New at Reason

David Weigel | September 25, 2006

Blogger and scholar Radley Balko played a key role in liberating Cory Maye from death row in Mississippi; in "The Case of Cory Maye," he explains how a man defending his home from a no-knock raid was nearly executed by the state.

Comments

|9.25.06 @ 3:55AM|#

One depressing thing about this case is that Maye only has a chance because he seems to be of 'good character' - babysitting his daughter, stable relationship, no criminal record, decently poor etc etc.

A less appealing man would have had no chance...

|9.25.06 @ 5:05AM|#

The whole case shows that police obeying the 4th and 5th Amendment by erring on the side of civil liberties isn't only to protect the suspects, it also protects the police. Officer Jones would be alive today if he read the constitution.

John M. Joy|9.25.06 @ 5:55AM|#

Yes, Herrick, well, Officer Jones didn't, so he got exactly what he deserved.

JMJ

|9.25.06 @ 6:28AM|#

JMJ, o scholar of logic,
X would have been alive had he seen a doctor earlier = X deserves to be dead since he didn�t ??

|9.25.06 @ 6:46AM|#

Polaris....

Or, X illegally and immorally invaded someone's private property, thus he deserved to be shot. Not dead, but at least shot at, beaten, or otherwise deterred.

If I made my living invading people's homes in order to imprison them wouldn't you suggest that someone should shoot me?

Perhaps a taser would have been more appropriate :-)

John M. Joy|9.25.06 @ 7:23AM|#

What Terrorific said.

JMJ

thoreau|9.25.06 @ 7:26AM|#

Comments about dead cops "getting what they deserved" are probably not the best way to win friends and influence people.

The moderators might also have some thoughts on the matter.

John M. Joy|9.25.06 @ 8:06AM|#

Thoreau:

Tough toenails. Going around kicking in doors at night is a good way to pick up a well-earned Darwin Award.

I'm not out to win friends. And, frankly, it's becoming increasingly apparent that the best persuasive efforts of libertarians and fellow travelers lo these many years is failing to change the course of "policy." Perhaps it's time to take a harder line.

JMJ

|9.25.06 @ 8:39AM|#

I'm way down with the harder line.

"Just following orders" is no excuse; you swore to protect and defend the Constitution, and dereliction in that duty by flash-grenading someone's home and shooting their dog (when it's like, the wrong home half the time) is a good way to...it's been said already. And I am not sympathetic.

|9.25.06 @ 8:45AM|#

Perhaps it's time to take a harder line.

THAT is the funniest fucking thing that I've read in a long goddamn time!! Yeah! Fffwuh! Yeah, that is *always* a great idea when it comes to changing minds. Boy howdy. I mean really. Look how many friends Hugo Chavez won over in New York with his kookmonster "Bush is Satan" routine. I mean really. Talk about results!

|9.25.06 @ 8:59AM|#

Superior Officer: Hey, we'd like you to bust in the door of this dangerous dude's house.

Soon To Be Dead Cop: Isn't that against the Constitution?

SO: Well, we've got this fleet of lawyers with a combined 300 years of law school and 500 years of experience who have looked at the court rulings and the law and have found that we have the Constitutional right to break down this dude's door. How much law school you got under your belt?

STBDC: ...Uh, well, I'll be wearing all this gear and will be pretty pumped up with the possibility of getting shot dead, so I won't really be focused on making the legal announcements.

SO: Don't worry about that. I'll be there making the necessary announcements as you break in the door. Remember, this is a dangerous dude, so we don't want to give him any more warning than we are legally obliged to, and the lawyers say that it's okay.

STBDC: Well, could I talk to the informant to get an idea of just how dangerous this dude is?

SO: Sorry, that info is on a need-to-know basis. We've got to protect our informants as much as possible or they won't give us any extra information, will they?


This is not intended to pretend that Officer Jones questioned his orders like this or that he was even a thoughtful person. This is just intended to show the knowledge environment that Officer Jones was operating in as he committed an act that is obviously illegal to us and is obviously legal to 99% of the lawyers and judges in this country.

|9.25.06 @ 9:04AM|#

I thought about all that after the fact, Rimfax, and realized we can't put to much blame on individuals if their philosophers and scholars are telling them that this is alright. At the same time, how much blame can we ascribe to the individual soldier/actor then? I am just going to run right through Godwin and say that there was 1000 years of precedent that Jews were subhuman and that didn't make it any more morally right what the individual SS Oberscharfuerher did. So since "just following precedent" doesn't really work, and neither does "just following orders", NOR does our legal system allow for "I didn't know" as a valid excuse, Rimfax, what in your mind excuses an individual officer's immoral behavior?

