Marvin Guy, Who Shot a Cop During a No-Knock Raid, Is Found Guilty of Murder
He is not the first defendant that has struggled to reconcile the controversial raids with self-defense.

A jury in Texas on Tuesday convicted a man of murdering a local police officer in a case that pitted no-knock raids against the right to self-defense.
Marvin Guy, who waited in jail for over nine years before his trial, was found guilty of murdering Detective Charles Dinwiddie, whom Guy said he mistook for an intruder after a SWAT team in 2014 smashed his bedroom window and tried to break into his home with a battering ram during a 5:45 a.m. drug raid. The panel declined, however, to convict him of capital murder and instead opted for murder, meaning they did not agree—at least not unanimously—that Guy knew he was shooting at law enforcement.
The raid was the product of a no-knock warrant, which police pursued in response to a tip that Guy had been dealing cocaine, and which allowed them to break into Guy's apartment without first identifying themselves.
On May 9, 2014, before the sun rose, about two dozen officers arrived at Guy's residence. The team struggled to fully penetrate the door with their battering ram; something was blocking it from behind. One officer accidentally detonated his stun grenade, inflaming what was already a raid rapidly going awry.
Guy, who lived in a high-crime area, said he was woken up and assumed the police were criminals trying to break into his home. He had allegedly been on edge about such a situation: One of his neighbors had reportedly been victimized similarly a week before when an intruder choked her after forcing entry by way of her first-floor window. Guy allegedly hit four officers, killing Dinwiddie and prompting police to fire over 40 rounds in return.
The prosecution, however, theorized that Guy had somehow come to know the police were coming and that he'd set a trap to "ambush" them. "One man's ambush is another man panicked, being scared his home is being broken into," countered Jon Evans, Guy's defense attorney.
Key to the defense's case were the frenzied circumstances characteristic of many no-knock raids—namely that it was set in motion without warning and before dawn, when the target is likely to be disoriented. A witness for the government testified the first day that during such raids it was department policy to shine a light into the home so police could see in but the subject couldn't see out.
The prosecution concluded their case on Thursday with testimony from Dinwiddie's widow, Holly, in what was effectively a victim impact statement. "He had a zest for life," she said. "He woke up happy." The defense rested the same day after calling one witness: retired Killeen Police Department Commander Scott Meads, who conducted an administrative review of the raid and identified several tactical errors and concerns, including that the officers were confused over the apartment's layout.
Texas has the Castle Doctrine, the legal principle that entitles someone to stand their ground in their home if they perceive a deadly threat. That protection evaporates, however, if the person is engaged in illegal activity. Law enforcement allegedly found traces of white powder on Guy's apartment floor, in his car, and in the trash, though the government did not charge him with a drug crime.
He is not the first defendant who has struggled to reconcile no-knock raids with the right to protect yourself. As I wrote earlier this month:
In 2020, Breonna Taylor was killed by police during a similar raid after her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, grabbed a firearm he legally owned and fired one shot at police, believing them to be intruders. (Police claim they announced themselves before breaking down Walker's door; Walker says he didn't hear them.) Charges against him were ultimately dismissed.
But not everyone's case attracts the attention of the world. Guy—who was held on $4 million bond and whose trial was delayed multiple times due to his poor health; the COVID-19 pandemic; defense attorneys leaving or being terminated; and arguments with the District Attorney's office over obtaining evidence—will find out his fate next week at sentencing. Prosecutors originally wanted the death penalty, which they agreed to drop last year in order to expedite the almost decade-long pretrial process.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Y’all got this one wrong.
I’am making over $20k a month working online. I kept seeing how some people are able to earn a lot of money online, so I decided to look into it. I had luck to stumble upon something that totally changed my life. After 2 months of searching, last month I received a paycheck for $19683 for just working on the laptop for a few hours weekly. And best thing is..It’s so Easy…
.
.
.
HERE———————≻≻≻≻≻ https://Www.Salarypay5.com
No Knock raids should be illegal.
And who wouldn't respond the same way to someone coming through their bedroom window in the dark.. The jury got this one wrong.
Some questions:
1) What is a "battering ham" and is it as delicious as it sounds?
2) What was blocking the door that was thwarting said ham from allowing the officers inside?
3) Did the cops ever say what the "white powder" was? I'm assuming if it was actually cocaine that would have been brought in the case (via drug charges of some kind).
2) What was blocking the door that was thwarting said ham from allowing the officers inside?
Ah! I read "The team struggled to fully penetrate the door with their battering ram; something was blocking it from behind." as a gay thing, something was blocking the ram from behind.
