When Self-Defense Is No Defense

Here's an outrageous twist on the sadly familiar story of the man who dies in a drug raid because police burst into the wrong home by mistake (whoops!): In this case, related by Radley Balko, the man survived the raid but was sentenced to death for defending himself and his baby daughter against midnight intruders.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Okay. THIS is something to be mad at the cops about.

  • ||

    This thing chilled me to the bone this morning. People have got to do something for this guy. The most disturbing part was the part about the juror who said they liked him but turned agaisnt him because they "thought he was spoiled by his mother and didn't respect his elders". God, that is scary. Oh, and do you think the cop who got shot being the police chief's son had anything to do with this being a capital case? One last thing, one of the bloggers who linked to this made a great point. Why are the Steve Earls' and other celebrity anti-death penalty folks of the world so in love with Tookie and Mumia, two dirtbags who are guilty, but won't do anything for this guy who is obviously innocent?

  • ||

    Once again, "Judged by a jury of your peers" is a terrifying phrase.

  • ||

    It strikes me that there's an interesting parallel between Maye's situation and what happened in Miami. Maye, with only a few seconds to think, acted to defend himself and his family against a violent intrusion. Maybe his action wasn't perfectly thought through, but it doesn't appear to have been a malicious or irrational act. So he gets sentenced to death, and the marshals in Miami get administrative paid leave.

    As an aside, I don't think this is as much about racism as it is about the attitude that shooting a cop is an absolute wrong, even if he's illegally threatening your life. Making government employees above the law is a disturbing trend.

  • ||

    Pro Liberate,

    I don't necessarily have a problem with making it a capital offense to shoot a police officer in the performance of duty. Police officers' ought to have authority and people ought to think long and hard before shooting them. The corrisponding responsibility that comes with that is that the Police officer must always identify himself making it plain to everyone who he is and what he is doing. That is a fair trade between the public and government. Government blows the deal by launching no-knock searches and the police forfeit any extra protection they are entitled to as uniformed officers of the law.

  • Warren||

    Pro Libertate,
    You don't think this about racism!? When do you suppose was the last time Mississippi cops broke down the door of an innocent white family?

  • OJ Juror||

    Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

  • ||

    This is monstrous. Is there anything that can be done to help this guy? An organization trying to help him?

  • ||

    John, I don't disagree that police officers have to have some "extra" protection in their jobs. However, I believe quite strongly that a person's right to defend themselves and their families in their home completely trumps any "rights" the police might have. I agree that allowing cops to break into houses in the first place is part of the problem, though I acknowledge that sometimes it may be necessary. This isn't an easy issue, but the innocent citizen put in this situation should at least get the benefit of the doubt a similarly situated police officer would.

  • ||

    If Haley Barbour has any conscience he'll pardon him. Letters to the Govs office might help.

  • ||

    Warren,

    I think the police do no-knock searches of plenty of poor white people in the Mississippi. If this guy had been a poor white person, he still would be where he is. Its a class issue. A poor person shoots the Police Chief's son, he is in big trouble regardless of his race.

  • ||

    Pro-Libertate,

    I agree completely. Unless it is obvious to a reasonable person that the victim is a cop, its just another case of a stranger breaking into someone's home.

  • ||

    Just when you start to like cops....ok, maybe not, but I appreciate what cops do on a daily basis (an NYPD officer was just laid to rest two days ago) but this situation is absurd. I agree with John about the cop being the chief's son, you really screwed....and the jury, well, I'm happy to say I never donated to any katrina relief, partly because I believe the South deserves all the punishment it can get....

  • ||

    Why are the Steve Earls' and other celebrity anti-death penalty folks of the world so in love with Tookie and Mumia, two dirtbags who are guilty, but won't do anything for this guy who is obviously innocent?

    I'm sure they wouldn't want to see this guy dead anymore than Tookie or Mumia. However, like all political movements, you have to know your audience. The former were oppressed by the white, male, capitalist power structure, so the leftists largely make up the anti-death penalty movement see them as political prisoners rather than "dirtbags." The latter used a filthy, filthy, gun to defend himself from a bunch of armed thugs...ok, armed thugs with badges. Although they might not want to see him executed, they don't want to be caught up in a cause that get's them in bed with the "gun nuts" or "anti-government kooks."

    I mean, they might not get invited to any of Susan Sarandon's parties if they did.

