspects refuse to allow cops in to serve the warrant after they announce they have it, then forced entry is justified.

Not before.

 

[martybegan]

No such thing as an unjust no-knock raid. All raids are no-knock. "Hi it's the police, we're raiding your home, may we come in please?" That never happens.

If the police were in someone's home, but the home owner hadn't yet seen them, got a weapon, and fired the moment a target presented itself, you might convince a jury it was defensive. But you have no affirmative defense based on the lawfulness of the raid itself since you wouldn't know whether the search warrant was lawful or what law they used to conduct the raid when it's happening. You don't learn about that until much later. And you certainly have no right to shoot recognized police under any state 'castle amendment' type law. The assumption is if police are in your home it's lawful for them to be there.

The home owner's facing execution and rightly so unless he fired immediately upon seeing a target not knowing they were police.

First, a no knock raid is when they break down the doors without any announcement. Warrants can be served by the police announcing themselves outside, then entering the premises.

And as for the 2nd one, bullshit. No person has an assumption to be in your house, and the police's right to enter is based on a valid warrant or life and death situations.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Shut the water off and surround the house.
And let it be known that that toilet tank better have water in it when they come in to search.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

No such thing as an unjust no-knock raid. All raids are no-knock. "Hi it's the police, we're raiding your home, may we come in please?" That never happens.

If the police were in someone's home, but the home owner hadn't yet seen them, got a weapon, and fired the moment a target presented itself, you might convince a jury it was defensive. But you have no affirmative defense based on the lawfulness of the raid itself since you wouldn't know whether the search warrant was lawful or what law they used to conduct the raid when it's happening. You don't learn about that until much later. And you certainly have no right to shoot recognized police under any state 'castle amendment' type law. The assumption is if police are in your home it's lawful for them to be there.

The home owner's facing execution and rightly so unless he fired immediately upon seeing a target not knowing they were police.

FYI - Anyone can buy and get their hands on a police uniform. Uniforms and badges are easy to get. Just because someone is wearing a uniform and has a badge doesn't mean they're cops. I'd shoot first and ask questions later if I saw them coming through a door or window. Cops can do the right thing and knock, and wait to be recognized by a homeowner. COPS aren't GOD.

If you can't show the local spate of gang members wearing police uniforms you're never gonan convince a jury you had a reasonable belief they weren't actual police officers. That's retarded to even try using.

Cops aren't God no. If a cop does something illegal you're free to file a complaint and win a million dollar lawsuit at trial. But there's next to no situation conceivable where a home owner is going to be justified shooting police conducting a raid. And certainly not in Texas. Ask the Davidians.

I am sorry, but in a free country, the warrant must be served before there is forced entry.

If suspects refuse to allow cops in to serve the warrant after they announce they have it, then forced entry is justified.

Not before.

"Police! Search warrant!" Door's down a fraction of a second later. That's the 'notice' in any raid involving SRT. You're thinking of a search warrant in a non-raid situation.

 

[Sonny Clark]

No such thing as an unjust no-knock raid. All raids are no-knock. "Hi it's the police, we're raiding your home, may we come in please?" That never happens.

If the police were in someone's home, but the home owner hadn't yet seen them, got a weapon, and fired the moment a target presented itself, you might convince a jury it was defensive. But you have no affirmative defense based on the lawfulness of the raid itself since you wouldn't know whether the search warrant was lawful or what law they used to conduct the raid when it's happening. You don't learn about that until much later. And you certainly have no right to shoot recognized police under any state 'castle amendment' type law. The assumption is if police are in your home it's lawful for them to be there.

The home owner's facing execution and rightly so unless he fired immediately upon seeing a target not knowing they were police.

FYI - Anyone can buy and get their hands on a police uniform. Uniforms and badges are easy to get. Just because someone is wearing a uniform and has a badge doesn't mean they're cops. I'd shoot first and ask questions later if I saw them coming through a door or window. Cops can do the right thing and knock, and wait to be recognized by a homeowner. COPS aren't GOD.

If you can't show the local spate of gang members wearing police uniforms you're never gonan convince a jury you had a reasonable belief they weren't actual police officers. That's retarded to even try using.