John M. Joy|9.25.06 @ 9:31AM|#

Rimfax:

RE: first post: Were it not for the Revolution, the residents of the middle chunk of the North American continent would likely still be Crown subjects. Were it not for the Easter Rising - even though it FAILED and was supressed - the Lower 26 would not today be the Republic.

And I somehow doubt Chavez was looking to make friends in New York.

Re: the second: what Ayn_Randian said. And see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremburg_defense

JMJ

|9.25.06 @ 9:33AM|#

If they want to call it a WAR on drugs, dead soldiers (i.e. cops) ought to be expected.

Jennifer|9.25.06 @ 9:49AM|#

Right or wrong, guys, the fact is that saying things like "I'm glad that cop is dead and he got what he deserved" won't win friends and influence people. In politics, it doesn't matter if you're right if the majority thinks you're wrong. If you talk about the shameful waste of the lives of Maye and Jones you're more likely to win new people over to the cause.

|9.25.06 @ 9:55AM|#

There is a whole lotta room between "blameless for following orders" and "deserved to die". My take is that the officer was far from blameless, but his circumstances were such that he was far from deserving to die. They didn't even hang the common footsoldiers at Nuremburg.

I very much respect all of your righteous indignation. I share it. I don't apply as much of it towards the dead officer as you do and I strongly feel that you are wrong for doing so.

I think that there is room for hardlining in libertarianism. It's always been a part of the philosophical movement. So is arguing among those who largely agree to help refine the ideology and increase the group wisdom above that of its component parts.

|9.25.06 @ 9:56AM|#

The moderators might also have some thoughts on the matter.

H&R has moderators?

And - Some cops deserve the same thuggery they dish out, but by all accounts this cop was a good one.

John M. Joy|9.25.06 @ 10:01AM|#

Jennifer and Rimfax:

If someone, ANYONE - crook, cop, Christ, Pope, whomever - kicked in your door in the middle of the night, while you had in your care a minor child, and you managed to grab your piece and plug 'em... are you telling me you wouldn't think he deserved it?

JMJ

Larry A|9.25.06 @ 10:07AM|#

What Jennifer said, plus "taking a hard line" with either Officer Jones or his superiors won't work. First because law enforcement doesn't make drug policy and second because cops today have more "hard' than anyone has "line."

What has to happen is replacing the legislators and representatives who write the law the cops are following.

And that's going to take winning the hearts and minds of voters.

Jennifer|9.25.06 @ 10:11AM|#

JMJ, to repeat myself, I'm not expressing sympathy for the cop. I'm just pointing out that the majority of people in this country support the war on drugs, and you can probably find people who'd say that ancient scrap of pot in Mayes' home proves he deserves what he got.

What's the exact chain of events in your mind that starts with you saying "The dead cop deserved what he got" and ends with the country's soccer mommies and NASCAR daddies saying "You're right; let's tell Congress to end the war on drugs?"

More likely, you say "the cop deserved it" and the SMs and NDs look at each other and say "Uh-huh. Only murderous drug addicts and criminal-loving hippies hate the war on drugs, which is all the more reason to keep fighting."

|9.25.06 @ 10:15AM|#

If you talk about the shameful waste of the lives of Maye and Jones you're more likely to win new people over to the cause.

The problem with that thinking is that there already was an outpouring for the senseless waste of Jones' life. And it turned out it was partly Jones' own senselessness that contributed to his death. Even if one supports the war on drugs, sloppy police work is going to result in dead police.

|9.25.06 @ 10:21AM|#

So, basically, Jennifer, you're saying that although you agree with the line of logic and morality that some are expressing, we should stop saying what's correct because some people find it distasteful. We should assume this sucking-up happy face with what the majority has imposed on us because otherwise we "look bad".

I can't be that dishonest with myself. Of course, I always realized that I'd make a bad salesman, but I don't have the stomach to swallow what I think is morally correct and not say anything.

|9.25.06 @ 10:28AM|#

I posted words to this effect on "Hammer of Truth" a while back:

It it my heartfelt wish that, after Mr. Maye is aquitted;

1. He sues the pants off the local yokels that put this dog and pony show together in the first place, if the town suffers, serves them right and maybe they will change for the better.

2. The officers involved are no longer allowed to be professional law enforcement officers anywhere in the US, period.

3. The only gainful employment the ex-officers are able to get is as unarmed security officers guarding a warehouse full of rubber dog shit, in Compton, CA.

|9.25.06 @ 10:34AM|#

are you telling me you wouldn't think he deserved it?

I would plug him, but I wouldn't think that he deserved it. I would lament his death as well, though not as much as the death of my own.

|9.25.06 @ 10:35AM|#

are you telling me you wouldn't think he deserved it?

I would plug him, but I wouldn't think that he deserved it. I would lament his death as well, though not as much as the death of my own.