  • ||

    Can we please stop with this "land of the free" propagandistic bullshit now?

  • ||

    Warren, I didn't say racism played no role, I just said that I think the "he shot a cop" factor played a greater role. There's no doubt that cops are, if anything, more prone to racial prejudice than the general population (some of that slightly justified by the disproportionate number of black criminals, the vast majority of it completely unjustified). Not that Mississippi doesn't have plenty of racism of its own to go around. I'm sure that it does. Incidentally, since we're talking about breaking into the wrong house, I imagine it can happen to anyone--white, black, or Vulcan ambassador.

    Let's hope for justice on appeal or via a pardon. Assuming, of course, we're basing all of this on the actual facts.

  • ||

    Gee, John Paul Jones, thanks. Should we put everyone in the South in internment camps, or should we just gun them down now?

  • ||

    If Haley Barbour has any conscience he'll pardon him.

    I'm sure that if Barbour did, his political opponent would accuse him of "pardoning a cop killer" during the next elections. Since most voters don't have the brains to do any sort of research

    I mean, what's one life when compared to the threat of a Democrat defeating a sitting Republican governor?

  • ||

    The problem here starts and ends with the no knock. Absent that little gem, everyone would still be alive and the absolute worst case is that the neighbor's toilet would have had to swallow some baggies.

  • ||

    Juries should be abolished. I've served on a couple, and right off the bat you're forced into group-think mode, which moves at the speed of the dumbest juror. Trials are reduced to the personalities of the lawyers, and the jury foreperson. And, to risk sounding elitist, the original intent was that juries be comprised of educated property owners, not the brain-dead mouth-breathers we have today.

    The will of the people can easily be expressed through elected judges, who are strictly held accountable to constitutional law. But I would like to see Angelina Jolie on my water bed, too, Santa.

  • ||

    Jason Ligon nails it.

  • ||

    Akira,

    I agree. ITs not about justice its about scoring political points.

  • ||

    "Can we please stop with this "land of the free" propagandistic bullshit now?"

    Are you kidding? It's only going to get thicker from here on out.

    I call it the "Fancy Ketchup" phenomenon.

  • Larry A||

    Jones, who wasn't armed, charged in, and made his way to Maye's bedroom.

    Excuse me? An unarmed LEO?

    Oh, well. Once more, "If you haven't done anything wrong, why are you worried?"

    The problem here starts and ends with the no knock.

    And no-knock was a product of the War on Drugs. Three more (counting the kid) innocent WoD casualties.

  • Dave W.||

    Jason Ligon nails it.

    No he doesn't. If that jury had not been empaneled for this case, they would have been empaneled for the next case where a black defendant with a bad lawyer was at odds with the police. Only the injustice in that case would be slightly less clear and much less sexy. And we wouldn't know about it. The no-knock raid wasn't the only problem here, it is just the only problem that you and Jason want to care about.

  • ||

    The shot cop was not carrying a weapon? Despite being part of a "paramilitary" team?

  • ||

    And no-knock was a product of the War on Drugs.
    Actually, I think they're a product of prohibition. Which indicates only that some folks are incapable of learning from past mistakes.

  • ||

    "I'm happy to say I never donated to any katrina relief, partly because I believe the South deserves all the punishment it can get...."

    Wow. You win the prize for the most idiotic comment of the week. Congratulations.

  • ||

    I call it the "Fancy Ketchup" phenomenon.

    Hee hee! Fascinating.

    Trials are reduced to the personalities of the lawyers, and the jury foreperson. And, to risk sounding elitist, the original intent was that juries be comprised of educated property owners, not the brain-dead mouth-breathers we have today.

    Mr. Nice Guy,

    I'm with you on that.

    Somewhat off-topic, but similarly shallow judgement calls apply to me and traffic tickets. If I'm all done up wearing a low cut blouse, the cops tend to let me go. If I'm stopped in the morning after an all-night bender with the stench of cigarettes and crusty ol' makeup still on, the odds are usually against me.

    I hate personal politics.

  • ||

    "Three more (counting the kid) innocent WoD casualties."

    Not to start a huge argument here Larry, but I'd say the swat team memembers are far from innocent in this scenario.

  • Jeff P.||

    Scaring the jury with fear of God's Judgment is pretty shitty, and even in closing statements could have been objected too.
    Also, if the jury is so easily frightened, they shouldn't qualify as a jury of "peers."

