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, Insightful) by Subsentient on Thursday December 15 2016, @10:45PM
Finally some good news. That's all I have to say.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 15 2016, @10:55PM
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!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 15 2016, @10:55PM
Cops declare war on an infrared "ghost", destroy house and Xmas gifts.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-demolish-single-moms-home-mistake-destroy-childrens-christmas-offer/ [thefreethoughtproject.com]
http://www.allthatsnews.com/articles/society/cops-destroy-familys-home-and-christmas-tree-mistake [allthatsnews.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Francis on Thursday December 15 2016, @11:50PM
sort of. There is no precedence here as the jury acquitted him rather than an appellate court overturning a conviction. So this might give people hope, but is relatively meaningless for future cases.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @12:11AM
If I'm not mistaken, even an acquittal does lay down a precedent. And even if it didn't, it might embolden other juries to return more acquittals in the future. (Dear God! No knock warrants are such a travesty!) But IANAL so you should take what I have to say with a grain of salt.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mendax on Friday December 16 2016, @01:18AM
And I shall. The result of a jury trial is indeed no precedent. As a general rule, a court judgment that establishes a precedent is one in which the court says it is "for publication", or something along those lines. Publication means that it's published in a hardbound collection of court opinions, such as the Federal Reports (I think it's called that). Each state has its own series of reports. When it is published, the opinion then can be cited (usually) in subsequent court petitions. It should be noted that the opinions of federal district courts and some state non-appellate courts can also be published. These are all based upon the rules of court, which are, of course, written by the courts.
However, you are correct. The precedent could be made with jurors who learn about this case. Let's hope the news gets spread far and wide.
On the subject of no-knock warrants, sometimes they are necessary, such as in cases where there is a possibility that evidence will be destroyed. But in this case the cops completely blew it and got what they deserved. They went in unprepared for the possibility that an armed person could be there and will start shooting.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @02:15AM
Thanks for the info. I am now (better) educated.
For my part, I would think that no-knock warrants should only be used in rare exigent cases where someone's life is in imminent danger (e.g., a hostage situation or someone who is threatening to "make the call" that will alert their co-conspirators to end someone's life, etc.). I would much rather live in a country where there is the possibility that a bad guy wilfully destroys evidence while the cops are waiting outside ready to enter, rather than one in which the cops are little better than jack-booted thugs. Just my $0.02 there.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DutchUncle on Friday December 16 2016, @04:11AM
>>>>the possibility that an armed person could be there and will start shooting.
So the problem is, as a result of this, will the police start coming in actively firing to suppress any opposition (by killing it first)?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @03:29PM
The question is whether the cops' first priority is resolving the situation safety for the public, or staying alive themselves.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Friday December 16 2016, @04:18AM
No-knock warrants may be necessary to secure evidence, but the larger question is if that evidence is worth risking the life and limb of non-consenting innocents. How many drug busts make the brutal death of an innocent a good trade? I argue that it's simply not conscionable.
Even beyond that, I doubt very much that the one and only way to get the goods on a serious drug dealer is a no-knock. The thing about being a dealer is they have to deal. So sorry that tailing someone is a long dull grind instead of an exciting raid, but if it's really about busting the dealer, that's what they should do. If they watch someone 24/7 and can't catch them dealing, the logical conclusion is that they're not a dealer.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @01:23AM
The problem with that is that many states do no allow you to cite similar jury verdicts. You could be charged with criminal conspiracy and be unable to tell the jury that all of the other alleged conspirators were already acquitted.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @06:20AM
It's a good thing we put so much emphasis on making it hard to jail innocents.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 16 2016, @01:23PM
(Score: 2) by tfried on Friday December 16 2016, @07:18PM
The court ruling is absolutely correct, yes. But somehow I still fail to share your enthusiasm. How exactly is this going to help prevent the same shit from happening again, and again?
The cops did a Rambo-style ambush because they expected armed resistance. The guy shot at the cops because he was ambushed Rambo-style, and he had the means to. You folks really need to demilitarize - on both sides of the blue line. Arguably, it seems reasonable to ask the police to do the first step(s), here. However, as long as you're offensively clinging to that daydream of arming up for private defense (or even for resistance against "government oppression"), the vicious circle will keep spinning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 15 2016, @10:51PM
with POLICE or some other law enforcement agency, in block letters.
