A court case with far-ranging consequences concluded Tuesday in Corpus Christi, Texas.
Ray Rosas is a free man tonight after a jury of his peers found him not guilty of shooting three Corpus Christi police officers on February 19, 2015. On that day, early in the morning, CCPD executed a no-knock search warrant, forcing entry into the home without first knocking and announcing they were the police.
A flash bang grenade was fired into Rosas' bedroom, reportedly stunning the 47-year-old, who then opened fire on the intruders. Three officers were wounded; officers Steven Ruebelmann, Steven Brown, and Andrew Jordan. Police were looking for drugs and Rosas' nephew, who they suspected to be a dealer. However, the unnamed nephew was not home at the time of the raid.
Rosas spent nearly 2 years in jail awaiting trial, which concluded Tuesday with a Nueces County jury finding him not guilty. Rosas' defense maintained, based on statements he made immediately following the shooting and later in jail that he did not know the men breaking into his home were police officers and there was no way he could've known, having been disoriented by the flash-bang stun grenade. "The case is so easy, this is a self-defense case," said Rosas' lawyer in closing arguments.
Rosas originally faced three counts of attempted capital murder, but the prosecution dropped those charges just before the trial began, opting instead to try him for three counts of aggravated assault on the police officers. The jury sided with his defense attorney's argument he had a right to defend his home and found him not guilty on all charges.
takyon: Also at the Corpus Christi Caller Times.
(Score: 5, Informative) by MrGuy on Thursday December 15 2016, @11:02PM
OK, I realize this might be intended with the colloquial meaning of precedent "Hey, I can't remember the last time someone was acquitted for standing up to police!"
But from a legal context, there's no "precedent" set here. No new law was established. No groundbreaking rulings that will be cited in cases for years. I guess it's a good thing the jury was allowed to hear a "self defense" defense argued (i.e. the defense wasn't actively barred from presenting the defense), but that's pretty weak (I also doubt it's unusual, but IANAL).
A jury (the finder of fact, not the judge of the law) made a decision on the particular set of facts presented not to convict this defended in these circumstances. And while that may be a win for common sense, it's not a legal "precedent" that will influence the conduct of future cases. This isn't "Miranda v. Arizona," where suddenly the way in which police conduct themselves is required to change. There's not going to be any new restrictions on no-knock warrants. There's no new requirement toward police identifying themselves. There's no legal right to shoot at a cop set. No laws were struck down. No "precedents" established. A jury made a decision based on a particular set of facts. You might applaud or boo that decision, but either way it doesn't matter to the next guy facing similar charges.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 15 2016, @11:11PM
Mohammed: Did you see Mohammed at the meeting today?
Mohammed: No, but his brother Mohammed showed up.
Mohammed: What did Mohammed talk about?
Mohammed: Mohammed introduced us to Mohammed who is also a mason!
Mohammed: A mason? No shit? How long has he been one?
Mohammed: About five years. He was referred to the local lodge by Mohammed.
Mohammed: Ah, yes, Mohammed. He has a shit ton of connections around town!
Mohammed: Yes, and our brothers, police be upon them, Mohammed and Mohammed from Egypt came, too.
Mohammed: I've been thinking of becoming a clown.
Mohammed: A clown, Mohammed, why?
Mohammed: So I can film myself being gay.
Mohammed: Oh, you.
Mohammed: So anyway, is Mohammed, Mohammed, and Mohammed coming to the next party?
Mohammed: Indeed. Mohammed was so funny last time.
Mohammed: Well it wouldn't be a party without Mohammed.
Mohammed: Yes, my friend. POLICE BE UPON THEM!
Reply to This
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 16 2016, @01:34PM
This isn't "Miranda v. Arizona," where suddenly the way in which police conduct themselves is required to change.
I think this will be a precedent-setting example. Police procedure isn't just set by precedent-setting judicial policy. It's also set by real world police activities where things go horribly wrong. Here, someone shot three police officers and was outright acquitted. That's horribly wrong. I bet a lot of departments will incorporate this somehow into their training. This might even be the start of the end of most no knock raids, though I'm not holding my breath.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @05:16PM
Unfortunately, I suspect it is much more likely that police departments will now decide that the way to deal with this is to make sure there are no survivors to tell the other side of the story.