It makes much more sense that something was blocking the door.
You are bacon the question.
I prefer my ham glazed, not battered.
If you haven't been convicted yet, what purpose is the widow's impact statement ? Shouldn't that be for after you've been convicted and being sentenced ?
Prosecutors get away with this bullshit all the time. Different states have different rules for admitting it, but the general idea is prove the harm of the crime. The rules probably meant for this be a minimal thing, but it’s utterly typical to being on a grieving widow or grieving mother so she can cry on the stand because the defendant is a bad man that needs to be found guilty.
Without any implication to Guy's case, not 100% sold that it doesn’t work both ways, that the mother of every up-and-coming rapper who was turning their life around before getting plugged doesn’t also get to take the stands against the alleged murderer.
He has been convicted
Not according to the article you just misread: "The prosecution concluded their case on Thursday with testimony from Dinwiddie's widow, Holly, in what was effectively a victim impact statement."
Punk Boogers does NOT care about FACTS! Punk Boogers ONLY cares about Tribes, and about Skin Color!
From the title:
Marvin Guy, Who Shot a Cop During a No-Knock Raid, Is Found Guilty
of Murder
And OJ Simpson was found NOT guilty! Whoop-de-fucking WOOOO!!!
He hadn't been convicted yet when she made her statement.
It wasn't entered as an impact statement - the author is pointing out that it *effectively* was one.
And it was done in this underhanded manner to sway the jury.
Texas...
Unfortunately, I rarely see competent juries. They don't understand the law, but they know the police and the DA do so obviously the man must be guilty of something. Even an interview with police is evidence of guilt to the juries I've seen. I don't have the facts to make a judgment, but I am aware there are a lot of police and DA abuses without accountability.
The one jury I was on kept going back to the judge about what “reasonable doubt “ meant.
One needs a familiarity with what reasoning is to understand the concept of reasonable doubt.
Consider that you can't get a jury of your peers. Your typical citizen who knows what being on a jury is about is absolutely the last person a prosecutor wants during jury selection.
The best you can get is a group of people, most of whom are either unemployed or too dumb to get out of jury duty.
When I want a jury of my peer I go to church and pray to god
Gotta' have 12 of 'em.
Frankly, reading polytheist mythology -- Greek, Norse, etc -- I do NOT want those vindictive, bickering SOBs judging me.
Reasonable doubt? It's not enough that cops use a battering ram to try to gain entrance? Did he think it was the tooth fairy at the door? They flashed lights through the windows.
Did he ask who was at the door and why they were there? Someone sure wanted to talk to him for some reason but he certainly didn't want to talk to them. Did he tell them to go away and leave him alone?
What would an unsuspecting, reasonable person do in this situation? Be afraid, yes. Shoot the first person coming through the door, most likely knowing it's police, wrong. Having firearms training, I understand you never aim a gun at an unknown target.
So many questions unanswered in the article, although the jury probably had these questions.
It would be nice if this happened to you. I'm sure that at 5:30 in the morning if someone bashed in your door, you'd greet them with coffee and blueberry muffins. In fact, since you're such an easy to get along with person, you should sell your gun because you don't need it.
Way to go, EdG! A GREAT and "edgy" response!
"Having firearms training, I understand you never aim a gun at an unknown target."
You're out hunting, and a LOUD, outraged growing sound thrashes through the dense bushes, straight at you! It is 3 yards away, and all you see is FEAR of the loud growling sound! So do you shoot, or perhaps prepare a cup of tea, and bake a cake? Prepare to REASON with the possible threat, perhaps?
The cops broke a window while pounding at the door. He shot at those breaking the window. He surrendered once he realized it was the police.
You can probably look up the transcript online.
So your logic is that if someone is breaking into your apartment in the middle of the night, you must assume they are police because who else would do that? And somehow this is in support of the state?
Only cops flash lights and break doors down?
And here's another question - why should cops be immune from being attacked when serving no-knocks? Especially when they could have come by at 0700 and knocked politely?
They shined the light specifically so they could see him, but he couldn't see them. I suspect the warrant was also illegal. Just uttering the magic word "drugs" doesn't justify a no-knock warrant. And not that it would make it any better, but did they even find any drugs? It's only mentioned that they found "white powder". I have several white powders in my home, none of which are drugs. (Then again, I never actually tried snorting flour or laundry detergent, so who knows.)
I live in a fairly quiet neighborhood, but anybody forcing their way into my house in the middle of the night is gonna get lit up. Police announce themselves, and "Open up, this is the-" *wham! as the ram breaks the door down* doesn't count. People who break in to seize my (alleged) drugs are criminals. I don't give a shit if they are wearing badges. Oh, and keep in mind that these Keystone Kommandos don't always wear uniforms or badges.