    Unfortunately the old "Ignorance of the Law" addage doesn't apply tp juries.

    If this execution goes through, we should organize an all-white riot...

  • ||

    There is more of an issue here than just the no-knock searchs, although I loath them. The issue is DAs who take any case to trial and won't stand up to the police or do anything politically unpopular regardless of justice. The other issue is the total breakdown of the clemancy system. You can't retry every case on appeal, so the appellate system is supposed to look at technicalities not guilt or innocence. The clemency system is supposed to look at justice and guilt or innocnece. This system has broken down because the Governors are too spinless to use their power and throw the issue over to the appellate courts who are not designed to deal with it. Governors are supposed to free innocent people with their pardon and clemency power, but they never use it anymore.

  • ||

    Pro Lib,

    As a a quasi-naturalist, I feel that Mother Nature is just doing just fine. No need for camps or shootings

    Not that things like this wouldn't happen in the Northeast, but "respect for elders?" C'mon

  • ||

    "I don't necessarily have a problem with making it a capital offense to shoot a police officer in the performance of duty. Police officers' ought to have authority and people ought to think long and hard before shooting them. The corrisponding responsibility that comes with that is that the Police officer must always identify himself making it plain to everyone who he is and what he is doing."

    I understand that cops sometimes reasonably believe that they have to conduct no-knock raids. But when they do, they need to understand that they are voluntarily assuming the risk of death at the hands of a homeowner who reasonably concludes that he is in danger of death or serious bodily harm from an armed intruder. (And sometimes, the conclusions is not just reasonable but correct. Remember Mark Clark and Fred Hampton in Chicago in 1969.) They need to understand that if they are killed under such circumstances, it's a regrettable misunderstanding, but justifiable homicide.

    Cops do this kind of shit all too often. California businessman Donald Carlson was shot three times (including twice after he was down and clearly disabled) by DEA agents who mistakenly raided his house on the basis of a false tip from an informant trying to save himself some jail time. Maybe the fact that Carlson was white had something to do with the fact that the feds decided to drop charges of attempted murder they initially brought against him for having tried to defend himself. (Reminds me of the sign in the zoo: "This animal is very bad. When attacked, it defends itself.")

  • Timothy||

    Makes me want to drive around the block near the courthouse in town with "Cop Killer" turned all the way up and the windows down. All day, every day.

  • Timothy||

    It also makes me even sicker of those "We back the blue" bumper stickers.

  • ||

    Jennifer;

    "Can we please stop with this "land of the free" propagandistic bullshit now?"

    Where are the conservatives and their jack booted thug rhetoric? Oh, I forgot, that is reserved for those who are religious nuts(Branch Davidian, et al), not regular folks.

    I, for one, do not welcome our jack booted - black suited overlords.

  • ||

    Hey Cliff,

    I am as conservative as anyone on here and I will give you all the jack-booted thug rethoric you want and then some. As we talked about above, I don't see any of the oh public liberals against the death penalty standing up for this guy.

  • R C Dean||

    Jones, who wasn't armed, . . .

    Right off, you know they're lying. No way in hell does a cop do a no-knock entry unarmed.

    They threw this lie in just to thwart the self-defense claim.

  • ||

    The problem here starts and ends with the no knock. Absent that little gem, everyone would still be alive and the absolute worst case is that the neighbor's toilet would have had to swallow some baggies.

    At first pass, I see four things wrong here (assuming the Balko's account contains every relevant fact at work here, which it almost certainly does not):

    1. The informant did not provide specific enough information. The "specificity" requirement for obtaining a warrant has gotten too watered down to where even the most vague property description is accepted, and can be wildly inaccurate or even made up altogether, as long as enough of the other parts of the warrant seemed ok at the time.

    2. The knock/announce requirement is a woefully thin line between authorizing an armed government home invasion and the right of persons to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects." There should at least be an opportunity of some kind for the innocent to identify themselves and make clear to the police who they are. Some kind of positive identification that the suspect is present should also be necessary. If the police have to have a guy THAT BADLY RIGHT NOW that they need to blast into his house in the middle of the night; and where waiting till he leaves the house and apprehending him peacefully out in the open just isn't good enough, then they should at least take the trouble to make sure he's where they think he is, and to check for the location of innocents before proceeding. And even then, allow for the possibility, however remote, that they could be wrong. Which brings me to....

