SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @12:04AM
If he'd been found not guilty after killing these police officers, then we might have got to see change. But just injured? I expect business as usual. It's a shame the officers lived.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @12:21AM
While I do understand your indignation, I am not sure that killing one of these cops would lead to the outcome you desire. If one of them had died I could easily see all the cops across the country deciding that the "solution" is to go (even more) full-bore bronze age on their next no knock warrant adventure. After all, dead men don't fight you in the courts; they certainly don't get to testify against you at trial.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @12:35AM
That's why it would be better if he killed all 3. Then cops will question if dangerous no knock raids are actually nessecary.
The sad fact is no knock raids are only dangerous for the citizens. They need to be equally dangerous for police so they aren't misused.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @12:37AM
No-knock raids shouldn't even exist in most cases.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 16 2016, @01:04AM
They may be justified, on a rare occasion. Let's say the dude is wanted for multiple murders, he is known to have an armory, and has vowed not to be taken alive. Or, he has active, proven connections to a real terror group. These kinds of things don't happen every day - we're talking maybe a dozen times a year in the whole country. Probably less than that, but I'm trying to be generous. It may be justified, now and then. But, let's call it what it is. No-knock warrants are actually major assaults. It's not police work, it's military tactics. Call an assault what it is, stop the bullshit meaningless terminology. Assault troops performing an assault.
THESE are what we have "policing" our cities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @04:47PM
Wouldn't it be better to just isolate the area, cut off supplies, and wait for the guy to expose himself?
I'd assume that someone like that would be more able to defend against an assault than effectively attack a distant police perimeter.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 16 2016, @05:10PM
Your idea makes sense, if he is located at a Ruby Ridge. Downtown Philadelphia, it may not make much sense.
There is a distinction between "police FORCE is seldom justified" and "police FORCE is never justified". It takes some very warped reasoning to justify the number of assaults taking place in America today. Even so, sometimes a full out assault is justified.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday December 16 2016, @06:12PM
I'll agree that in a few extremely rare (and very contrived) examples, a no-knock raid is justified: e.g., a guy has a big bomb in his house. But you're really talking about something that might happen once every few years if that. The other thing I can think of is an armed suspect who has hostages.
If the suspect isn't an immediate threat to someone's safety and isn't going to be able to hole himself up in a compound for months, then it's really better to just surround the place and wait it out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @01:54AM
FTFY.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday December 16 2016, @10:28PM
To use the "self defence" defence, you need to use the minimum necessary force to diffuse the situation.
If the defendant has executed the police officers, instead of merely injuring them, he would not have been aquitted.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fishybell on Friday December 16 2016, @12:29AM
And if they had killed him — even though he had nothing to do with the raid or the alleged drug dealing — they would have never even been charged with manslaughter, let alone murder.
Cops are allowed to shoot at you, you are allowed to shoot at intruders, cops are allowed to kill you, you are not allowed to kill cops. There's no double standard there at all.
Getting off topic, but I think a very simple solution to the national issue with police violence (giving and receiving) is to disallow prosecutors from knowing if the alleged attacker or victim is a cop prior to them deciding to press charges or not and use special prosecutors who never work with the police. Obviously you'll never be able to prevent the jury from finding out that the there was a cop involved, but that would be ideal. Breaking up the buddy-buddy attitude of the judicial and the executive is absolutely necessary to restore trust in the police force. Just like body cameras protect police officers (whether they choose to believe it or not), prosecuting misconduct will help prevent cops from being targeted unjustly.
There aren't any laws saying cops are allowed to kill or maim indiscriminately; the law should actually holds them to a higher standard because they are allowed to brandish a firearm, break and enter, etc. that the average citizen is not.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 16 2016, @01:42PM
is to disallow prosecutors from knowing if the alleged attacker or victim is a cop prior to them deciding to press charges or not
That's not even remotely realistic. First, there's no way you could hide that. Second, the fact that it is a police raid would be material to the case.