Man kills police officer during no knock search warrant, believing it was a home intrusion

ZombieJesus
Also, after reading through some of the comments, apparently Texas (where this story took place) has a law the prevents a citizen, no matter the circumstances from ever lawfully defending themselves from a LEO. I haven't vetted this law, so if I'm wrong or it doesn't exist, please correct me. I also imagine that this law also exists in many other states as well.

In regards to this law though, I would really like a thorough explanation, preferably from a LEO, on how a citizen is to respond to a raid such as this. We have seen many times that the police get the wrong address, or the home they are raiding only has 1 person of interest, but several people residing at the house in question, bad intel, etc.

I think your question can be answered by the Supreme Court:

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197).

With respect to a wrong address, and the use or threat of force applied to someone that has not broken the law, a badge is meaningless when it comes to self defense. You may kill anyone that is unjustly attacking you, especially in your own home, and it would be justified. I'd like to see a change in policy regarding no knock 'invasions' to protect the innocent. If that doesn't happen, then I'd like to see automatic weapons unloading into all who preform no knock warrants, that would probably encourage some policy changes.

Btw, I'm not anti police, I'm anti ignorant, and its an ignorant thing to put yourself in unnecessary danger, unless its for fun.

reply to post by TheRedneck


If we are seeking justice, I'd stay away from codified, color of law. Codes are not the same as determining guilt of an actual crime. That definition is also the same as describing manslaughter. You can intentionally kill someone and it wouldn't be murder, it could just be self defense.

murder, n. (bef. 12c) The killing of a human being with malice aforethought. ● At common law, the crime of murder was not subdivided, but many state statutes have adopted the degree structure outlined below, though the Model Penal Code has not. Model Penal Code § 210.2. See MALICE AFORETHOUGHT. Cf. MANSLAUGHTER. [Cases: Homicide 520.] — murder, vb. — murderous, adj. "The word 'murder' has . . . had a devious history. Its original sense is the particularly heinous crime of secret slaying. After the conquest it was observed that Normans were frequently found dead under mysterious circumstances, and so William I enacted that if anyone were found slain and the slayer were not caught, then the hundred should pay a fine; this fine is a murdrum. The practice soon grew up to taking inquests and if it were presented that the dead man was English, then the fine was not due. In 1267 it was enacted that accidental deaths should not give rise to murdrum, and finally in 1340 presentment of Englishry and murdrum were abolished. Henceforth the word slowly tends to get linked up with 'malice aforethought' and so we get the classical formulae describing the crime of murder." Theodore F.T. Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law 445 (5th ed. 1956).

manslaughter, n. (15c) The unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. — Also termed (in some jurisdictions) culpable homicide. Cf. MURDER. [Cases: Homicide 654.] — manslaughter, vb.

I'm just of a different opinion when it comes to defining crimes, because if an action can be considered a crime in one area and not in another, then where is justice and civility? Its not in the codified laws, that is only where bureaucracy lies.

Edit: I do agree with who you believe the guilty parties are.

reply to post by Rychwebo

You make a valid point; laws do differ widely from state to state and even from municipality to municipality. Murder, however, is illegal in all states, and I believe killing with reckless abandon or negligence is considered murder as well in all 50 states.

I would not have used local laws as an example unless that were so.

TheRedneck

Whatever this man is claimed to have done, it wasn't murder, rape, sexual assault, felony assault or any other violent crime as far as I can tell.

If you want to play soldier and bust into peoples homes "unannounced" then you should expect to be shot or worse, if it doesn't happen, you got lucky but that is what you should expect.

This is America and every American has the God given right to protect their home, their family and their space. Bust in the way this team did, well, it's a tragic accident but it's not murder, it's exactly what I just said it was, a tragic accident or a tragic incident.

The police force does it all the time and I mean all the time, if it's an accident when they do it, how can it be anything else when the citizens do it?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Because he is a felon and had a firearm and because it is Texas, they will hang him. It is unfortunate and I feel for the guy, but in the end texas will not set the precedent of letting felons shoot and kill their officers no matter how asinine the situation. Because he is being charged with capital murder they will push for the death penalty and Texas has the highest executions in these 50 states. Does not look good for this guy. Even if they don't kill him he is looking at life without the parole.

