Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Rallying Around Ryan Frederick
The Fox affiliate in Hampton Roads reports:
With their signatures, residents are voicing their belief the accused killer, Ryan Frederick, was in the right when he fired that gun as police officers were trying to come through his front door to serve a drug search warrant.
"It left me where I couldn't sleep," said Frederick's neighbor, Sandra Brooks.
Brooks says she will never forget the terror she heard that night in the voices of the officers.
"The panic in their voices, I have a hard time talking about it, I start to tear up, but the panic in their voices as they screamed 'we need CPR, where are the medics?'"
Brooks says her heart goes out to Detective Shivers' family and fellow officers, but she also agrees with the people signing the poster in support of Frederick.
"I believe he was sincere that he did not know what was going on when the officers were coming into the house," said Brooks.
The article also quotes an attorney who says Frederick may be guilty if he was indiscriminately firing through the door. I'll have to do a bit of research into the specifics of Virginia's self-defense law. We also still don't know if Shivers was shot through the door, or after he had made his way through the doorway to Frederick's home. But if someone's attempting to break down your door, I would think you could reasonably assume they present an immediate threat to your safety. Frederick's case probably gets a lot stronger if the police knew he'd been burglarized a few days prior. That would certainly go to his state of mind, and probably should have factored into the way they decided to apprehend him.
In any case, it's good to see at least part of the community is rallying behind him. I've seen more and more acquaintances, co-workers, and friends sticking up for him on various message boards, too. It would be an absolute travesty if this guy were to get life, or worse.
There's also now a MySpace page in support of Frederick. I received an email this morning saying there may soon be a legal defense fund, too.
Prior posts on this case here.
Taktix®|2.7.08 @ 9:27AM|#
Signing the poster in support of Frederick = Signing up to be raided (or otherwise harassed) next.
|2.7.08 @ 9:38AM|#
He may in fact be guilty of some kind of depraved indifference if he really did start blasting rounds indiscriminately at the door. It depends on the facts and his state of mind, which I don't know right now. But there is no way he is guilty of capital murder. That charge is outrageous. This is typical sleezy horseshit that goes on in criminal cases all the time; charge the guy with something totally outrageous that we can't prove and hope that the fear of that charge gets him to plead to what we want so that we don't have to prove our case in court.
Episiarch|2.7.08 @ 9:39AM|#
This is very, very good. This sort of support puts a lot of pressure on the prosecutor and the police to be (more) fair. If they railroad the kid, they now know that there are people watching and that there will be an outcry. Good, good, good.
|2.7.08 @ 9:39AM|#
Well, Taktix, that's just it, they CAN'T raid everybody, they don't have enough money for that and doughnuts.
|2.7.08 @ 9:43AM|#
"If they railroad the kid, they now know that there are people
watching and that there will be an outcry. Good, good, good."
Sadly, I don't think the DA or the cops would really care about the
public outcry. But what this does do is get his side of the story
out to the public and the potential jury pool. Something to
counteract the "we have got a cop killer here" bullshit that the
police and prosecutor have no doubt been putting out to the media
since day one.
|2.7.08 @ 9:44AM|#
He may in fact be guilty of some kind of depraved
indifference if he really did start blasting rounds
indiscriminately at the door.
The key word is "may". Not familiar with Virginia law, but here in
Texas you're allowed to shoot somebody trying to break down your
door. No need to let them in for tea and crumpets to discuss their
intentions.
The simple act of breaking down a door is a crime, and creates a
presumption that the homeowner has reason to defend
themselves.
I suspect this case will come down to the credibility of police
claims that they announced themselves adequately.
FrBunny|2.7.08 @ 9:57AM|#
According to MSNBC, LA SWAT just had their first casualty in 40 years during a "hostage standoff" this morning. I'm looking to Balko as this develops. Condolences to the family.
|2.7.08 @ 10:01AM|#
If he did shoot through the door it would put a much different
spin on things. I was under the impression that he was woken from
sleep when the cops started breaking down his door. On the TV
shows, cops bust down doors with battering rams. It takes less time
than turning the door knob. The only way he could have had time to
draw his gun before they were in his house is if he had a steel
door (not unreasonable if he was recently burgled) but then how did
he shoot through it?