This is the kind of thing I learn from watching TV.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Thursday December 15 2016, @11:26PM
I can get those on ebay too. Looking like an officer doesn't prove you're an officer. Occasionally a burglar will take advantage of this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/thief-poses-law-enforcement-bronx-burglaries-article-1.2869709 [nydailynews.com]
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Thursday December 15 2016, @11:26PM
Because that would help so much when they flashbang the guy.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(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.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 15 2016, @11:08PM
I'm glad the accused was exonerated. Hopefully this will set precedence for discouraging government sponsored terrorism (Göring would be proud) against its citizens. His next move should be a nice fat law suit to reclaim lost wages, trauma suffered in the attack on his home and in jail, slander (he was labeled an attempted murderer) , and any damage done to his property.
It's time the pigs learn to be real policemen instead of pussies masquerading as solders. You hear about these phony no-knock raids based on little to no evidence (we think he sells drugs) where pets and people are shot dead defending their property.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 15 2016, @11:24PM
The injured cops will probably sue him. Civil lawsuits have a much lower bar for the plaintiff than criminal cases do for the prosecution.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 15 2016, @11:36PM
On what grounds? They smashed into his home, threw a grenade ... what did they expect?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Friday December 16 2016, @12:29AM
Anyone can sue for anything. Doesn't mean they'll win though. If sued he could always countersue for emotional trauma.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday December 16 2016, @01:34PM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Whoever on Friday December 16 2016, @03:40AM
The precedent that will be learned here is for the police to go in with guns blazing and kill anyone inside before they have a chance to shoot back.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 15 2016, @11:38PM
Drug dealing is not the most heinous crime, and doing a no-knock raid on a house is just a plain stupid way of handling this. Screw this police state we live in, its a load of garbage steadily putting us all at greater risk.
(Score: 5, Funny) by bob_super on Thursday December 15 2016, @11:45PM
Does executing your no-knock drug raid, complete with guns drawn, pet-shooting, ransacking, traumatizing, and baby-maiming stun grenades, put you at an unfair and unreasonable risk of not only being shot, but also losing the lawsuit against the owner?
Fear not, dear "bravest", there is hope for you!
Introducing ... the Congress-mandated Army surplus of M1A1 tanks!
Never be afraid again when plowing through a private property! The M1A1 offer full NBC protection, overwhelming firepower, and various landmine-clearing optional attachements!
The M1A1! The next town over has one, are you a cop-hating pussy, or a proud mayor?
(no, seriously, we have way too many rusting in the desert, and they won't stop making them because of Congressional districts. Please buy one. Please! Get one free. Delivery optional)
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday December 16 2016, @12:33AM
we have way too many rusting in the desert
I see what you did there...
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday December 16 2016, @12:33AM
Great, now I'll need a ten foot trench around my compound to keep the tanks out!
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Friday December 16 2016, @02:08AM
Tank protections for your compound? The neighbors will think you're going a bit Waco.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @04:36AM
The problem there is that Waco actually happened: agents of the US federal government attacked a church community, accused the leader of heinous crimes, then killed everyone including the accused so there needn't be a trial where messy things like evidence and lack thereof would be brought up.
(There are multiple, accessible ways to successfully combat a tank as a lowly US pleb).
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday December 16 2016, @03:42PM
agents of the US federal government attacked a church community, accused the leader of heinous crimes, then killed everyone including the accused so there needn't be a trial where messy things like evidence and lack thereof would be brought up.
According to Wikipedia there's still argument as to how the fire started. That being said, reading about the tactics they used beggars belief.
(There are multiple, accessible ways to successfully combat a tank as a lowly US pleb).
Molotov cocktails [wikipedia.org]
As an aside, the Winter War makes for an interesting read. Finns have balls of steel.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @05:04PM
Don't hold your breath waiting for government agents to outright admit to premeditated murder. The intentional murder of people who annoy government agents is a regular [theguardian.com] event [time.com] in the USA [npr.org].
It does, but it shouldn't. The leading cause of unnatural death for humans is democide - murder by government [jpfo.org].
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday December 16 2016, @01:06AM
They might, actually, now that John Boehner, the guy who represented the district where it was made and made sure that they were purchased even though the Army didn't want them, is no longer Speaker of the House.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @02:03AM
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 15 2016, @11:48PM
Good for this guy! It's a shame that he didn't kill any police officers!!
(Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Friday December 16 2016, @02:06AM
What good could have possibly come out of this if people had died?
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @04:40AM
For one, there could be less people around who think it's okay to break into other peoples' homes, throw grenades and shoot at the occupants, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @07:03PM
cops kicking in people's doors enforcing unconstitutional laws are not "people" they are traitors and deserve the punishment of traitors.