TheRedneck
reply to post by Rychwebo

You make a valid point; laws do differ widely from state to state and even from municipality to municipality. Murder, however, is illegal in all states, and I believe killing with reckless abandon or negligence is considered murder as well in all 50 states.

I would not have used local laws as an example unless that were so.

TheRedneck

I was going for the fact that Alabama law is erred based on the definition of murder, they have modified it so that THEIR definition of murder also encompasses manslaughter, and the two are quite different.

With intent to cause the death of another person, he or she causes the death of that person or of another person.

I could be justified in causing the intentional death of another person, if I were defending my life. So, if I were in Alabama, and going by the code of laws rather than the definition of actual murder, than I would be possibly facing more punishment. I find that to be an unfortunate scenario.

reply to post by Rychwebo

I did not include the entire code in my post... it would have taken up several pages. Alabama does recognize extenuating circumstances. An example from the same section:

B. A person does not commit murder under subdivisions (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section if he or she was moved to act by a sudden heat of passion caused by provocation recognized by law, and before there had been a reasonable time for the passion to cool and for reason to reassert itself. The burden of injecting the issue of killing under legal provocation is on the defendant, but this does not shift the burden of proof. This subsection does not apply to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter or other crime.

Source: law.onecle.com...

Manslaughter is also recognized:

Section 13A-6-3 - Manslaughter.

1. A person commits the crime of manslaughter if:
   1. He recklessly causes the death of another person, or
      
      
   2. He causes the death of another person under circumstances that would constitute murder under Section 13A-6-2; except, that he causes the death due to a sudden heat of passion caused by provocation recognized by law, and before a reasonable time for the passion to cool and for reason to reassert itself.
2. Manslaughter is a Class B felony.

Source: law.onecle.com...

One cannot always correctly infer from an excerpt. That's why the exact page on each section is linked below the excerpt. In many ways, Alabama law is similar to Texas law, although as you can see, the shooter would have a legal defense here, based on Section 13A-6-2(B)

From what I am hearing, Texas is much less amenable to self-defense.

TheRedneck

yes he scrogged up shooting the cop because in most states if someone dies while you are committing a felony you are automatically charged with murder even if it is not you causing the death. the felony he committed was being in his house with a firearm if he had stabbed the guy to death he wouldn't have been committing a homicide because he hadn't committed a felony. freaky thing is if his girlfriend killed the deputy he could still be tried for murder because it happened during his felony the firearm in house.

reply to post by TheRedneck


We just seen here on ATS a case where an officer claimed he discharged his weapon without knowing it into the head of a woman in a house they were raiding. No charges will be filed against the officer.

I could fit a dozen threads worth of links into exactly this type of thing from officers. If they can not be held responsible for their actions in the line of duty then nobody can say straight faced that citizens can be held responsible for what happens when people kick in their doors unannounced.

It works both ways, either law enforcement starts taking accountability seriously or they start understanding that kicking in doors is very likely to get them shot, especially when they decide to not announce who they are when they are doing the kicking.

Tragic thing that happened but not a crime. Perhaps an opportunity for the judge who authorized the "no knock" warrant and that communities law enforcement to re-evaluate their wisdom in performing these types of raids.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Thanks for the info, I have a better outlook on Alabama now.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I'm honestly surprised these types of stories aren't more common. If anyone bursts through my door without identifying themselves first is going to get shot. A split second can make the difference between you living and dying. And that's why these no knock warrants are absurd.

I will agree using this method against truly dangerous people, those who actually pose a significant threat against those around them and anyone who gets in their way. But using this against people who grow pot or less than dangerous things should be outlawed.