Cops aren't God no. If a cop does something illegal you're free to file a complaint and win a million dollar lawsuit at trial. But there's next to no situation conceivable where a home owner is going to be justified shooting police conducting a raid. And certainly not in Texas. Ask the Davidians.

I'd take my chances in front of a jury. And, trying to bring cops to justice in a court of law, is like trying to be successful in stopping a train with your bare hands while it's doing 60 mph down the tracks. Do you have any idea as to which side of the law our courts are on? How many cops are serving time in the big house for breaking the same laws they arrest others for? Please, be realistic here. Fairy tales are for books and movies, only. Cops do as they damn well please, and our courts give them a free pass 99% of the time.

Cops are low-life POS, and they prove it each and every single day of the week.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

No such thing as an unjust no-knock raid. All raids are no-knock. "Hi it's the police, we're raiding your home, may we come in please?" That never happens.

If the police were in someone's home, but the home owner hadn't yet seen them, got a weapon, and fired the moment a target presented itself, you might convince a jury it was defensive. But you have no affirmative defense based on the lawfulness of the raid itself since you wouldn't know whether the search warrant was lawful or what law they used to conduct the raid when it's happening. You don't learn about that until much later. And you certainly have no right to shoot recognized police under any state 'castle amendment' type law. The assumption is if police are in your home it's lawful for them to be there.

The home owner's facing execution and rightly so unless he fired immediately upon seeing a target not knowing they were police.

First, a no knock raid is when they break down the doors without any announcement. Warrants can be served by the police announcing themselves outside, then entering the premises.

And as for the 2nd one, bullshit. No person has an assumption to be in your house, and the police's right to enter is based on a valid warrant or life and death situations.

Starting to see why liberals get dissed so often, some of you are fucking ignorant as hell. Try addressing what I and other write instead of what you think you read when you're obviously incapable of reading an adult level.

 

[Roadrunner]

No such thing as an unjust no-knock raid. All raids are no-knock. "Hi it's the police, we're raiding your home, may we come in please?" That never happens.

If the police were in someone's home, but the home owner hadn't yet seen them, got a weapon, and fired the moment a target presented itself, you might convince a jury it was defensive. But you have no affirmative defense based on the lawfulness of the raid itself since you wouldn't know whether the search warrant was lawful or what law they used to conduct the raid when it's happening. You don't learn about that until much later. And you certainly have no right to shoot recognized police under any state 'castle amendment' type law. The assumption is if police are in your home it's lawful for them to be there.

The home owner's facing execution and rightly so unless he fired immediately upon seeing a target not knowing they were police.

FYI - Anyone can buy and get their hands on a police uniform. Uniforms and badges are easy to get. Just because someone is wearing a uniform and has a badge doesn't mean they're cops. I'd shoot first and ask questions later if I saw them coming through a door or window. Cops can do the right thing and knock, and wait to be recognized by a homeowner. COPS aren't GOD.

If you can't show the local spate of gang members wearing police uniforms you're never gonan convince a jury you had a reasonable belief they weren't actual police officers. That's retarded to even try using.

Cops aren't God no. If a cop does something illegal you're free to file a complaint and win a million dollar lawsuit at trial. But there's next to no situation conceivable where a home owner is going to be justified shooting police conducting a raid. And certainly not in Texas. Ask the Davidians.

You live in a conservative mid-Western state, and post views on sexual freedom contrary to the beliefs of most cops.

Suppose a poster took your posts to mean you probably engage in practices contrary to MO law, and contacted the police, who then got a warrant.

Would you be comfortable with a no-knock raid on your house based on suspicion you might be engaging in an unlawful sex act?

Or, would you think they should announce that they have a warrant before entering your home?

 

[Sonny Clark]

No such thing as an unjust no-knock raid. All raids are no-knock. "Hi it's the police, we're raiding your home, may we come in please?" That never happens.

If the police were in someone's home, but the home owner hadn't yet seen them, got a weapon, and fired the moment a target presented itself, you might convince a jury it was defensive. But you have no affirmative defense based on the lawfulness of the raid itself since you wouldn't know whether the search warrant was lawful or what law they used to conduct the raid when it's happening. You don't learn about that until much later. And you certainly have no right to shoot recognized police under any state 'castle amendment' type law. The assumption is if police are in your home it's lawful for them to be there.