Even if you believe the drug war is anything other than an immoral failure, this kind of raid is freaking stupid. It endangers both cops and innocent citizens. Deliberately creating chaos and confusion is a recipe for violence.
There is an episode of the old Brain Games show on how people don't remember things worth a damn and are easily manipulated into thinking the wrong things. Made me think I never want to wind up in court. If I'm accused of a crime I will die trying to escape rather than trust my life to a jury.
Juries follow jury instructions. When in doubt, they ask the judge. That's what's supposed to happen.
Yes, that is what's supposed to happen. If you think it actually does, you should have a look at this bridge I have for sale. Juries have been neutered into little more than rubber stamps, even the one case in twenty that actually goes to trial.
One thing I learned clerking was I'd never want to leave my fate in the hands of a jury...
He had every right to kill the intruder. Texas is literally a police state.
You can't have a police state without police.
There is no shortage of police in Texas.
They are down one.
He had no right to kill a police officer, doing his duty.
Police states don't let their citizens have guns.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/34787-germans-who-wish-to-use-firearms-should-join-the-ss
“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -- ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State.”
― Heinrich Himmler
^^ right wing nut job
left wing dipshit ^^^^
He had every right to shoot an intruder. The police had no right to break into his apartment in the middle of the night over some powder that they never even managed to officially claim was drugs.
He should have had ordinary self-defence rights, and it appears that his were not respected.
However, the police had a warrant, so they had the legal right to break into his house, and they too had self-defence rights.
Armed assault and armed defence = high risk of injury and death, but that's why the cops get paid the big bucks, I suppose. In any case, this doesn't sound like a "murder" (not to mention a capital murder) to me.
"He had no right to kill a police officer, doing his duty."
You don't know that. The jury said so, but we don't really know whether he was exercising right to SD.
If breaking into people's homes at zero-dark-thirty is a cop's duty, then it's fundamentally immoral to be a cop.
Terrible verdict IMO.
Very rare for me to play the racism card. But you gotta wonder what would happen if a white good old boy in Texas shot anybody who entered his home in that fashion. Guy obviously wasn't in possession of drugs because they didn't charge him for it. It would've made their case a lot easier if they had found drugs. White powder in the car and on the carpet. He's a big fat guy. Maybe it was sugar from a doughnut. Even a trace amount of cocaine could've been analyzed. I hope he has some appeal options open to him. Also, it's pretty outrageous that anybody in a libertarian forum is arguing that the cops should've been anywhere near somebody for a drug crime that shouldn't have been against the law in the first place.
There are plenty of stories where white people get killed by cops, they don't make national headlines because it doesn't fit the narrative
After nine and a half years the prosecution has had time to run tests on the powder. If it was drugs then they needed to provide those test results. White powder is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of drugs.
Who are Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas? Shitty Racialist Grievance Mongering for $1000 Alex.
Tuttle and Nicholas were killed. They didn't kill a cop and live.
Henry Magee, OTOH, did kill an armed home invader with a badge, and a grand jury No True Billed his case. Different Texas jurisdiction, but still Texas. Marvin Guy killed an armed home invader on May 9th, 2014. Henry Magee killed one, Deputy Adam Sowder on Dec. 19th, 2014.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/02/10/some-justice-in-texas-the-raid-on-henry-magee/
You don't know Texas, do you?
The white guy would be in the same position.
Its never been about racism, its always been about power - you're not cop, you're little people. And cops don't do no-knocks on rich white people, only poor, powerless ones - same as they don't do no knocks on rich black people.
I hope the jury all dies in misery and pain. Fucking scum.
I think the hardest part of this is coming to terms with the fact that if no-knock raids are ostensibly for officer safety, and the cops still end up dead as they conduct them - then why not bullhorn their presence in the first place?
If the dealer starts shooting, then we've got a legit OIS. If he escapes, then 5-0 didn't properly secure the area. If he takes hostages, there's a special separate unit for that - and we don't have to MMQ it after the fact.
I am not saying I agree with this, but typically the rationale is that the suspect will destroy evidence (e.g., flushing drugs) if cops knock and take the time to ID themselves before breaking in.
Ever try to flush a stash large enough for you to be at least a reasonable sized dealer? I don't mean having an ounce or less for dealing to friends. For such a small fish they wouldn't do a no knock. Just grab him as he leaves home for the day.
Odds are if you flushed a real dealer sized stash your toilet would back up and the water would test very positive for drugs.
.