It's a shame this fella was a criminal, he's going to get reamed in court. And in this case, I blame both parties. The cops and the felon.

reply to post by Helious

You are correct, and the problem here is that law enforcement is now about it being more important to “catch someone in the act”, and be able to prosecute to the full extent of the law, then to do it in a safe fashion. So now they are more afraid that someone might “dump” the evidence and “get away” with a minor crime, then they are safely executing the “warrant”. Its all crap, and it again goes back to what we were just discussing in another thread, the state MUST win every case because its becoming a financial issue more then a justice issue. My state has an unheard of 98% conviction rate, and they make roughly $30 million a year in profit off law enforcement.

reply to post by FirePiston


Not in texas.. did you red the article? He was in legal possession of firearms.

reply to post by Auricom

your right..buddy is gonna get screwed.
i also dont get the no knock warrant, guy was in a trailer..where was he gonna go..its ridiculous.
people dieing over some weed while the next state or so over its completly legal..its insanity

reply to post by Helious

Oh, I am right there with you! It is actually a major concern for me personally because of where I live. There is almost no law enforcement here because we live so far out (occasionally one will come through on a call or looking for someone), and even though the last instance of theft was 30-odd years ago, one never knows who has decided this nice quiet place is perfect for scoring some loot. So we protect ourselves. I would be amazed if there was a single house within 5 miles of me that didn't have a gun locked and loaded at all times.

So let's take a hypothetical... police decide to raid a house in such an area and they come in at night, when the occupants are sleeping. I know it takes a couple minutes if I am woken suddenly to know exactly where I am, so when they crash in the door, the owner probably has no idea what is happening, other than someone just busted into his house through the door and is yelling. Even if they are yelling "POLICE!" there will likely be a moment or two delay before that registers, during which time the average person out here can empty a gun. The police will have no alternative but to return fire.

We now have a situation in which the homeowner is dead, possibly family members are dead, and several police are dead.

I don't know how many years ago it was, but I do remember my reaction the first time I saw police busting down a door in the middle of the night on "Cops": "Are these guys crazy? Somebody's about to get dead!"

But... such is the world we live in. Such is the mentality of people around us. I only pray I am never the victim of a raid, either legitimately or accidental.

TheRedneck

I usually do not join the bash cop threads because I believe there are more good cops than bad, and I have family members who are in Law Enforcement and Fish & Game.

However, serving a warrant without declaring who you are, and at 6:00 am (I understand sometimes early morning raids are an advantage) then expect to be shot at or even killed. If someone kicks in my door without identifying themselves they are going to get blasted because I won't risk the lives of my family. It's simple, declare yourself.

Make it perfectly clear. Hell use a loud speaker, call the residence, whatever it takes, but let the subject know that you're not there to murder them and their entire family. It's commonsense really. Sorry to hear that the officer lost his life. ~$heopleNation

Here's my question: How did this guy kill one of them and get out of the situation alive? I can't believe the others didn't take him out, y'know, as payback.

Actually if I was an attorney I would love this case..

Texas is a castle law state...

The officers never ID themselves at entry..
A no knock warrant

So until said notification takes place

Castle law stands


Next part is the attorney claims the guns were legal

If the Girl friend owns the guns
they are legal...

now for the marijuana
that is it


The officer in Texas here, was a moron.. Always get the person alone and when they are in the open.. Like going to their truck..


If the DA wins might will get tossed in Appeals.. look for a deal to be made.. Case is a mess

GF might sue

proteus33
in the us a felon caught with a gun is automatically facing a felony with up to 7 years in jail max federal time. so this guy killed someone while he was committing the felonious act of being in a house with a firarm yep he is going to get the needle. was it right gor them to kick in the door without identifying who they were hell no! but this guy is still damned because he killed the cop while committing the felony

Did you not read the article? He was legally allowed to own firearms. In Texas a felon can own firearms in their home... did you read the article?

itsallgonenow

proteus33
in the us a felon caught with a gun is automatically facing a felony with up to 7 years in jail max federal time. so this guy killed someone while he was committing the felonious act of being in a house with a firarm yep he is going to get the needle. was it right gor them to kick in the door without identifying who they were hell no! but this guy is still damned because he killed the cop while committing the felony

Did you not read the article? He was legally allowed to own firearms. In Texas a felon can own firearms in their home... did you read the article?

Tat may be what th attorney claims in the article, however federal law says otherwise and even if it were legal in Texas for a convicted felon to own a firearm federal law trumps state law.

From USC chapter 44 title 18 chapter section 922

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person— (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) who is a fugitive from justice;