The home owner's facing execution and rightly so unless he fired immediately upon seeing a target not knowing they were police.

FYI - Anyone can buy and get their hands on a police uniform. Uniforms and badges are easy to get. Just because someone is wearing a uniform and has a badge doesn't mean they're cops. I'd shoot first and ask questions later if I saw them coming through a door or window. Cops can do the right thing and knock, and wait to be recognized by a homeowner. COPS aren't GOD.

If you can't show the local spate of gang members wearing police uniforms you're never gonan convince a jury you had a reasonable belief they weren't actual police officers. That's retarded to even try using.

Cops aren't God no. If a cop does something illegal you're free to file a complaint and win a million dollar lawsuit at trial. But there's next to no situation conceivable where a home owner is going to be justified shooting police conducting a raid. And certainly not in Texas. Ask the Davidians.

I am sorry, but in a free country, the warrant must be served before there is forced entry.

If suspects refuse to allow cops in to serve the warrant after they announce they have it, then forced entry is justified.

Not before.

AMEN !!!! There's a right way and a wrong way to do anything.

 

[bodecea]

It's Texas....these kinds of things happen.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

No such thing as an unjust no-knock raid. All raids are no-knock. "Hi it's the police, we're raiding your home, may we come in please?" That never happens.

If the police were in someone's home, but the home owner hadn't yet seen them, got a weapon, and fired the moment a target presented itself, you might convince a jury it was defensive. But you have no affirmative defense based on the lawfulness of the raid itself since you wouldn't know whether the search warrant was lawful or what law they used to conduct the raid when it's happening. You don't learn about that until much later. And you certainly have no right to shoot recognized police under any state 'castle amendment' type law. The assumption is if police are in your home it's lawful for them to be there.

The home owner's facing execution and rightly so unless he fired immediately upon seeing a target not knowing they were police.

FYI - Anyone can buy and get their hands on a police uniform. Uniforms and badges are easy to get. Just because someone is wearing a uniform and has a badge doesn't mean they're cops. I'd shoot first and ask questions later if I saw them coming through a door or window. Cops can do the right thing and knock, and wait to be recognized by a homeowner. COPS aren't GOD.

If you can't show the local spate of gang members wearing police uniforms you're never gonan convince a jury you had a reasonable belief they weren't actual police officers. That's retarded to even try using.

Cops aren't God no. If a cop does something illegal you're free to file a complaint and win a million dollar lawsuit at trial. But there's next to no situation conceivable where a home owner is going to be justified shooting police conducting a raid. And certainly not in Texas. Ask the Davidians.

I am sorry, but in a free country, the warrant must be served before there is forced entry.

If suspects refuse to allow cops in to serve the warrant after they announce they have it, then forced entry is justified.

Not before.

AMEN !!!! There's a right way and a wrong way to do anything.

At trial sure. When the SRT guys are pointing their MP-5s at you you have to the right to remain silent, and that's all.

 

[Sonny Clark]

No such thing as an unjust no-knock raid. All raids are no-knock. "Hi it's the police, we're raiding your home, may we come in please?" That never happens.

If the police were in someone's home, but the home owner hadn't yet seen them, got a weapon, and fired the moment a target presented itself, you might convince a jury it was defensive. But you have no affirmative defense based on the lawfulness of the raid itself since you wouldn't know whether the search warrant was lawful or what law they used to conduct the raid when it's happening. You don't learn about that until much later. And you certainly have no right to shoot recognized police under any state 'castle amendment' type law. The assumption is if police are in your home it's lawful for them to be there.

The home owner's facing execution and rightly so unless he fired immediately upon seeing a target not knowing they were police.

FYI - Anyone can buy and get their hands on a police uniform. Uniforms and badges are easy to get. Just because someone is wearing a uniform and has a badge doesn't mean they're cops. I'd shoot first and ask questions later if I saw them coming through a door or window. Cops can do the right thing and knock, and wait to be recognized by a homeowner. COPS aren't GOD.

If you can't show the local spate of gang members wearing police uniforms you're never gonan convince a jury you had a reasonable belief they weren't actual police officers. That's retarded to even try using.