Until we here more, I'm sticking with the, 'roused from his bed, he
pulled his gun from the nightstand and fired at the guy yelling and
pointing a gun at him' theory
|2.7.08 @ 10:05AM|#
a CNN article
about the LA SWAT team thing is still sketchy, but:
"A man barricaded himself in a house after telling police he had
killed three relatives, then exchanged gunfire with a SWAT team,
police said Thursday. One officer was killed and another
wounded."
2 cops got shot (1 fatally) inside the home.
|2.7.08 @ 10:14AM|#
I think it was G. Gordon Liddy who advised citizens to aim their rounds at the heads of SWAT intruders. Something to keep in mind.
Windypundit|2.7.08 @ 10:16AM|#
Shooting through the door sounds like a big mistake. You should
never shoot at targets you can't identify.
(Caveat: News stories miss important tactical details all the time,
so who knows what really happened? It could have been a screen
door.)
Radley Balko|2.7.08 @ 10:22AM|#
The reports I've seen say Frederick shot at Shivers as he was trying to call through a panel at the bottom of the door. Which would probably strengthen Frederick's claim of self-defense. He also apparently called the police after he fired.
Jennifer|2.7.08 @ 10:23AM|#
Shooting through the door sounds like a big mistake. You
should never shoot at targets you can't identify.
Does Ryan Frederick live alone? If he does, then I'd say he's
justified in assuming that anybody stomping through his house in
the middle of the night is out to do him harm.
|2.7.08 @ 10:24AM|#
From what I understand, it sounds like they had pried open a lower panel on the door and officer Shivers was climbing through the whole.
Windypundit|2.7.08 @ 10:25AM|#
So he didn't shoot through the door? He shot a guy who was coming through the door? That would be completely different...
Fluffy|2.7.08 @ 10:26AM|#
The public support is heartening, but unfortunately I don't think it will ultimately make any difference.
|2.7.08 @ 10:28AM|#
"The reports I've seen say Frederick shot at Shivers as he was
trying to call through a panel at the bottom of the door. Which
would probably strengthen Frederick's claim of self-defense. He
also apparently called the police after he fired."
Devil is in the details. It depends on Virginia law. If Virginia
law says that you have a duty to retreat and Frederick fired at a
guy crawling through the door who was not in a position to harm
him, Frederick could be in a lot of trouble. If there is no duty to
retreat and the guy crawling through the door had a gun, then
Frederick is innocent.
As a side note, that cop was an unbelievable dumb ass. Who the hell
crawls through a dog door? From a tactical standpoint, he was just
setting himself up to get shot. If you assume that there is someone
in the house meaning to do you harm, only an idiot would crawl
through the dog door, an action that would take several seconds and
leave you completely exposed to anyone who wants to shoot you.
Whoever ordered him to go through that dog door ought to be up for
negligent homicide.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.7.08 @ 10:29AM|#
If this were a dead civilian rather than a dead cop there would not have been an arrest. Not saying never, just saying there would be an investigation to determine if Ryan Frederick should be charged.
Episiarch|2.7.08 @ 10:34AM|#
John beat me to it, but crawling through a door panel is about
the stupidest, most tactically idiotic thing you could possibly do.
How does that square with a raid? "Hold on, dangerous drug dealers,
I'm going to go HEAD FIRST through a hole in your door."
Or what it means is that the cops didn't think Frederick was
dangerous but felt like raiding for funz and stuffz. Which I bet is
the truth.
Windypundit|2.7.08 @ 10:39AM|#
Does Ryan Frederick live alone? If he does, then I'd say
he's justified in assuming that anybody stomping through his house
in the middle of the night is out to do him harm.
That would be a good bet, but strange things happen. There are a
few legitimate reasons for someone to break-in to your house---the
classic example being a fire rescue squad sent to the wrong
address.