    3.... why the fuck are they busting down the door anyway? It's not like there was a rape in progress. Or the suspect was about to throw a baby out the window. What was the exigent circumstance here? Seems to me, the basis for allowing these types of home invasion tactics has gotten too broad. This type of crime -- drug dealing -- should never be the subject of home invasion tactics. Unless there is some compelling emergency, where no other tactic would prevent harm from occurring to an innocent victim, there is no basis at all for invading a home. You can arrest a non violent criminal out in the open, then search the area pursuant to a warrant once he's in custody.

    4. Just think how rarely cops would have to bust down people's doors in the middle of the night if it weren't for going after drugs, dealers, users, or drug making equipment. How often do they go busting into houses for other crimes?

  • ||

    John;

    I don't think that most conservatives at H&R are guilty of this, because IMHO I believe that they are true conservatives, not the conservative when it suits my agenda types. To me, true conservatism conserves government control over the people to prevent things like this from happening. I believe the "conservative movement" represented by religious fundimentalism / RHINO has taken the name and twisted it to a sort of a theocracy style of government. I'm sorry if my snarkism was mis-interpreted.

    I agree with you about the liberals, but I expect that from that camp. I just remember all of the wailing over the BATF attacking the Branch Davidians and the family at Ruby Ridge.

  • ||

    I would like to see the statistics of how many cops have actually been shot by suspects while conducting house searches and how many cops have been hurt and innocent people hurt by cops blasting into the wrong house on no knock searches. My guess is that most criminals would rather go down for a drug deal than for killing a cop and that cops would be a lot safer if they would just announce themselves. If anything no-knock searches put the cops in more danger rather than less.

  • ||

    No offense taken cliff. I agree that the law and order types don't get as offended about this stuff as they should.

  • ||

    Dave W.-

    No-knock isn't the only problem that I care about. But if the entry hadn't been no-knock, this case would have never happened.

    There are other issues, of course, but none of them would have mattered here if the ball hadn't started rolling. That's all.

  • ||

    "I am as conservative as anyone on here and I will give you all the jack-booted thug rethoric you want and then some. As we talked about above, I don't see any of the oh public liberals against the death penalty standing up for this guy."

    Cliff: What John said.

  • ||

    "No offense taken cliff. I agree that the law and order types don't get as offended about this stuff as they should."

    I'm a law and order type, and I get plenty offended about this stuff. But maybe that's because my idea of law and order includes the idea that, with very few exceptions, cops should be bound by the same laws that bind the rest of us.

    And yea, I was one of those wailing over the Branch Dravidians and the Weaver family at Ruby Ridge. And the Elian Gonzalez raid, while we're at it.

  • ||

    Scaring the jury with fear of God's Judgment is pretty shitty, and even in closing statements could have been objected too.

    It was the defendant's attorney who tried to put the fear of Jeezus in them. Whoops.

  • Dave W.||

    No, T. They would have mattered in different cases. I am sure they already have manifested themselves in different cases, perhaps different cases vastly outnumbering the number of wrong apartment no-knocks. I am suggesting that you might have the priorities wrong here because the gun-nut issues weigh too heavily on your mind.

  • ||

    Even in Stalin's Russia, there was a knock on the door in the middle of the night. In Republicrat America, they just bust the door down. Civilization is on a downward trajectory.

  • ||

    No, T. They would have mattered in different cases.

    I never disputed that. Argue with the real thoreau, not the one in your head.

    I am suggesting that you might have the priorities wrong here because the gun-nut issues weigh too heavily on your mind.

    I took issue with you on a technical issue concerning guns, and that makes me a gun nut? You need to check out some of the other posters before you decide that I'm the gun not.

    I think more clearly about these matters when I have some food in my belly. Try some corn syrup! :)

  • ||

    CORRECTION: "gun nut", not "gun not."

    I could use some corn syrup right about now...

    And what's so wrong with saying that this whole tragedy would have been avoided if it had never even started?

  • Timothy||

    I can offer you a cupcake, thoreau, but I make no promises as to its quality or evilness.

  • ||

    Funny thought:

    Dave W. routinely acts as though I'm a knee-jerk corporate apologist gun-nut who needs to wise up and finally see the light.