IANAL but, if I were, I would advice people not to answer that question.
It's never about officer safety. For really, really dangerous people, they typically surround the place and force them to surrender, or else ambush them outside the home. Breaking in is about power and the ability to "preserve evidence," because its apparently OK to not already have tons of evidence before breaking into someone's home in the middle of the night. "Officer safety" is just the BS they tell everyone because court eat it up and almost no one has the balls to tell police to their face what we all know: that their safety is far less important than our rights.
The whole literal justification for no-knocks is - what if they flush the evidence down the toilet.
I am not making that shit up. They wanted no-knocks not because of 'dangerous drug dealers' but to prevent drug dealers from flushing 50 pounds of coke down the john before they can get in.
Turning off the water supply would probably help--one flush is better than three...
Picking a door lock is so unbelievably easy I think they use the ram hoping to create a reason to shoot.
I've actually picked locks for the police in Denver Colorado. The DA didn't want to pay for new doors so his no knock raids were done with the only single locksmith that worked for the company picking the lock while the cops were all outfitted for a zombie apocalypse.
Far more effective and safe for everyone except the locksmith... they wouldn't give me q bullet resistant vest and helmet. Assholes.
Did it ever occur to you to say no?
At 10 times his hourly rate? Are you kidding me;)
If they used a pro locksmith to breach during a no-knock raid, that is a such an extremely high level of irresponsibility that I simply can't...
Oh wait. Cops. Yup, I believe they would do that. It really didn't occur to me that they would use an actual locksmith, but yeah, of course.
Since when did police start paying for busted doors? I thought they just said fuck you because they know insurance won't cover it.
I think you've been watching too much tv. Have you ever seen the tools a pro locksmith brings to bear to get the job done? Even then it takes a few minutes. Understand, this is what they do day in and day out. Sorry NCIS, you cannot pick a lock with a bobby pin.
I learned to pick locks as a hobby. I'm not that great at it. Padlocks are fairly easy while a front door is not.
That said, the tools are rather simple. Just need something for tension and something to rake the pins.
I managed to pick a simple padlock with tools made from paper clips. So I imagine a more skilled person could pick a front door with the same.
Search youtube for lock picking videos. A pro can absolutely get the job done quickly.
Depends on the lock. If it's a high-security cylinder, they'd need power tools to open it quickly, and at that point they may as well just use the ram.
The theory that he knew the police were coming and purposely ambushed them seems a big stretch. How could he have known in advance? Does he have a cop on the take? And if he did want to kill cops just to kill cops (is there any evidence he would?), why ambush them in his own house when there's a large team of them, rather than in some dark alley when there's only two?
Only a jury of people too stupid to get out of jury duty could find the ambush story credible.
I thought this guy was shot by his dad.
Hell of an R&B singer.
What a Guy.
He came out of the closet, and now everyone knows he is Guy.
To the person in the house, a no-knock warrant is indistinguishable from a home invasion. They need to be banned for the sake of the police and the citizens.
A witness for the government testified the first day that during such raids it was department policy to shine a light into the home so police could see in but the subject couldn't see out.
Note to self: If I ever need to invade someone else's home with hostile force, shine lights into the building so that I can see in but the people inside can't see out.
If it didn't come with a high probability of being shot, it'd almost be worth it just to fuck with the people who thinkg NODs and IR lasers are essential pieces of home defense gear.
Don't forget to buy some uniform shirts off the internet - complete with patches that look good from a distance.
And yell *POLICE* as you break the door down. Then run in and start thwacking while yelling 'stop resisting'!
When people get shot by the cops its suicide-by-cop. When cops break into your house in the middle of the night looking for "alleged cocaine" it ought to be suicide-by-homeowner.
Terrible verdict. He had a legitimate concern about a home invasion and should have the right to defend himself.
Saying "Well, they had a warrant" is immaterial if the defendant does not know that and they just burst into his house.
These prosecutors should be subjected to a No-Knock Raid in the middle of the night and then tested on the validity of their perceptions.
No-Knock Raids should be illegal except under extreme conditions and even then only after a special request reviewed by a panel of judges and with the understanding that if the police and judges are wrong that they are waving any claims of Qualified Immunity and can be prosecuted and sued.
I strongly suspect that the perceptions of the prosecutors will be far different from the arguments they make in court. The role of a prosecutor should be getting to the truth, but for many it is simply about winning and racking up another conviction regardless of the truth. This type of prosecutor is more vile than the criminal because they are less honest. The criminal, who is bad is at the least honestly bad. This type of prosecutor is pretending to be good and virtuous, but at the core is maliciously rotten and disgusting.