Even if the intruder has no legitimate reason to be there, he
doesn't necessarily deserve a bullet for it. You wouldn't want to
respond to the sound of breaking glass and some furtive movements
in the dark with a hail of gunfire, only to discover that you've
killed your neighbor's dumbass 14-year old kid who thinks it's cool
to steal stuff.
It may be excusable. It may even be justified. But it's not
something you ever want to do.
Identifying your target is just basic gun safety. Hunters aren't
supposed to shoot at rustling noises in the bushes, and homeowners
aren't supposed to shoot at targets they can't see.
anon.|2.7.08 @ 10:47AM|#
That rustling in the bush isn't likely to kill you. That person kicking down your door might.
|2.7.08 @ 10:48AM|#
I don't think it was a dog door, but the bottom panel of the door which they pried loose. It's still tactically stupid.
|2.7.08 @ 10:49AM|#
"You wouldn't want to respond to the sound of breaking glass and
some furtive movements in the dark with a hail of gunfire, only to
discover that you've killed your neighbor's dumbass 14-year old kid
who thinks it's cool to steal stuff."
Depends on the circumstances. If am say my wife who is five feet
tall and she sees some six foot stranger breaking through her
window at two in the morning, I wouldn't blame her for shooting
him, even if it did turn out to be the 14 year old neighbor. She
didn't know that.
As far as your fire and rescue example. They are going to show up
lights and sirens going. Hard to imagine you not knowing who they
were and what they were doing there. No sirens, no lights, just
someone kicking in your door in the middle of the night, I could
totally understand a homeowner shooting first and asking questions
later. Home invasions, while not that common, do happen and if one
ever happens to me, I don't want to be standing there asking
questions while they shoot me and rape my wife.
|2.7.08 @ 10:51AM|#
"It would be an absolute travesty if this guy were to get life,
or worse. "
Better: It IS an absolute travesty that this guy is currently in
jail.
CB
robc|2.7.08 @ 10:54AM|#
You wouldn't want to respond to the sound of breaking glass
and some furtive movements in the dark with a hail of gunfire, only
to discover that you've killed your neighbor's dumbass 14-year old
kid who thinks it's cool to steal stuff.
Eh, lesson learned. He will stop thinking stealing stuff is cool
right quick.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.7.08 @ 11:02AM|#
He will stop thinking stealing stuff is cool right
quick.
When I was 13 my folks went out and left me in charge of my two
younger sisters. Knowing my parents were gone and I was home alone,
a couple friends thought it would be real funny to turn off the
electricity and then make scary noises in the back yard. It worked,
scared the crap outta me and I grabbed my dad's gun and went
looking. Next I heard:
No! No! TWC! It's US! Don't shoot!
They were yelping bloody murder. We all had a good laugh but they
never, ever tried that kind of stuff again. On anybody.
|2.7.08 @ 11:13AM|#
So um, do I have this right? The cops were conducting a night
time raid. While attempting to force their way into the house, they
managed to pry loose a panel on the door. The cop was shot when
CRAWLING through the hole in the door???
What a clusterfuck.
Windypundit|2.7.08 @ 11:17AM|#
If...my wife...sees some six foot stranger breaking through
her window at two in the morning, I wouldn't blame her for shooting
him, even if it did turn out to be the 14 year old neighbor. She
didn't know that.
Of course not. But it would probably bother her for a long time
nonetheless. It's usually best not to shoot until you know you have
to.
I could totally understand a homeowner shooting first and
asking questions later. Home invasions, while not that common, do
happen and if one ever happens to me, I don't want to be standing
there asking questions while they shoot me and rape my
wife.
No, but shooting blindly is still a recipe for disaster. And
depending on your local laws regarding lethal force, it may be a
crime: How can you claim to been in reasonable fear for your life
when in fact you couldn't see any threat? Some states give you that
presumption, some don't.
kinnath|2.7.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Hard to tell from the photo above, but it looks like the front
door is mostly intact.
Anyone that watches TV "knows" that police bust through doors with
a ram. Police don't pry off a panel then crawl through a hole in
the door.