Cops aren't God no. If a cop does something illegal you're free to file a complaint and win a million dollar lawsuit at trial. But there's next to no situation conceivable where a home owner is going to be justified shooting police conducting a raid. And certainly not in Texas. Ask the Davidians.

You live in a conservative mid-Western state, and post views on sexual freedom contrary to the beliefs of most cops.

Suppose a poster took your posts to mean you probably engage in practices contrary to MO law, and contacted the police, who then got a warrant.

Would you be comfortable with a no-knock raid on your house based on suspicion you might be engaging in an unlawful sex act?

Or, would you think they should announce that they have a warrant before entering your home?

Suspicion is NOT guilt. Proof positive is guilt. That should be the rule regardless of where one lives. A warrant allows them to enter and search, nothing more. An arrest warrant allows them to take you into custody. But, entering a home without proof of wrong doing is akin to what the Germans did during WWII.

 

[martybegan]

No such thing as an unjust no-knock raid. All raids are no-knock. "Hi it's the police, we're raiding your home, may we come in please?" That never happens.

If the police were in someone's home, but the home owner hadn't yet seen them, got a weapon, and fired the moment a target presented itself, you might convince a jury it was defensive. But you have no affirmative defense based on the lawfulness of the raid itself since you wouldn't know whether the search warrant was lawful or what law they used to conduct the raid when it's happening. You don't learn about that until much later. And you certainly have no right to shoot recognized police under any state 'castle amendment' type law. The assumption is if police are in your home it's lawful for them to be there.

The home owner's facing execution and rightly so unless he fired immediately upon seeing a target not knowing they were police.

First, a no knock raid is when they break down the doors without any announcement. Warrants can be served by the police announcing themselves outside, then entering the premises.

And as for the 2nd one, bullshit. No person has an assumption to be in your house, and the police's right to enter is based on a valid warrant or life and death situations.

Starting to see why liberals get dissed so often, some of you are fucking ignorant as hell. Try addressing what I and other write instead of what you think you read when you're obviously incapable of reading an adult level.

Fuck you. Again, did the police announce their presence while effectively breaking into the guys house, and 2, NO the police cannot be "assumed" to be somewhere legally at any time. Thats a fucking police state.

Again, FUCK YOU.

 

[martybegan]

No such thing as an unjust no-knock raid. All raids are no-knock. "Hi it's the police, we're raiding your home, may we come in please?" That never happens.

If the police were in someone's home, but the home owner hadn't yet seen them, got a weapon, and fired the moment a target presented itself, you might convince a jury it was defensive. But you have no affirmative defense based on the lawfulness of the raid itself since you wouldn't know whether the search warrant was lawful or what law they used to conduct the raid when it's happening. You don't learn about that until much later. And you certainly have no right to shoot recognized police under any state 'castle amendment' type law. The assumption is if police are in your home it's lawful for them to be there.

The home owner's facing execution and rightly so unless he fired immediately upon seeing a target not knowing they were police.

FYI - Anyone can buy and get their hands on a police uniform. Uniforms and badges are easy to get. Just because someone is wearing a uniform and has a badge doesn't mean they're cops. I'd shoot first and ask questions later if I saw them coming through a door or window. Cops can do the right thing and knock, and wait to be recognized by a homeowner. COPS aren't GOD.

If you can't show the local spate of gang members wearing police uniforms you're never gonan convince a jury you had a reasonable belief they weren't actual police officers. That's retarded to even try using.

Cops aren't God no. If a cop does something illegal you're free to file a complaint and win a million dollar lawsuit at trial. But there's next to no situation conceivable where a home owner is going to be justified shooting police conducting a raid. And certainly not in Texas. Ask the Davidians.

I am sorry, but in a free country, the warrant must be served before there is forced entry.

If suspects refuse to allow cops in to serve the warrant after they announce they have it, then forced entry is justified.

Not before.

AMEN !!!! There's a right way and a wrong way to do anything.

At trial sure. When the SRT guys are pointing their MP-5s at you you have to the right to remain silent, and that's all.

And if the warrant is based on bad information someone has to be fucking fired right away. There has to be consequences for fucking over innocent citizens.

Ultimate power, ultimate responsibility.