(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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @12:24AM
And it will get overturned in appeal.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @12:32AM
Acquittals cant be appealed idiot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @12:47AM
Depends on the country. In the USA you're right but in italy, Spain and a few others I can think of the prosecutor can appeal an acquittal.
This happened not to long ago with an American in italy.
Can't remember the name or the source but if you're interested google can probably find it for you. No double jeopardy is pretty uniquely an American thing.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @04:59AM
but in italy, Spain and a few others I can think of the prosecutor can appeal an acquittal.
If any of those countries are willing to take Texas off our hands please let us know. Texas has been looking for a way out of the US for a while.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 16 2016, @01:12AM
I'm not so very sure about that. The constitution says they can't be appealed or overturned - that's the whole idea of "double jeapordy". Findlaw isn't exactly "legal counsel", but check this out - http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/charged-twice-in-different-states.html [findlaw.com]
In this case, a federal prosecutor could possibly decide to charge the man under federal law. No other state can claim jurisdiction, unless they allege that he was transporting drugs across their state lines.
Basically, if the law really wants you, they'll find a way to circumvent the law.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @04:48AM
Circumvent - or ignore. Wayne Fincher spent six years in a cage over a matter of $600 tax that the tax office refuses to accept, and at his trial, he was forbidden to defend himself.
(Intra-state manufacture of two actual machine guns and a short-barreled shotgun, BATFE refuses to accept such "new" post-1986 non-licensed firearms to their registry which they used to charge $200 each for, and Wayne's defense was going to be an appeal to the Constitution's Second Amendment but was flatly forbidden to raise such a defense.)
While Wayne was in prison, his wife died, and he was not allowed the customary privilege of attending his wife's funeral. The sadists love to torment those who fall into their hands.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @01:14AM
That's the precedent that is set. If a person attempts defend their home, make sure they are dead so they can't contest the "facts".
Shoot them "accidentally", if you have to. There will be no consequences save maybe a stern talking-to.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @05:06AM
Jose Guerena [wikipedia.org]'s home was invaded by grenade-throwing cops, and while Jose held his fire, cops gunned him down and then forbade medical care until Jose had time to bleed out and die.
Same with Jerry and Joe Kane [loveforlife.com.au], a father and son who were gunned down in a Wal-Mart parking lot, handcuffed, then left to bleed to death. After the cops realized that they had outright murdered two innocent people, they accused the dead father and son of being cop-killers, taking months to produce "evidence" that made Obama's official birth certificate look good as gold. Notably, the Jerry's van did not match the description of the suspected hispanic adult cop-killers, and the official police "evidence" doesn't match in any way at all (find and play the "official" dash cam and trucker 911 call at the same time, then realize there's no way those two fabricated timelines can ever match.)
This behavior shouldn't be a surprise, what with cops' tendency to panic any time they think they're in serious peril: cops looking for one black male murderer who declared a war on police fired 103 times at a truck containing two older Asian women - and missed them completely [theatlantic.com]. No charges filed against the cops, of course.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @03:00AM
If even whities start yelling "fuck da police", what does that tell ya?! "The Land of the Free" my ass.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday December 16 2016, @03:17AM
I'm basically pro cop, but you can't fault a guy for reacting to attackers who never identified themselves as police. You invade a guy's home and no holds are barred.
If a cop says hands up, you obey and let the lawyers sort it out later if the cop was overreaching his authority because no other system results in a functioning civilization. But that can only work if the cop has identified himself. No knock needs to be very rare and used only after all other options have been rejected as more risky. And they should go in accepting, probably in writing on the warrant, the risk that they might get shot, stabbed, spindled and mutilated, etc. and will have no recourse to justice since it can only be ruled self defense.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Friday December 16 2016, @01:45PM
Every time I agree with Jmorris it feels like I saw a Unicorn!
But seriously, if every side of the divide agrees on this issue, why TF do we keep having to hear these stories about "no-knocks" for petty drug offenses?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @01:52PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @05:08PM
Sure makes a mockery out of that "presumed innocent until proven guilty" thing. I don't consider two years to be a "speedy trial", either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @09:08PM
I'm glad I wasn't the only one to notice this. Other thing I noticed was that nothing was said about the potential for robotics to intervene successfully in situations like these, either to safeguard the evidence in question, or to safely execute a warrant.
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Tuesday December 20 2016, @12:08PM
You do have the right to a speedy trial - and I'm sure that if his legal team had pushed for it, they could've had one in 30 days.
However, invariably the defense foregoes that right in order to have additional time to build their case.