Man Charged With Killing Deputy No Billed by Grand Jury

[mrjarrell]

as a note, the defendants attorney is supposedly one of the best defense attorneys in texas. Good lawyers do make a difference.

Dick DeGuerin is not just one of the best in Texas, he's one of the best in the nation. This guy pulled the lucky card from the deck when he got him.

 

[Ruffnek]

My main question is this:
Why not announce yourself once you're in?I understand not allowing time to flush evidence or flee,but it seems like letting the suspect know that you're the police once you're already in would keep this from happening.

 

[remauto1187]

First I dont want any cops or mary jane growers dead. But what exactly do the police think a normal person would do when someone (unknown) comes bashing into their front door with split seconds to fire on the "intruder"? Even a pothead/seller has the right to defend his home against unknown INTRUDERS. But seriously, was it really worth all this over 5 plants? Ironically the cop that was "gunning" for police cred for a drug bust is the one that got the bullet. Atleast someone else(entry team) didnt pay, with their life.....over 5 plants.

If ANYONE was busting my door in and I had time to get to a gun but not enough to fully ID the threat. It is very likely I will be killed or the unknown intruder(s) will be. Its that simple. I expect that every officer/rational citizen to do the same thing at their home. You hesitate and the unknown intruder can be the first to accurately fire.

 

[Smokepole]

Just watched the Texas video again. Once thing they never ask, what if the Confidential Informant was wrong?

Or just plain lying? Now why would a CI do that? Geeeee, I don't knoooooooow?

 

[Smokepole]

First I dont want any cops or mary jane growers dead. But what exactly do the police think a normal person would do when someone (unknown) comes bashing into their front door with split seconds to fire on the "intruder"? Even a pothead/seller has the right to defend his home against unknown INTRUDERS. But seriously, was it really worth all this over 5 plants? Ironically the cop that was "gunning" for police cred for a drug bust is the one that got the bullet. Atleast someone else(entry team) didnt pay, with their life.....over 5 plants.

If ANYONE was busting my door in and I had time to get to a gun but not enough to fully ID the threat. It is very likely I will be killed or the unknown intruder(s) will be. Its that simple. I expect that every officer/rational citizen to do the same thing at their home. You hesitate and the unknown intruder can be the first to accurately fire.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Castle Doctrine all the way. I mean honestly . . . . . .

 

[protias]

My main question is this:
Why not announce yourself once you're in?I understand not allowing time to flush evidence or flee,but it seems like letting the suspect know that you're the police once you're already in would keep this from happening.

Ya, because no criminal would yell "Police" as he's breaking in...

 

[CathyInBlue]

What if, instead of growing teeny little plants, this guy was on the bleeding edge of 3D-printed firearm research? CI tells the cops, he's manufacturing untraceable, undetectable plastic guns in his trailer. Any diff in the outcome? Maybe they find a few 80% finished lowers without serial numbers, because they were truly for his and his pregnant girlfriends' use. Maybe they find a lawfully finished Liberator. Maybe they find an illegal Liberator, one without the lump of metal to make it detectable by conventional means. Would we, as a gun owning community, be so quick with the "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" mantra?

Here's an article from Medium: Matter, it's an online magazine, about a scene in the drug abuser community that I think tightly parallels the home engineering of firearms.

https://medium.com/matter/19f753fb15e0

Governments ban specific chemicals, since people have discovered that consuming them into their own bodies produce effects they desire and the government doesn't want them to have that ability. Druggies use the plain and simple rules of synthetic organic chemistry to tweak the molecule to be different than the banned one while retaining, or in some cases enhancing, the original effects. These new molecules are not on the list of banned chemicals, and so are legal, at least until the relevant regulating agency gets around to adding it to the list.

Governments ban specific firearms, whether by name or list of cosmetic features, since people like the capabilities or looks of those firearms, and the government doesn't want them to have those capabilities. Gun owners, retailers, and manufacturers use the plain and simple rules of mechanical engineering to design and arrange mechanisms that restore those capabilities, often creating a nearly identical firearm with a different name. These new cosmetic features, while essentially duplicating the form and function of the old, banned cosmetic features, and newly christened firearms, no longer can be found on the banned list, and so are legal, at least until the relevant regulating agency gets around to adding them to the list.

Substitute the AFT for the DEA, or vice versa, and you have a situation that makes the recreational drug scene and the recreational shooter scene look an awfully lot alike, with many common enemies.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Got to ask the question. What if this had happened in Indiana? I know there was a lot bad feelings among LEOs about the NRA when they made the changes to our self defense laws a couple of years ago. My interpretation of the law would be that if this had happened in Indiana the occupant of the home could still be tried for murder or man slaughter because to the police were there on legitimate business. A jury might conclude that if a person is bagging dope in their house it is reasonable to assume the police might show up.

The bad feeling was because it didn't make sense. There was already caselaw that allowed people to defend themselves from law enforcement.

 

[jbombelli]

The bad feeling was because it didn't make sense. There was already caselaw that allowed people to defend themselves from law enforcement.