    Andrew used to act as though I'm some sort of lefty who needs to wise up and see the light.

    Why do our contrarians think that I'm some fool in need of saving?

  • ||

    What I haven't seen mentioned is that had he not shot the intruder, we never would have known about this. These things only come to our attention when an out of control LEO gets what's comming. That or they make a supreme Court case out of homosexuals they found in Texas on another "dynamic entry" of the wrong house.

  • ||

    RC,

    I agree. I can't see a non-SWAT cop being the first guy through the door of a "known" drug house WITHOUT CARRYING A GUN. C'mon, how stupid is this? It's like sending the camera man from "Cops" into a shootout before the cops go in: It would never happen. Of course, if it really did happen the way the cops say, then the team leader should be fired for putting a fellow officer in harms way WITHOUT CARRYING A GUN.

  • Dave W.||

    You are extremely (and prospectively!) dismissive of tort suits, but nary a peep about the trial this black man got in Mississippi. That attudinal juxtaposition paints a clear picture.

  • ||

    Maye's innocence of drug dealing is completely irrelevant in this case. Even the no-knock bullshit is irrelevant. The only important thing is that killing a cop is sometimes a crime in a situation where killing a civilian isn't a crime.

    Let's say they had the right house, and the drug dealer shot a cop in self-defense. That would get him an additional charge of cop-murder, regardless of the fact that he was only defending himself. His alleged drug dealing (he's innocent at that point until proven guilty) is a separate issue. If civilian thugs busted into his house and he shot them, it wouldn't be an issue (at least in theory).

    Simply put, it is a crime to harm a police officer in the course of his duty, regardless of his individual actions even if they are totally and obviously wrong, and even if his actions are actually illegal.

  • ||

    Dave W., I have not said a word in defense of the trial that he got. For the record, I think it was atrocious. I just heard Jason Ligon say "You know, this whole mess never would have even happened if people had done something so simple and common-sensical" and I thought that was 100% correct. So I give a shout-out, and the next thing you know I have you accusing me of all sorts of things.

    You need to drink some corn syrup, man.

    If it will make you feel any better, I think we should find out if the gun manufacturer was partly liable here. Maybe the guy didn't actually mean to shoot, but the gun was designed for ease of use so when he bumped it the thing just went off...

  • Dave W.||

    Or maybe racist Mississippi justice should start encroaching on regions of your mind currently filled with sympathy for Mickey Dee's and the Real Thing. My saying this makes it more likely that that will happen. As it should.

  • ||

    "I am suggesting that you might have the priorities wrong here because the gun-nut issues weigh too heavily on your mind."

    You're right Dave. It might be that focusing on the thing that got one cop dead and is about to get an innocent dead is entirely tied up with gun nuttitude.

    What went unsaid in my above post is that the racism of juries can't be addressed with by legal means, and it is only in the sugar plumb dreams of the ABA that a lawyer that can bill out at $550.00 an hour and a lawyer getting $5.50 an hour provide the same service. With these things being assumed features of an imperfect system, what really seems to mark this instance as especially bad is that two people are going to get dead.

    There is only so much room on the H&R server. I'm not sure there is enough room for your sense of self righteousness and for everyone else who might want to make a comment.

  • ||

    Dave W., I'm a former lefty. I retain the ability to feel outrage over lots of things. If I listed all of them on H&R, the server would crash even more often than it already does.

    For the record, racist Mississippi justice fills me with rage. I give an amen to a single, insightful comment by Jason Ligon and suddenly I'm devoid of outrage over it?

    Man, I need a drink. Warren, what about you?

    Bartender, two shots of corn syrup please.

  • ||

    Dave W,

    Are you this curmudgeonly in your non-Internet life? I mean, geez, I know it's difficult being smarter than everyone else, but personal attacks won't persuade anyone of your point of view.

  • Dave W.||

    Jason.
    I guess the market will make that determination. I look forward to it. Btw, I did tell T. that his analysis of the airport shooting was good (and it was). That is the kind of thing that makes me think T. is a greater degree redeemable than some of the others. Ultimately, this isn't about T. It is a more Socratic dialogue aimed more at people who think like T. and read his posts and identify with them. That audience is huge and in need of fixing.

  • ||

    "Or maybe racist Mississippi justice should start encroaching on regions of your mind currently filled with sympathy for Mickey Dee's and the Real Thing."