John M. Joy|9.25.06 @ 10:58AM|#

Jennifer, et al:

The problem is, we've been taking the "child psychology no-spaking" approach to "policy" for years and years now, and IT'S NOT WORKING. We're backsliding into authoritarianism and oppression at an alarming rate.

JMJ

Warren|9.25.06 @ 11:16AM|#

This case is exemplary as a poster child in the War Against The War On Drugs (WATWOGtm). Law enforcement has been arrayed against us as literally front line troops for the opposition.

However, if we are right, then it is in law enforcement's self interest to join our cause. That is true for many reasons. This case illustrates how the in the WOD puts cops lives at risk, and also how readily cops cease to be the good guys. Many cops and ex-cops who spent years fighting the drug war, have come to realize not only it's futility but also their own culpability. Recent years have seen the formation of organizations like Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

We should be courting cops to our side. It's true that they have been (and continue to be) a potent adversary, so too will they prove to be a potent ally. We should not be saying "He got what he deserved". Especially in the case of this cop who had a reputation for courageous character. We should be emphasizing the tragedy of how the WOD turns even the best of cops into thugs and puts their lives at risk, all in an effort that is not only futile but counterproductive.

Jennifer|9.25.06 @ 11:19AM|#

So, basically, Jennifer, you're saying that although you agree with the line of logic and morality that some are expressing, we should stop saying what's correct because some people find it distasteful. We should assume this sucking-up happy face with what the majority has imposed on us because otherwise we "look bad".

No, AR, libertarians should continue to be correct but politically irrelvant, and on election nights we can console ourselves for our losses by indulging in mass circle jerks and saying "Even though we never, ever get our principles applied to the government, at least we know we're right and they're wrong!" And when we look at all the lives that are being destroyed by this drug war, we can say "Although we have accomplished exactly jack shit to improve your situation, O Harmless Drug Prisoner, take heart in knowing that you're right and your jailers are wrong."

Radley Balko, by contrast, was able to rack up an actual accomplishment. And he didn't do it by writing essays where he frothed at the mouth and said "I'm GLAD the cop is dead! Glad, do you hear me? DIE DIE DIE drug-warrior scum!"

John M. Joy|9.25.06 @ 11:30AM|#

It's true that they have been (and continue to be) a potent adversary, so too will they prove to be a potent ally.

No, they won't. Laudable exceptions like LEAP aside (and I'm sure we all have friends in law enforcement who would, in a candid personal conversation, agree with us as well), the bottom line fact remains that they, their colleagues and superiors, are eating off the WoD, prostitution, ... They may dislike the laws they are called to enforce, or the techniques used to enforce them, but enforce they will, since they enjoy taking home a paycheck.

The BATF, after ratification of the Twenty-First, never quite shrunk back to the size it was before ratification of the Eighteenth, did it?

JMJ

|9.25.06 @ 11:32AM|#

Jennifer, maybe you want to tone down the nasty hyperbole a lil' bit; after all, getting nasty (even though you may be right) only pushes the people you're criticizing away from you. In other words, take your own advice.

"stupid, principled libertarians...don't you know your nastiness is what drives people away! I mean, come on, knock off the circle jerks and the cop killing, quit being friggin' idiots and be NICE about things!"

But there's no way you just did that, because that would be some astounding hypocrisy on your part.

John M. Joy|9.25.06 @ 11:44AM|#

Hey, Ayn_Randian, be nice to Jennifer. After all, she is trying to make a point (which could probably be summarized by the old "catch more flies with honey" adage).

Once again, though, we've been taking the nice, rational, calm discussion approach for YEARS now. We've even gotten a few brave souls elected (on the LP ticket or otherwise, e.g. Dr. Ron Paul). But, once again, it ISN'T WORKING. Our ideological position is LOSING.

JMJ

|9.25.06 @ 11:50AM|#

I know that was the point, but arguing that "you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar" by RAINING DOWN torrents of vinegar makes you look, well, hypocritical.

Warren|9.25.06 @ 12:03PM|#

JMJ,
I concede your "we are loosing ground" point. But do you seriously think we'll do better by becoming more militant?

Jennifer|9.25.06 @ 12:32PM|#

Jennifer, maybe you want to tone down the nasty hyperbole a lil' bit; after all, getting nasty (even though you may be right) only pushes the people you're criticizing away from you. In other words, take your own advice.

This is mere interfamily squabbling. But if you were a drug warrior whom I thought might be converted, I'd certainly tone it doen.

Seriously, though: what victories has your vitriol inspired? How many people were moved to hate the WOD by your hatred of cops?

John M. Joy|9.25.06 @ 2:06PM|#

Warren:

I'm going to answer your question with a question, albeit by so doing I'll probably be making what'll likely be perceived as my most cynical posting to date. (I do mean it as a question, though, and would love to see it discussed by the "libertarian community" such that it is.)