Even if the officer "announced", I'm not sure that a reasonable
person would believe him.
|2.7.08 @ 11:23AM|#
"No, but shooting blindly is still a recipe for disaster. And
depending on your local laws regarding lethal force, it may be a
crime: How can you claim to been in reasonable fear for your life
when in fact you couldn't see any threat? Some states give you that
presumption, some don't."
I wouldn't shoot blindly. But, under the kind of stress where you
fear for you life, you don't shoot perfect either. When you
actually fear for your life, the adrenaline rush is pretty
overwhelming, especially the first time it happens, which is going
to be the case for most homeowners. The idea that I can calmly
finish my coffee and then walk to the door and see who is breaking
it down and if they pose a threat and then calmly defend myself is
out of the movies. In real life you are scared shitless and may or
may not make the right decision. If I am ever in that position, I
honestly hope I don't just freeze up in fear, which happens to some
people. Given that reality, I really can't see how you hold someone
responsible who out of terror cracks off a couple of rounds through
the door at a person trying to break it down in the middle of the
night.
|2.7.08 @ 11:27AM|#
"I think it was G. Gordon Liddy who advised citizens to aim
their rounds at the heads of SWAT intruders. Something to keep in
mind."
Always, always, always put 2 rounds center of mass and then finish
with a head shot.
|2.7.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Before you get all worked up about this, remember, he is a criminal. They found some pot in his house, which, in case you forgot is illegal. He also shot a cop, I don't care what the circumstances are, he needs some punishment. When he heard the break in, he should have called the police, not shot. If this is such a bad idea, how else do you suppose the cops are going to do drug raids?
|2.7.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Identifying your target is just basic gun safety.
Sure, but the question is, to what extent do you need to place
yourself at risk to identify them?
"Unidentified individual breaking into my house" strikes me as a
defensible level of identification. Assuming I could get a clear
shot around the two large dogs that would be attached to the
individual in my house, I might well shoot at that point in the
encounter. I certainly wouldn't convict anyone else of murder if
they did.
Turning the lights on to get a really good look at them and check
for weapons, etc., just gives them time to identify
their targets. There is no requirement that you can only
shoot someone in self-defense if its a fair fight.
|2.7.08 @ 11:37AM|#
If this is such a bad idea, how else do you suppose the cops
are going to do drug raids?
With decent respect for the citizenry, rather than acting like an
occupying army, perhaps? You remember, presumed innocent,
consitutional rights, all that jazz?
|2.7.08 @ 11:37AM|#
"I don't care what the circumstances are, he needs some
punishment. When he heard the break in, he should have called the
police, not shot. If this is such a bad idea, how else do you
suppose the cops are going to do drug raids?"
I am going to feed the troll. How about go up and knock on the door
and give the person inside a chance to answer? There is no reason
to kick down the door on a petty drug raid. No one is going to turn
a drug conviction into a capital case by shooting a cop. The cops
put themselves in more danger by kicking down doors because it
increases the chance that the person inside will accidentally shoot
them. Yes, that may allow some people a chance to destroy evidence,
but if this guy had really been a serious grower he couldn't have
destroyed that much evidence and hey if it saves the life of one
cop, it is worth it isn't it?
The fact that this guy had a small amount of marijuana doesn't mean
that he deserved to get his door kicked down or no longer has a
right to defend himself. The fact is that cops can't get there
quick enough and people have a right to defend themselves in their
homes. You don't want to get shot, stop kicking in doors.
|2.7.08 @ 11:42AM|#
"""No! No! TWC! It's US! Don't shoot!"""
When I was a kid, you didn't screw around like that unless you
liked the burn of rock salt
|2.7.08 @ 11:44AM|#
The fact that this guy had a small amount of marijuana
doesn't mean that he deserved to get his door kicked down or no
longer has a right to defend himself.
You realize even owning a gun counts as "using a gun during a drug
felony", which is a mandatory 5 years on to of the drug conviction
he so deserves.
The fact is that cops can't get there quick enough and people
have a right to defend themselves in their homes.
Perhaps, but owning the gun there is a greater statistical chance
of having an accident and dying from it than using it successfully
in self defense, the police are supposed to protect you.
With decent respect for the citizenry, rather than acting like
an occupying army, perhaps?
