Man Who Defends His Life In No-Knock Raid Now Faces Death Penalty
"I’ve said it before and I’ll keep pressing on the issue. My home is my castle, and I don’t care what judge has signed what piece of paper. If you come at my home, especially in the middle of the night, you’re going to get shot, cop or not. I won’t differentiate because I cannot trust uniforms and announcements. Criminal gangs have now taken to wearing uniforms and making announcements."
"My home is my castle. It doesn’t belong to you, and it doesn’t belong to the state. If you are law enforcement and want to come in my home, call and make an appointment. Got it? If that isn’t good enough for you, if you think there is evidence of something or other you want to see, then put good detectives on the job (like you did at one time in history), watch for me to leave, detain me, and then take me back to the home and let me use my key to the front door. Or get a locksmith. In other words, use your brains to gather evidence. Otherwise, I don’t care if you lose that evidence. I only care about my safety, and the safety of victims like Mr. Guy."
16 comments:
Evil institutions can only be stopped by good people, in this case it would be an informed jury. The American People have to come to the realization that laws are also to be put on trial, not just a defendant. If people with backbone sat on juries and nullified their stupid statutes regardless of what the criminals in black robes "charge" the jury with, the nonsense would stop very quickly. Unfortunately we have a citizenry in a hurry to lick boots and feel like they're part of the "justice system". I blame them as much as the criminals in blue costumes, black robe costumes and crooked D.A.'s. And BTW: A Grand Jury with people having I.Q.'s above 100 could have stopped this before it even gets to a trial; or do they not have G.J.'s in Texas?
This one is physically in my neighborhood, so I know a bit about it. The one who fired the shots through the window was under investigation for trafficking in narcotics. A local forum of concerned citizens is looking into the issues surrounding the raid and will not let the issue die easily.
We are looking, both into the question of was the raid legitimate (was there truly probable cause?) and was the raid appropriate (was there a better way to get this done?).
Patience is a must, since the jury has not been selected yet and the city is stonewalling on certain matters of evidence until the trial.
Not if i was on his jury
a message needs to be sent, one that gets the point across that we no longer condone the subjugation of ones rights ..period
either do it right or dont do it
'There was some questionable paraphernalia, but nothing indicative of drug dealing-'
So the cops go 'no knock' and proceed to break into the guys home? That to me is the first shot fired.
As the article relates, it would be very easy to detain the guy when he leaves the house, then execute a search warrant.
But the cops would rather forcefully and aggressively break in. What does that tell you?
"We are looking, both into the question of was the raid legitimate (was there truly probable cause?) and was the raid appropriate (was there a better way to get this done?)."
The first part has a greater chance of being proven true than the second part in a court of law of any semblance of reason and sanity. The only possiblity I can think of which makes a raid (not even a no knock raid!) of SWAT ok in my mind might be if there are screams of a women being raped inside or someone getting murdered maybe.
TRex- The first question that comes to my mind is; If there's a question as to whether or not there truly was 'probable cause', how, and on what information was the warrant obtained ? And if the shooter was 'under investigation for trafficking narcotics', what had the investigation revealed prior to the attempted forcible entry into the suspects home ?
Did the shooter have a prior record of anything ? Did his wife ? Had the home been under surveillance prior to the attempted forcible entry ? Did the guy and his wife work outside the home ? Could they have been confronted leaving the home ? Why 5:30 AM for the attempted entry ?
If the raid wasn't legitimate, the prosecutor and the D.A. very definitely have obligations to level charges against the P.O.'s and the Department for their violations of the law.
Ahah. City is stonewalling evidence. Now that seems to be illegal under pretrial discovery.
Can't have the proles defending themselves against the kings men.
That sounds like a good sign "TRex"...
TRex, there are no questions to be answered. The "legitimacy" of the raid nor alternatives to accomplish the same rotten goal, have nothing to do with anything. Nor does the question of whether or not they identified themselves. Screaming some words or having letters on your clothing, do not give a pass for invasion of a home. Plus, I've heard that occasionally ne'er-do-wells lie.
A man defended his homestead; he and everyone else should just go on living. According to wikipedia, the Castle Doctrine dates to 1628.
I've been saying for weeks that this case may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Personally I hope it is, though I'd prefer not to see what may evolve because of it, in the worst scenario.
There is only one interesting question and that is whether those who charged this fellow should themselves be charged with a crime. Legally I'm inclined to think Yes, but personally I'm well beyond worrying about matters like that.
"My home is my castle. It doesn’t belong to you, and it doesn’t belong to the state."
How quaintly naive.
Start refusing to pay property taxes and you'll discover in short order that in reality, you "own" nothing.
Maybe "our" troops, who "defend our freedom," will come to that homeowner's rescue. Oh, wait a minute -- that's just a mindless propaganda slogan, isn't it? Never mind...
Anyway, the homeowner did the right thing, even if he knew they were cops (though it sounds like he did not). I do wish he'd used a rifle instead of a handgun, but at least he got one of the invaders. They attempted to violate his personal, private space over victimless offenses (using drugs and selling them to other adults are consensual behaviors and will be legal in a FREE society). They got what they deserved.
Hopefully the homeowner gets off light. But even if he is convicted and sentenced to death, he will die knowing that he bested that TWAT team and was a lion among mice.
John Badelk vs. US... based upon the info here it not only sounds like a good shoot but justifiable homicide as well. Oh, and prosecute the team lead whose responsibility it is to ensure this was a lawful action. It looks like he was too interested in spinning up his team to observe the "little details", eh?
The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence. ~Mien Kampf
The application of force alone, without support based on a spiritual concept, can never bring about the destruction of an idea or arrest the propagation of it, unless one is ready and able to ruthlessly to exterminate the last upholders of that idea even to a man, and also wipe out any tradition which it may tend to leave behind. ~Uncle Adolph
https://fija.org/
The Supreme Court must hear this case, but I doubt they would have the balls to touch it, should it rise to their level.
This case seems to be a very basic one, and is a fundamental violation of the very old Castle Doctrine and Fourth Amendment protections. I am not a lawyer, and because common sense and good judgment often does not apply to the law today, my opinion matters little. But I would react in the same way, should armed men break into my home at night without prior notification of their intent. I cannot imagine a jury convicting this man, but again I common sense and good judgement is not the basis of law.
Post a Comment