Do you think the message of Martin - and the agenda of his followers - would have gained as much traction as it did, were it not for the likes of Malcolm and Huey?

JMJ

|9.25.06 @ 2:36PM|#

Hardliners,

Please, don't make the mistake of assuming that the libertarian anti-prohibition movement has been nothing but "anti-spanking" for all of these years. There have been "hardliners" for decades, but you may have not heard much about them since they are almost universally forgotten in fairly short order.

Please pardon the strawman, but Bush took a similar approach with diplomacy and rediscovered the hard way why "hardline diplomacy" doesn't work either.

|9.25.06 @ 2:46PM|#

Those of you questioning whether Officer Jones was just following orders should read Radley's coverage of the events on his blog. Officer Jones voluntarily went on this raid (which he organized) in spite of not being on the narcotics task force or trained in raid tactics, and the whole thing was based on his own contact with a confidential informant (who was recently revealed to be utterly unreliable and an unrepentant racist).

And even if it had been an order from a direct supervisor that he'd disagreed with, he probably wouldn't have had much problem taking the issue to the sheriff, who was, after all, his father.

Jennifer|9.25.06 @ 3:12PM|#

Annie, I'm not saying that Jones was a great guy; I'm saying that comments like "Jones deserved what he got" won't persuade any current drug-war supporters to change their minds.

|9.25.06 @ 3:15PM|#

annie,

Thanks. That's the kind of information that reasonably chips away at the mitigating factors around Officer Jones culpability. I still don't think that he deserved to die, but I don't really consider him another victim of this atrocity anymore, should this information continue to stand up to scrutiny.

|9.25.06 @ 3:50PM|#

For the "softliners", a man was almost executed, mmmkay? This isn't some ivory-tower head-in-the-clouds shenanigans here, a man almost lost his life because these wanna-be soldiers don't know how to play by the rules that respect the rights of citizens.

Sorry, but if you're going to barge in, cuff 9-year-olds and shoot dogs, all on some dumb CI's say-so...well, again, it's been said already.

|9.25.06 @ 3:52PM|#

For the "softliners", a man was almost executed, mmmkay? This isn't some ivory-tower head-in-the-clouds shenanigans here, a man almost lost his life because these wanna-be soldiers don't know how to play by the rules that respect the rights of citizens.

Sorry, but if you're going to barge in, cuff 9-year-olds and shoot dogs, all on some dumb CI's say-so...well, again, it's been said already.

Jennifer|9.25.06 @ 5:55PM|#

For the "softliners", a man was almost executed, mmmkay?

And the reason he was taken off of death row had everything to do with a "softliner" and nothing to do with some irate guy spraying spittle on his keyboard whilst writing "Jones deseerved to die," mmmkay?

|9.25.06 @ 5:56PM|#

Article Of The Year.

Regarding Hardline vs. Softline. I think the thing to keep in mind is how unnecessary this debate is in light of the fact that Radly Balko's article is as persuasive as our position gets. Instead of arguing whether we should moderate the argument or become more militant (not sure exactly what that would entail), we should just send this article on to the friends and co-workers who are interested in social justice and may be on the fence with regard to the WOD.

|9.25.06 @ 6:40PM|#

It's perfectly reasonable to point out that officer Jones was wrong to do what he did, but there's a giant gap between that point and saying "he deserved to die." Lots of people do things that are wrong that don't deserve to die. However misguided, he was doing something that he thought was right...that doesn't excuse his actions, but he was hardly trying to kill Cory Maye, so I'm not sure why his actions indicate that he "deserves death." Someone who punches me in the face without provocation has done something wrong, but that doesn't mean I wish said person were dead or that I should be allowed to kill him. What Cory Maye did was most likely not wrong (obviously depending on exactly what the facts of the case are) but in a perfect world officer jones would still be alive and preferably no longer employed as a law enforcement official.

Ayn_Randian|9.25.06 @ 6:42PM|#

It's alright, Jennifer...your side can play pat-a-cake and claim credit for "doing something"...the hardliners (like some old dudes from 225 years ago) will keep the latern lit for you when your pragmatism fails.

John M. Joy|9.25.06 @ 6:54PM|#

Not to burst anyone's bubble (and certainly not to dis Radley) - and with all due respect to the arguments of the political pragmatists - but...

I just did a quick Yahoo news search on "Cory Maye" - there were precisely THREE stories returned, all from local-yokel (Poplarville, Miss.) media. While we can all hope that the story will be reported far-and-wee and serve as an inspiration and clarion call for anti-prohibitionism... well, it hasn't happened yet, and if the wires haven't picked it up by now, methinks the meat's gone a bit cold for that pack of wolves.

Here's hoping it will, but I'm not optimistic.

JMJ