They are an occupying army, it is the WAR on drugs, which overall
protects us from dangerous drugs.
NoStar|2.7.08 @ 11:52AM|#
I am amazed that even as young as 13, our friend was called The Wine Commonsewer.
|2.7.08 @ 12:24PM|#
So basically he is being supported because he is a white
guy?
I am not surprised. I mean it's a good thing he has some support,
obviously.
One of the differences with Cory Maye ( for example) is a lot of
"traditional" property/gun rights folks have long supported
property defense- as long as you are a white homeowner. After all,
how was he supposed to know that it was police and not some scary
black robbers?
A poor black guy with a couple joints- well he should assume the
police are knocking down his door. Since he is a born criminal with
no rights.
Jennifer|2.7.08 @ 12:28PM|#
You wouldn't want to respond to the sound of breaking glass
and some furtive movements in the dark with a hail of gunfire, only
to discover that you've killed your neighbor's dumbass 14-year old
kid who thinks it's cool to steal stuff.
John already made my point for me; if I'm alone and someone breaks
in in the middle of the night, I'm not going to take the time to do
a psychiatric evaluation of the intruder to determine whether or
not he intends me any physical harm.
|2.7.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Thomas you koolaide drinking dumbass. You keep believing the
police will protect you. I only hope you need it soon so when they
don't show up in time to protect you you will be beaten or killed
then we won't have to listen to your stupid statements that show
you have no ability to think for yourself. Easier to let the
politicians do that for you isn't it?
Seriously dude get a clue.. Or give us your address and I will see
if I can get a late night visit from the local LEO at your home
@3am. Then you can invite them in to blow them all since you suck
up everything else they say so well.
Its people like you who I hope get invaded since you seem to
careless about it.
Jennifer|2.7.08 @ 12:31PM|#
Dee, Thomas is a troll who is simply looking for attention. You wouldn't waste time and effort responding to a four-year-old who called you a "stupid poopyhead," would you? It's the same basic thing.
ChrisO|2.7.08 @ 12:36PM|#
So basically he is being supported because he is a white
guy?
Wow, congratulations on making shit up out of thin air.
Windypundit|2.7.08 @ 12:37PM|#
John, so I'm saying it would be a mistake, and you're saying it
would be a reasonable mistake, and I'm saying it would be still be
a mistake, and you're saying it would be an understandable mistake,
and I'm saying it would be a regrettable mistake...
I think we're in agreement.
|2.7.08 @ 12:45PM|#
Self Defense under VA law can either be justifiable or
excusable. A homicide is justified "when a man, in defense of his
person, habitation or property, kills another, who manifestly
intends and endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a
forcible or atrocious felony upon either." Smith v. Comm. 165 Va.
776. However, to use this defense, one must be without fault "to
the minutest degree". This means that one cannot have provoked the
attacker in any way. However, intoxication has been ruled as not
being a fault. Deadly force in defense of property seems to be
limited to cases of burglary or arson which means offense against
habitation, not property. Further, the castle doctrine allows the
use of deadly force in one's home without having to retreat.
If the shooting wasn't legally justified, it may still be legally
excused. If they are at fault, they must retreat but may use force
if pursued at retreat is not an option.
In either case the fear must be reasonable, imminent and
"manifested by an overt act of the deceased". Also, the burden of
proof is on the defendant.
Fluffy|2.7.08 @ 12:45PM|#
John hits the nail on the head.
This cop is dead for a pretty straightforward reason: because it's
difficult to enforce some contraband laws if police follow common
law procedures and knock, announce, and allow the target of the
warrant to read the warrant before they conduct their search. That
leads to surprise raids that aren't really designed to enhance
officer safety, but to prevent the destruction of evidence.
You might think that if you can't find a way to wedge your
contraband laws into traditional warrant procedures, that might
tell you that there was something wrong with your contraband laws.
But nooooooooooooooooooo.
Fluffy|2.7.08 @ 12:48PM|#
Pedro, is this your first day on this site or something?