    Maybe the fact that you are a lawyer has something to do with your gravitation to the trial as the first thing to think about, rather than your moral superiority to poor brainwashed Thoreau. My saying it makes it more likely that you'll think about it, as it should.

    Maybe the bizzaro mindreading exercises are best left alone, or at least not taken seriously.

  • ||

    Not quite the same but close enough; when do we outlaw these lovely midnight raids by guys in black masks: the Donald Scott shooting in Malibu several years ago:
    http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9338,cotts,11865,1.html

    Or more generally, other victims: http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html

    Remember when the raid in the movie Brazil seemed over the top? Does anyone have stats to the number of folks killed in these kind of raids? Hell of a way to run a Republic.

    -Otto von

  • Timothy||

    Did thoreau just get called a racist? I mean, honestly.

    It's pretty goddamn obvious that if the cops had to announce their presence before barging into homes this wouldn't happen. Or if cops would get the right goddamn house this wouldn't happen.

    Pointing this out, and agreeing with somebody who points this out does not mean that one is devoid of rage that a likely racist jury convicted a guy of obvious self defense. It means that we're capable of noting that it never would've gotten to trial if the cops were competent and/or held to stricter search standards.

  • Dave W.||

    JDM,
    You want me to think more about my superiority. That can't be right. I'm not that great.

  • Dave W.||

    The reason I did ***not*** call T. a racist is bcs I do ***not*** have any basis to believe he is a racist. Hope that clears that up.

  • ||

    To be far, I am genuinely flattered that people as different as Andrew and Dave W. both view me as the best teaching tool on the forum. They both seem to think that by carrying on a dialogue with me they can convince the greatest number of people to think like them.

    That's great and all, but when I teach I generally try to pick on more than one student. Spread the teaching around, you know?

  • Warren||

    Man, I need a drink. Warren, what about you?

    Bartender, two shots of corn syrup please.


    First cupcakes, now corn syrup, I have no idea what people are alluding to anymore. Are we overlaying threads on other topics with and ongoing refutation of the fat police? When did I lose my grip on this blog.

  • VM||

    Dr. T: you go guy!

    Jason: once again, i appreciate your comments. yeaaa!

    and my imaginary friends can beat up yours.

    prove they can't. oh yeah! yeah. c'mere a minute. yooo c'mere. oh yeah? yeah.

  • ||

    Governor Haley Barbour
    P.O. Box 139 Jackson, MS 39205
    Phone: 601.359.3150 Fax: 601.359.3741

  • ||

    Did thoreau just get called a racist? I mean, honestly.

    No, but Dave has it in his head that Thoreau is pro-Big Business conservative who thinks corporations can do no wrong, while, what, two months ago Thoreau was going on at lenth about (to simplify and caricature) how all of us only think about the harms of regulation and law on corporations, not upon the little people.

  • ||

    Eric, I now totally see how unfair I was a couple months ago.

    Well, I've learned something from this thread.

  • VM||

    now if we could get thoreau to
    1) stop hating america
    2) acknowledge kerry would have been worse
    3) stop humping rick santorum's dog.

    we'd all be better off.

    (3a: check more code, of course)

    :P

    :D

  • ||

    Thoreau, I may be missing sarcasm, but I'm not griping at you. You already apologized for being slightly overbearing on that point. And you stopped saying "Kerry would have been worse" on ever topic, which makes you golden as far as I'm concerned. ;)

    I'm just pointing out that Dave is a paranoid crank. Well, more of a crank than most of us here, at least.

  • ||

    "You want me to think more about my superiority. That can't be right. I'm not that great."

    True. It just seems inconsistent to acknowledge this right after putting ones self in the position of Socrates lecturing school children on the basics of ethics.

  • ||

    When did I lose my grip on this blog.

    That's what you get for drinking so much.

    I kid, I kid!!

  • ||

    No sarcasm intended, Eric.

  • ||

    Maybe your gravitation to the trial as the first thing to think about has more to do with the fact that you are a lawyer than your moral superiority to poor brainwashed Thoreau.

    Better, Mrs. Crabtree?

  • ||

    I am very upset about this.

  • ||

    Huh. Is it worse to be pro-business or pro-government? I don't like unlimited power in anyone's hands, either, but who really has that? Corporations? Has Coke raided any homes lately and shot anyone? Has Wal-Mart forced me to pay a third of my income to it? Can Time Warner lock me up for twenty years?