Not all prosecutors are this type of vile self-serving creature, but it is difficult for honest prosecutors to exist in the judicial system. We do want criminals to be prosecuted and pay for their misdeeds, however we don't want to prosecute and imprison innocent people. Far too often innocent people are imprisoned due to zealous prosecutors who bend the truth, fabricate evidence, and outright lie.
I like to think of how I would react is woken up in the middle of the night. The confusion and chaos simply put would chaotic and very confusing. Even if the police who are participating in the No-Knock Raid happen to be nice people, in the moment with all of the chaos and confusion they would be see as a threat by any reasonable person.
Expecting the victim of a No-Knock Raid to make an accurate snap judgement that the hostile intruder in the middle of the night who came into the room effectively unannounced is a nice decent police officer is ludicrous.
The event often takes seconds, not minutes. We are not talking about a standoff where the person would have time to absorb the situation and collect their thoughts. We are talking about mere moments in time. At most this would have been manslaughter.
Exactly. The problem is, as always, that there ARE valid reasons to do no knock raids (hostages and the like), o we have to have a legal framework that allows for them, but every time we give law enforcement a tool to handle extreme cases, they deploy them in situations of ever increasing quantity and ever decreasing necessity. As far as I'm concerned, a robust expectation that residents can and might deploy legal self-defense measures when in doubt coupled with aggressive prosecution of police misconduct is the only way forward. So far we have neither of those, and the state likes it that way.
Too bad he only killed one.
Marvin Guy, Who Shot a Cop During a No-Knock Raid, Is Found Guilty of Murder
I can't help humming 'What's Goin On?'
great song!
All of this whining about the conviction is BS. Mr. Guy (a) is lucky to be alive, as the cops had the right to defend themselves and (b) Guy put himself in this position by being suspected of wrongdoing. I am tired of our boys in blue dying at the hands of guilty suspects who are supposed to know the cops are coming for them. And it's obvious he knew that they could be coming because he had barricaded his door. That shows that he was up to no good--homeowners don't have the right to do this and then claim self-defense, and I am sure that this makeshift trap violates zoning laws. And it's appalling that the death penalty was taken off the table. He prepared for the eventuality of a police action--the raid was in the morning; so he was bright-eyed and bushy tailed. Alleged grogginess and disorientation is just a made-up story that defense attorneys try to bamboozle juries with, and it's great that this jury saw that adrenaline focuses the mind instantaneously, and if he actually was groggy or disoriented, why was he shooting? You don't have the right to be groggy and fire a weapon, particularly when you are suspected of a crime.
Reason is on thin ice here. The article can be fairly read as libeling the cops, and that's not legal. I'd caution everyone here to watch what they write, as they don't want to find themselves arrested for criminal libel.
Finally, it's sickening to read the denigration of the widow's statement. This is the kind of evidence that ensures that juries do their job.
I can't tell whether you are stupid or whether this is supposed to be funny.
It's not supposed to be funny.
I am so, so sorry for you.
I don't see the taking of a man's freedom as a joke, and it's not supposed to be funny.
Guy put himself in this position by being suspected of wrongdoing.
Regardless of what rloquitur says I am taking this as a joke. There's no serious way to read lines like the above. It must be a joke. No one is really that crazy.
Oh yes, people are that crazy. I am glad you saw that this was a sarcastic post. I mean, come on, evidence to ensure juries do their job? 🙂
I suspect we're not getting the full story from Reason here, as usual.
Who knows.
The bit about the cops finding "white powder" and yet the Guy was not charged with drug possession is a bit strange. If the white powder wasn't drugs, why is it relevant? And if it was drugs, why wasn't he charged with drug possession?
If they did not introduce an analysis of the powder into evidence at the trial, it was not drugs.
Remember the 5 cops shooting a truck 48 times because the women driving it were tossing the mornings newspaper on peoples driveways. Cops claim 1 newspaper hitting the ground sounds like gunfire. No charges filed on professionally trained fully awake cops.
Yep. The definition of "reasonable" seems to shift an awful lot in the justice system depending on who is being examined. Police shoot on the lamest of pretexts? Reasonable. Someone woken in the middle of the night to unknown armed people breaking in his bedroom window and shining a light in his face intentionally so he cannot see? The only reasonable thing is to have known they were police and calmly sat there with his hands up waiting to be tackled. Sleep inertia isn't a thing, after all.
No knock raids are unconstitutional on their face, irrespective of court rulings. The convicted man had every right to defend himself. The prosecutors, judge, jury, and the officers involved will find that the Eternal Judge has strong views on this matter.