Radley's OBSESSION is no-knock police raids, regardless of the race
of the target. It has nothing to do with this guy being white.
|2.7.08 @ 12:51PM|#
Shooting an innocent person is a mistake. Be it at the hand of cop or citizen. The issue is what happens next. If self defense is an excuse for the mistake, so be it. The problem is the inequality of self defense rules between cops and citizens. If a cop shoots an innocent person in self defense they claim it is just. If a person shoots a cop in self defense, they want to call it murder.
|2.7.08 @ 12:58PM|#
I, for one, am proud of people who knew him for publicly standing up for him at a time when it could hurt their own reputations to support a "dope fiend"/"cop killer." This is the time when most of the public jumps ship and sings the national anthem while denouncing the drug user as just another criminal we have to defeat to save "the children." I wish nothing ill of anybody, but hopefully this won't be one of those times when they all end up waving the American flag at his execution.
|2.7.08 @ 12:58PM|#
Fluffy, I'm not sure if it's about law, or the power to make people submit like a $1000 dominatrix can. I think it's more about the exercise of power over people.
Windypundit|2.7.08 @ 1:01PM|#
if I'm alone and someone breaks in in the middle of the
night, I'm not going to take the time to do a psychiatric
evaluation of the intruder to determine whether or not he intends
me any physical harm.
No, but you'd recognize your neighbor's idiot kid, wouldn't
you?
I'm not saying you shouldn't shoot at strangers breaking into your
home, I'm saying you shouldn't shoot when you don't know who or
what you might hit.
The history of armed self-defense is filled with people who shot in
perfectly legal self defense at identified threats and still
managed to kill someone who didn't need killing.
The first one that comes to mind is when Rodney Peairs killed
Yoshihiro Hattori in Louisiana. Peairs was acquitted, but according
to Wikipedia, he did have to stand trial, and he did end up paying
$650,000 in the civil action. And this was, remember, an excusable
shooting, not a reckless shot at an unidentified target.
Hattori's parents gave some of that money to the gun control lobby,
and every time someone gets shot who didn't obviously have it
coming, it helps out the gun grabbers a little more. If for no
other reason, let's not contribute to the problem.
TrappedEastOfTheBigMuddy|2.7.08 @ 1:02PM|#
I always wish I knew what actually happened with these reports.
Taking the fact as reported in Hit&Run as gospel, I find it
hard to blame Mr. Frederick.
The fact that this guy had a small amount of marijuana doesn't mean that he deserved to get his door kicked down or no longer has a right to defend himself.
You realize even owning a gun counts as "using a gun during a drug felony", which is a mandatory 5 years on to of the drug conviction he so deserves.
Back when I lived in that part of the world, I read the parts of
the Virginia code that deal with "weapons". For some parts I went
to the W&M law library and read a annotated version with lots
of caselaw notes.
My take: much of it can be properly traslated as "All subjects of
the Commonwealth are required to be willing victims."
Sic semper tyrannus, indeed.
Jennifer|2.7.08 @ 1:04PM|#
No, but you'd recognize your neighbor's idiot kid, wouldn't
you?
Not unless he glows in the dark. The thing about
middle-of-the-night break-ins is they happen in the middle of the
night, when the sun is not shining in my hemisphere, the lights in
my house are turned off, and I likely wouldn't see more than a
silhouette against the window. I could pick my neighbor's kid's
illuminated face out of a line-up, but I doubt I could identify his
silhouette.
Fluffy|2.7.08 @ 1:08PM|#
Fluffy, I'm not sure if it's about law, or the power to make
people submit like a $1000 dominatrix can. I think it's more about
the exercise of power over people.
I think it's a little of both.
And it's on a feedback loop.
The contraband laws can't be successfully enforced. This frustrates
law enforcement, so they periodically up the ante and escalate the
means of enforcement. Since this still doesn't work, law
enforcement frustration continues to build and expresses itself in
the brutalization of the targets of the enforcement.
How common was it to be strip searched for a minor arrest 35 years
ago? How did it become common? It became common, I submit, both
because "evolutionary evasion" of the contraband laws led to more
and more inventive ways of hiding drugs. It also led to a desire by
law enforcement to humiliate arrest subjects, since nothing else
seemed to be working. So now we basically rape people arrested for
disorderly conduct because someone, somewhere, might be hiding
drugs on their person and because law enforcement must demonstrate
that such defiance will not be allowed to succeed.