    Sure, corporations are capable of and have done bad things, but they're little kids in the playground compared to the King Kong that is the government. I don't understand the Left on this obsession at all. Government as counterpoise to large companies is one thing, but putting fear of big business ahead of your fear of the government is simply not rational.

  • ||

    This is some seriously fucked up shit.

    And yes, the no-knock is what got the cop shot. Ok, maybe the cops should have been more thorough about knowing what house they were going into, but beyond that, the fact that they're allowed to kick-in doors to look for drugs is the reason that cop got shot.

    So I'm backing thoreau.

    And it is funny how some people think thoreau is a liberal (he's a former liberal) and some think he's a corporate apologist!

    And Dave W cracks me up, too. Half the time I have no idea what he's talking about. I like the conspiracy stuff, though, that's a pet subject for me. :)

    Carry on, folks. My outrage needs to be fed more. :/

  • ||

    Well, this airing of grievances is certainly appropriate for the Festivus season.*

    *By discussing Festivus I am in no way trying to show disrespect for Christmas, Hannukah, Kwanzaa, Solstice, or other observations. The mention of more than one holiday in this disclaimer should in no way be interpreted as anti-Christian bias. I am not responsible if somebody has a heart attack over perceived anti-Christian bias. No matter what Dave W. says, I call for Congress to enact legislation shielding me from such liability. Void where prohibited. No purchase necessary.

  • ||

    I'm just pointing out that Dave is a paranoid crank.

    Thoreau would have been worse.

  • ||

    Well, this airing of grievances is certainly appropriate for the Festivus season.*

    Maybe there needs to be a special airing of grievances thread set up for Hit and Run regulars to get it all out before the New Year begins.

  • ||

    Pro Libertate,

    You are right that big corporations in a truly free market are much less of a threat than big govt. But big business, as a rule, likes the free market about as much as big govt does. When big business and big govt join together to form big governess, that is what I truly fear.

  • ||

    John-

    OK, but we also have to wrestle with the head of the house and pin him to the ground.

    Tim Cavanaugh is the closest thing we have to a head of the household here, and I don't know if he'd like that idea.

  • ||

    Hard to argue with that, crimethink. That's one reason big government is so bad--it becomes the arena for "competition" among businesses instead of, I don't know, perhaps the marketplace? Barriers to entry are rarely created by businesses alone, which is another way to prevent competition--forestall it by making it very difficult to start a new business in a regulated industry. To protect the children, of course.

  • ||

    "OK, but we also have to wrestle with the head of the house and pin him to the ground.

    Tim Cavanaugh is the closest thing we have to a head of the household here, and I don't know if he'd like that idea."

    Given the medium, we'd have to settle for the next best thing - a trash talk smackdown. He'd like that a bit more, I suspect. As I've said before, Cavanaugh can really talk some trash.

  • ||

    Thoreau,

    Good point.

  • ||

    Pro Libertate - Just try saying that on a lefty forum! I guarantee you you'll get angry comments about how the US Marines invaded Nicaragua at the behest of United Fruit (or whatever; I can't keep all their stuff straight), and the Pinkerton union-busting, etc. Pay no attention to the government doing the heavy lifting behind the curtain, keep your eye on the corporation... Don't get me wrong, that kind of government/corporate partnership can be very dangerous, but lefties never seem to believe that the government itself could be dangerous. I guess the government is to them kind of like guns are to libertarians; just a morally neutral tool, bad only because it's being used by evil capitalists.

  • ||

    JDM,

    Yeah, a trash-talk showdown with the moderator of the forum. Not a level playing field, as I've discovered in the past.

  • ||

    Not really to take the prosecutor's side on this (this case is a travesty all around), but the 'no-knock' rule is irrelevant here. From my reading of the article, the cops had already busted the perp they were looking for and didn't realize that Maye's dwelling was a separate residence. They thought they were accessing another part of the same residence and wouldn't have bothered announcing themselves, regardless of whether they did so when they first got to the premises.

    Call me crazy, but I would think that the cops' mistake as to the address would be a form of intervening causation that would at least mitigate any finding of criminal intent by Maye. To me, the capital murder charge should have been thrown out long before it got to a jury.

    And, obviously, none of this would have happened if the War on Drugs didn't exist.