According to what I recall, the Indiana Supreme Court rendered the prior case law meaningless, since they're the final authority in this state in the matter of case law. So the legislature had to step in and correct the situation.

What didn't make sense was the Indiana Supreme Court decision. The resulting legislative action would not have made sense WITHOUT that Supreme Court decision.

But I'm sure you knew all of that.

 

[Bunnykid68]

According to what I recall, the Indiana Supreme Court rendered the prior case law meaningless, since they're the final authority in this state in the matter of case law. So the legislature had to step in and correct the situation.

What didn't make sense was the Indiana Supreme Court decision. The resulting legislative action would not have made sense WITHOUT that Supreme Court decision.

But I'm sure you knew all of that.

 

[John Galt]

According to what I recall, the Indiana Supreme Court rendered the prior case law meaningless, since they're the final authority in this state in the matter of case law. So the legislature had to step in and correct the situation.

What didn't make sense was the Indiana Supreme Court decision. The resulting legislative action would not have made sense WITHOUT that Supreme Court decision.

Rep inbound!
An innocent person has the right to defend their Life, Liberty and Property. Period.

 

[Ungie]

I thnk that no matter what happens and what your state laws say if you shoot law enforcement you will be in for some tough times. I think you will be arrested and prosecuted. I don't think any DA will not prosecute they need to try to show offiecers they are on their side. I think that you will end up spending major amounts of money on lawyer fees. In the end because of the law you may be proven innocent, once something goes to court you never know. It comes down to in your mind were you in fear for life and do you need to pull the trigger to protect your life and your family members all in a split second.

 

[VERT]

I thnk that no matter what happens and what your state laws say if you shoot law enforcement you will be in for some tough times. I think you will be arrested and prosecuted. I don't think any DA will not prosecute they need to try to show offiecers they are on their side. I think that you will end up spending major amounts of money on lawyer fees. In the end because of the law you may be proven innocent, once something goes to court you never know. It comes down to in your mind were you in fear for life and do you need to pull the trigger to protect your life and your family members all in a split second.

If the officers are acting lawfully and within the scope of their duties then I can almost guarantee there will be (and should be) a conviction. Truthfully I doubt this law will ever be used as a defense in Indiana.

 

[vitamink]

The second the law became "famous" it was used in Indiana. A very prominent tv personality led police on a chase then fought the cops at its termination. Her defense was "I didn't know why he was pulling me over as I hadn't done anything wrong...therefore I can resist up to and including killing him."

 

[The Bubba Effect]

If you kick in someone's door and bust in with guns drawn, you are in a fight. You have started the fight and it better be worth winning and you had better win. It is like sucker punching someone, you might have a good reason for doing it, but you are in a fight and you should not expect the guy who got sucker punched to listen to your reasonable explanation if he starts beating your ass.

Yelling "Police" as you kick the door is neither here nor there.
Talking is for conversations and needs to happen before the fight.

I am not saying that there is never a justification for a "no knock" raid, but I am saying that it had better be worth it and it had better work.

 

[edporch]

Got to ask the question. What if this had happened in Indiana? I know there was a lot bad feelings among LEOs about the NRA when they made the changes to our self defense laws a couple of years ago. My interpretation of the law would be that if this had happened in Indiana the occupant of the home could still be tried for murder or man slaughter because to the police were there on legitimate business. A jury might conclude that if a person is bagging dope in their house it is reasonable to assume the police might show up.

I remember this happening in Indiana back in the 80's or 90's in a town out East of Indy (if memory serves).
The guy was a pot dealer and the police raided the place.

He killed an under cover cop and was not found guilty of it

The home owner heard somebody busting in the door and called 911.
The ENTIRE incident was recorded on the 911 call, and the news played it.

The cop, an under cover narc was dressed in street clothes, didn't IDENTIFY himself as a cop and the homeowner thought it was a home invasion and shot the guy not knowing he was a cop.

The police tried LYING, claiming they identified themselves as they busted in.

The 911 tape CLEARLY showed that leading up to the shooting, NOBODY identified their self as a cop.

The 911 tape saved this pot dealer from being convicted of killing cop.

This could've all been avoided if the police had conducted this raid properly by at least identifying themselves.

I'm CERTAINLY NOT in favor of drug dealing, just that this guy clearly thought his life was in danger.

 

[Woobie]

Not in favor of drug use. It's pretty stupid, IMO. But is a plant, something that otherwise exists in nature, worth the lives and treasure we have spent to eradicate it? Was this cop's life worth it? I don't think so. I'm sure his family doesn't think so. And why no knock a pothead? You're probably not going to trigger the paranoia unless you no knock him. Maybe that was the point, get him to raise his gun so they could smoke him, but it backfired. Yeah, he's going to try to flush the plants, but come on. I sympathize for the officer and the family, but I'm not ok with the status quo in this country with regards to drug policy and its enforcement.

 

[Robert Richardson]

They say "potheads " get the munchies, just knock on the door holding a couple of pizza boxes.

 

[Woobie]

They say "potheads " get the munchies, just knock on the door holding a couple of pizza boxes.

Right? Too easy.