It's all the same thing. The same escalation has occurred in every
area of law enforcement.
|2.7.08 @ 1:32PM|#
What's this "destruction of evidence" bullshit. Look there's
simply no way you can Destroy a grow room in the time it takes the
cops to knock on your door and wait for you to answer, and then
shout "Open up Mr Frederick. It's the police. We have a search
warrant." through a bull horn for twenty minutes. And THEN break
down the door.
Even if he was just a simple dealer. If he's sitting on pounds of
dope, you can't just flush that much vegetation down the toilet.
Maybe you could rinse a sizable amount of coke or heroin away. But
for pot, there is no excuse for night raids.
|2.7.08 @ 1:52PM|#
Warren,
You are right. No serious dealer or grower is going to be able to
destroy all of the evidence in the few minutes it takes for the
cops to indentify themselves and let the person come to the
door.
Cops kick in doors and do this stuff because it is fun. It makes
for great press releases and it is fun to run around with a gun and
kick in doors. Why did the ATF show up with machine guns and
helicopters to arrest David Koresh when it was known that they guy
often went into town and jogged outside his compound every morning?
Because they wanted to give a big show to the media. That is all
this stuff is about. Having fun and getting good headlines.
|2.7.08 @ 1:54PM|#
"""What's this "destruction of evidence" bullshit. Look there's
simply no way you can Destroy a grow room in the time it takes the
cops to knock on your door and wait for you to answer,"""
Yeah, even more so when the grow room is not attached to the house.
Frederick would have had to exit his house to run into the garage
where the alledged grow room was, or wasn't in this case.
|2.7.08 @ 1:58PM|#
""Cops kick in doors and do this stuff because it is
fun.""
That's half of it John. The other half is that it is an act of
force. A force intended to prove to the people on the other side
that a bunch of badass mothers are in coming, you better submit or
else.
|2.7.08 @ 2:01PM|#
Deadly force in defense of property seems to be limited to
cases of burglary or arson which means offense against habitation,
not property. Further, the castle doctrine allows the use of deadly
force in one's home without having to retreat.
Assuming that's a good summary of the law in VA, I would say he has
a hell of a defense IF the jury doesn't buy the cops claim that
they announced themselves adequately in advance.
LarryA|2.7.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Trollfeeding:
When he heard the break in, he should have called the police,
not shot.
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
Perhaps, but owning the gun there is a greater statistical
chance of having an accident and dying from it than using it
successfully in self defense,
Please cite any evidence you have for this disproved myth.
the police are supposed to protect you.
Not. Numerous court cases have decided that police have
absolutely no duty to protect individual
citizens.
|2.7.08 @ 6:10PM|#
LarryA: Not. Numerous court cases have decided that police have
absolutely no duty to protect individual citizens.
If true, that's horrifying. Any links?
|2.7.08 @ 7:44PM|#
Shirt, "Castle Rock v. Gonzales" should get you started. Come back if you can't find something horrifying.
|2.8.08 @ 1:52PM|#
Regardless of the consequences of putting my name on that sign, I'm doing it. Ryan is my friend, and even if I had no clue who he was, I would still do it. Remember, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King. If you don't stand up for this young man, if you are afraid of your home being raided for SIGNING YOUR NAME ON A SIGN OF SUPPORT, then you are part of the problem. You have to stand up for what you believe is right, and that is precisely what all of us who believe in this are doing. PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS!
|2.8.08 @ 9:52PM|#
If he gets out anytime soon, I can pretty much guess what'll happen to him next. Anyone care to take a stab? And that is exactly what's wrong with us in these times. We assume guilt before the verdict of his peers. Even with the evidence of a grow house, we still assume guilt before the verdict of his peers. We've lost our way.
Mike Ockurts|2.8.08 @ 11:54PM|#
Way to play the crybaby race card there Pedro when you dont actually have a legitimate argument. Your always the perpetual victim.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245