  • ||

    JD, I agree. Let's say United Fruit really was pure evil. Well, the worst things they did were by way of the government. I'm not saying a megacorporation with zero checks on it couldn't be a bad thing, but that's not the situation today. I've worked for large companies (International Paper, Citigroup), and as powerful and influential as they are, it's amazing how uninfluential and unpowerful they are at the same time. Large corporations worry quite a bit about "reputation risk" and are constantly fighting battles in court, in the media, and at every level of government. They rarely say things like "Screw the people", let me assure you. Not to mention that plenty of executives have left-leaning biases. Ever hear of Bill Gates? I wish they would eschew Washington politics, but the reality is that there's too much to lose by doing so. Once again, Bill Gates could explain that to you.

  • ||

    ChrisO,
    I am not sure how it irrelevant. If the raid was winding down, why go outside to attack the residence from another entrance? I doubt there are many houses where the same residence has rooms that are totally shut off from one another and needing two outside entrances to access. They should either stick to inside passageways or announce with each entrance from outside.

  • ||

    That was evil and beautiful, Mch.

  • ||

    And joe wonders why I am no fan of juries.

  • ||

    Well, obviously, this once again shows why we shouldn't have the death penalty. If it weren't for the death penalty, this guy would only have to spend the rest of his life in jail. Yep, the death penalty is the main problem here.

  • ||

    This brings to mind something G. Gordon Liddy had to say on the subject a few years ago...

  • ||

    Yep, the death penalty is the main problem here.

    Well, no, that he was charged is the main problem. The death penalty for the charges is an additional, gross absurdity that, if enforced, will make it impossible to correct the mistake.

  • ||

    "Yep, the death penalty is the main problem here."

    Actually, the fact that Maye is facing the death penalty probably means there's a lot more public attention focused on the injustice done to him than if he'd been put away for life. That means there's a lot better chance he'll actually be set free. (That is, of course, unless Gov. Barbour decides to be a total asshole and gives us some jive about "he was given a fair trial and judged by a jury of his peers" blah, blah, blah.)

  • ||

    I wish I'd thought of this scenario

  • ||

    "(That is, of course, unless Gov. Barbour decides to be a total asshole and gives us some jive about "he was given a fair trial and judged by a jury of his peers" blah, blah, blah.)"

    I think we all have to be careful in making judgments about the (un)fairness of the trial when we're esentially depending on some dude's blog. For all we know, this blogger may have completely misarticulated the optics of the trial.

  • tomWright||

    This is what the Second Amendment is for.

  • VM||

    "*By discussing Festivus I am in no way trying to show disrespect for Christmas, Hannukah, Kwanzaa, Solstice, or other observations. The mention of more than one holiday in this disclaimer should in no way be interpreted as anti-Christian bias. I am not responsible if somebody has a heart attack over perceived anti-Christian bias. No matter what Dave W. says, I call for Congress to enact legislation shielding me from such liability. Void where prohibited. No purchase necessary."


    WHAT about those states where these sorts of things are prohibited by law????

    mmmm?

    i knew it. yoooooo hate amerika. dontcha.

    splitter!!!!!!!!

    oooh, hi noam.

    (express: pigskin bus to tuna town!)

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    This is the most depressing thing I've read in weeks.

  • Spreadin' It, As Requested||

    Once again, "Judged by a jury of your peers" is a terrifying phrase.

    If you were in defendant Maye's shoes, can you think of a *less* terrifying method or rule or whatever for determining your fate. Assume that the charges have been brought and the State (for whatever reason) is going to want to convict you, as the Mississippi prosecutor wanted to convict Maye here. How would you have your criminal guilt or innocence be determined?

  • ||

    (That is, of course, unless Gov. Barbour decides to be a total asshole and gives us some jive about "he was given a fair trial and judged by a jury of his peers" blah, blah, blah.)

    As someone else pointed out above, hoping for Barbour to pardon him is delusional. His opponent in the next election could be a retarded monkey, but as long as the monkey's handler's run enough ads mentioning Barbour pardoning a cop killer, Barbour will get crushed in the election. A pardon is a political impossibility, no matter how just the cause.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    There should never have been a trial in the first place.

    Hey where's our boys at the ACLU? This is just the stuff they ought to be working on instead of getting their panties in a bunch because some kid said under god in a public school.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement