Alabama Teen Killed During 'No-Knock' Drug Raid Had His Hands Raised, Lawsuit Says
The wrongful death lawsuit says Randall Adjessom came out of his bedroom with a gun when Mobile police broke down his family's door in a predawn raid, but when he realized they were cops, he put his hands in the air.

A 16-year-old teenager had his hands raised when he was fatally shot by police during an unauthorized "no-knock" drug raid in Mobile, Alabama, last year, according to a civil rights lawsuit filed by his mother in federal court earlier this month.
The lawsuit against the City of Mobile and several anonymous Mobile police officers says Randall Adjessom came out of his room holding a gun when he heard someone break down the front door of the house where he lived with his mother, grandmother, aunt, and sisters. When he realized the intruders were police, he put his hands in the air and stepped back, but a Mobile Police Department (MPD) SWAT officer shot him four times.
"The complaint is replete with revelations from our pre-suit investigation," civil rights attorneys representing Adjessom's mother said in a press release accompanying the suit, "perhaps none more repulsive than the fact that MPD body-worn camera (BWC) video of the shooting clearly shows Randall begin to retreat after realizing the intruders into his family home were members of the police force when he was repeatedly shot and killed in cold blood."
And after he was shot, the suit says, police left Adjessom to bleed out on the floor for four minutes before half-heartedly rendering medical aid.
If true, the lawsuit's narrative—which purports to be backed by video evidence, internal affairs reviews, and a recent independent audit of the Mobile Police Department—is another tragic example of what happens when the drug war, unregulated SWAT teams, and the Second Amendment right to self-defense mix.
An MPD SWAT team executed a "no-knock" search warrant on November 18, 2023, as part of an investigation into Adjessom's older adult brother for suspected marijuana sales. However, the lawsuit says Adjessom's brother did not live at the residence the MPD acquired a search warrant for—only Adjessom, who was a minor, and several women in his family.
The lawsuit says there were numerous problems with the raid besides the absence of its only articulated target: MPD officers intentionally didn't evaluate the risk to civilians in its pre-warrant threat assessment or note the presence of civilians in its search warrant affidavit; didn't obtain authorization for a nighttime raid from a judge, supervisor, or prosecutor; and failed to announce themselves until after they had breached the front door and entered the house.
All those errors became a force that swept together—like a malevolent current—the MPD SWAT officers and Randall Adjessom, who came out of his bedroom and turned into the hallway holding a gun with a laser sight.
The lawsuit says that when Adjessom realized the intruders were police, "Randall immediately began to raise his hands (including the firearm in his hand) and step back away from the officers."
"His retreat caused the laser sight on the firearm to move from pointing in front of him at the police officers to the wall," the lawsuit's narrative continues. "Randall never attempted to fire the weapon at anyone. BWC footage shows the Police Officer Defendants' vantage point. From this footage, it is clear that Police Officer Defendants would have seen Randall putting his hands up and taking a step backwards in retreat."
Despite this, an unknown Mobile police officer shot Adjessom four times. In total, 11 seconds passed between SWAT officers breaching the door and the shooting.
According to the lawsuit, after he was shot, Adjessom "was writhing on the floor in pain, actively bleeding to death." However, MPD officers "can be seen on a BWC stepping over his body instead of bending down to comfort or care for him."
"What are we going to do with this?" one officer asks on the body camera footage after Adjessom is shot.
Four minutes would pass before a SWAT officer began applying bandages to Adjessom's several gunshot wounds.
The lawsuit says medical records show Adjessom was not admitted to a hospital and declared dead until 50 minutes after he was shot. The nearest hospital is eight minutes from the family's house.
The lawsuit is the latest problem for the MPD. An independent investigation into the department launched by Mobile officials last year and conducted by a former federal prosecutor found a litany of constitutional violations, excessive force, and unnecessary deaths, particularly targeting Mobile's black community.
The report singled out former Mobile Police Chief Paul Prine for his "autocratic tendencies" and included an unidentified MPD police officer who recalled Prine telling MPD officers, "I'm not concerned with what the media and public thinks about the police. Fuck the public."
The City of Mobile fired Prine in April after he refused an offer to retire with a full pension. On Thursday Prine sued numerous Mobile city officials and Kenyen Brown, the author of the report, for "willful, false, malicious, defamatory and slanderous statements."
But the raid that resulted in Adjessom's death is not an isolated incident or the result of an unusually unprofessional police department. In Illinois, cops have terrorized children's birthday parties, humiliated innocent women, and shot a 12-year-old in the kneecap because of sloppy and unnecessary SWAT raids. In Detroit, the city has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to settle lawsuits because police can't stop shooting dogs during drug raids.
SWAT raids can turn into mortal dangers for civilians and police alike when they mix with America's robust right to self-defense. In 2022, Florida resident Corey Marioneaux Jr. was charged with attempted murder of a police officer for shooting a gun at SWAT team officers who had just broken through his front door with a battering ram at 5 a.m. The charges against Marioneaux were later dropped, and an internal review found no wrongdoing on the part of the police.
That same year a Minneapolis Police Department officer shot and killed 22-year-old Amir Locke during the execution of a no-knock raid. Locke, who was not named in the search warrant, appeared to be asleep under a blanket on a couch. As police entered the room, he put his hand on a handgun, and an officer shot him three times.
The law guarantees citizens the right to defend their homes with guns, but it also allows police to break down doors in the middle of the night and shoot any confused, half-asleep person who exercises that right. This incoherence is one of the most important reasons why SWAT teams should be reserved for truly dangerous situations, not pot raids on family homes.
The Adjessom's lawsuit against the City of Mobile and several anonymous Mobile police officers seeks damages for violations of the Adjessom family's Fourth and 14th Amendment rights, as well as for claims under Alabama's wrongful death statute.
The City of Mobile did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
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
Thank goodness the 'drug warriors' saved him from himself! /s
Now he won't be doing drugs anymore.
The idiocy in believing [OUR] 'Guns' will save people from themselves.
Maybe Gov-Guns aren't an everything-purpose tool after all.
Just like that hero cop in DC who ‘saved’ Ashli Babbit from herself. Funny how Reason never ran an article like this about her.
They are such Lefty liar scumbags.
Babbit was a criminal.
Babbit was a clown shot by police while participating in a riot. She should rest in piss.
Ok, so when you democrats participate in riots, which is likely during the forthcoming presidential inauguration, we’re free to shoot into the crowd?
Ok. Be careful what you wish for.
Now that Republicans literally control all 3 branches of federal government, it is good to know that extra-judicial executions of politically unsavory people are legitimate.
You are the mayor of Fucking Clown World.
Not a fan of pre-dawn SWAT team raids on residences in general, but I think I'll wait until more information comes out before passing too much judgement. Been burned too often before on these initial reports.
Is it legal in Alabama for a 16 year old to possess a firearm such as the one he had?
Right. Why stop at drug-prohibitions "I believe you'll commit a crime" preemptive strike. [WE]'ll have to use [OUR] 'Guns' to take away ALL-YOUR 'Guns' too because "I believe if you own a gun you'll commit a crime". Maybe [WE] can destroy the right to privacy too because "I believe if you're private you're committing a crime." /s
I swear. Preemptive strikes (making the [WE] mob belief of a crime criminal) will be [OUR] own demise.
> Is it legal in Alabama for a 16 year old to possess a firearm such as the one he had?
Irrelevant. If, in fact, he was retreating with his hands up, essentially surrendering, the correct course would have been to disarm him and seek potential weapons charges if applicable. Execution was not in order.
But they tried this same "hands up don't shoot" narrative building with Gentle Giant Brown so I won't trust propagandists like C.J. about anything I can't watch video of with context. Until then, this is just BLM2 lies to create civil unrest.
> But they tried this same "hands up don't shoot" narrative building with Gentle Giant Brown...
Sure. Hence my qualifier, "If, in fact, he was..."
English. It's hard...
Good luck teaching logical syntax to mystical bigots.
How about secular bigots? Bigots like YOU, Hank.
But since, in fact, we know the Lefty lies about Michael Brown (et al!), it’s reasonable to assume they’re lying about this dindo also.
Even if he was retreating and had his hands up - not a symptom ‘of a broken system that needs defunding’ it means a mistake was made.
Funny how no rage baiting from the countless whites killed by black doctors every year by medical malpractice, or the whites shot by black cops.
Funny that you fein not noticing too; funny in that it’s indicative of ideologically driven bias.
Your if gives the benefit of the doubt to a narrative that has repeatedly been proven a lie and those behind the lie. It's reasonable to believe that this too is a lie as are the defenders of this bit of narrative building. Logic and consequences are hard, I get it but you should try it before being a condescending prick.
I don’t trust any of Reason’s narratives. I’m not saying this didn’t go down the way the article says, but I’m sure as fuck not taking the word of a Reason writer for it.
What kind of gun did Michael Brown have?
Because Brown was unsuccessful in his attempt to take the officer's pistol, he was not armed.
Joe doesn’t care. He supports democrat narratives only.
Yeah this. Is it OK to murder a kid because he cannot legally arm himself? What if he was holding a pack of cigarettes? Self defense is a natural right even for a minor.
You’d deny the officer his thrill kill?
Alabama's Ku-klux cops are begging for an arms race in which ducks sitting in marked cars are easier to ambush than unarmed kids. Let's see how much sympathy they get from the locals. Before FDR was elected and repealed many prohibitions, the narc herd was being thinned out at an accelerating rate. Reprisals in response to Anslinger and Hoover murdering folks to protect them from beer and cattarh cures eventually prompted citizens to find safety through Liberal Party spoiler vote planks and repeal.
The bill that ended prohibition was written by a Republican not FDR.
FDR literally built the drug war machine.
You literally have your parties mixed up 99% of the time.
Only 99%? Are you feeling generous because it's Christmas week?
The bill that enacted Prohibition - the 'Volstead Act' - was written by republican Rep. Andrew Volstead. Seems disingenuous and more than a little partisan to leave that important fact out.*
Moreover, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (under Treasury Dept.) was created in 1930 under republican President Herbert Hoover and a republican congress (both house and senate had republican majorities).
The FBN was tasked with enforcing the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act (Jones-Miller Act), which was sponsored by Sen. Wesley L. Jones and Rep. John F. Miller, both republicans of Washington.
It's not all bad news for people who still can't resist the urge to mainline that 'good partisan' dope: the FBN was also tasked with enforcing the Harrison Narcotic Tax Act, which was written and passed by Democrats. LBJ was also a rabid drug warrior who created the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
Of course, republican President Richard Nixon outdid them all when he launched our modern Drug War debacle, so...suffice to say there are no 'good guys' among drug warriors.
(*Foolhardy as they were, the Prohibitionists at least deserve grudging credit for following the Constitution. Modern Drug Warriors completely ignored the Constitution and continually treat the Bill of Rights with scorn and contempt.)
Nelson Rockefeller upped the ante on the state level when he got a compliant Republican legislature to enact draconian drug laws that sent away even those caught with small amounts of drugs for years. Violent crime exploded. Democrats finally repealed these laws over 35 years later, and violent crime rates plummeted. And dozens of correctional facilities have been closed.
FDA 1938 by Copeland [D] passed in a [D] trifecta where FDR gave authority to the 'Feds' to oversee food, drugs, etc..
DEA came from the Controlled Substances Act 1970 by Staggers [D] and passed by 91st Congress a [D] House and [D] Congress only signed by [R] Nixon.
As usual. [D] Idea. [D] Congress and a RINO president.
Seems disingenuous and more than a little partisan to leave all those important facts out.
Republicans have a ton of RINO'S that do [D] moves; but 99% of the time the BS comes directly out of the [D] handbook.
First paragraph, 100% agreement. And then you throw that away with statist idiocy in the second paragraph.
I don't have much respect for cops like this, but the problem is that Reason has published far too many articles about cops like this which turned out to be full of errors of omission and commission and not actually about cops like this.
I didn't ask if it should be legal (it should), I asked if it was. Because that could potentially be the difference between the SWAT officer being found liable or not, in this case.
Especially when, as Reason loves to do, the facts come solely from the plaintiff's complaint and/or his attorney's office.
This is not an initial report. It was reported here a year ago.
Sure. It's less reliable than an initial media report of alleged witness claims; it's a summary of the assertions of a plaintiff.
Yeah - any mention of him having a gun in the DNc propaganda press?
Annnnnnnnd - NOPE.
He was just about to be a shining Rocket Surgen too! Dang it!
Yeah....but a 16 yr old came out with a handgun and were any drugs found? No sympathy for people hanging in a drug house
"and several anonymous Mobile police officers"... Here you have a demonstration of why anonymous Orangopox schaißtposters impersonating libertarians are so zealous to bring their Klan rally atmosphere into the pages of Reason.
Did you think there were any coherent thoughts in that Kamala-worthy word salad?
None detected. Red light flashing on my Hank meter. Hmm. Let's try AI. Oh Shit! Windows needs to restart!
You worthless imbecile, the majority of big city cops in Alabama are black
Hank probably thinks Nixon is behind this.
Those must be the White Supremest black cops I keep reading about in the DNC Propaganda Press.
Retards - if you have a job, or participate in this society in ANY WAY, it’s “sUpPOrTiNg Wh-it’s sUprEmAcY!”
Those rhetorical games are so, so stupid only brainwashed ideologues believe them, and they want to brainwash our kids too!
Fuck you brainwashers!
31% of Mobile police are black, 64% are white. There's a worthless imbecile here for sure.
Any author who writes about a police shooting and doesn't compare it to the premeditated murder of Saint Babbitt is leftist.
If he had political views you didn’t like you’d be fine with having the state murder him.
Seek help.
My preference is for him to finally achieve complete liver failure. Forever putting Sarc out of our misery. Best thing for him really, his comments are going nowhere.
Oh now do J6 and Ashli Babbit! Yay this is a fun game!
After that do Ruby Ridge and Waco.
This should get fun QUICKLY!
"Despite this, an unknown Mobile police officer shot Adjessom four times."
Bullshit.
They know which 'officer' fired his weapon.
The rest of this may be irresponsible reporting, but the cops know how much ammunition went out, and how much came back, and which weapons needed cleaning after the assault.
Probably should have said 'unidentified'.
To paraphrase Bill Cosby: "It wasn't us. See, we were gonna arrest him when suddenly this man jumps through the window and blasts him, then jumps out the window laughing."
Fuck the public.
That should be the US motto. Put it on our money.
An MPD SWAT team executed a "no-knock" search warrant on November 18, 2023, as part of an investigation into Adjessom's older adult brother for suspected marijuana sales
A no knock raid for pot? Putting the "Lord I'm coming home to you" in the sweet home Alabama.
Worse than that; serving that kind of warrant "as part of an investigation" !!
I think we need to require the judge that signs a no-knock warrant to accompany the serving of the warrant, just to be sure everything goes well.
That kind of civil rights skipping should be signed off by every senior officer in the chain of command, who should also have to be there.
SWAT was created for hostages and other dangerous situations.
Now it's just an excuse for police to terrorize and kill people.
Imagine how cops will enforce an assault weapons ban.
Weird that they don't do pre-dawn no-knock raids when they think their target is armed or has a hostage.
Now they just wait until the hostages are dead. They don't even pretend anymore.
This is the part I find interesting (you'll have to do some homework of your own, kind of a thing with Reason articles):
“On a marijuana warrant?” [District 2 Councilman William] Carroll said. “Come on, you know all the states right now making marijuana legal?”
As if that matters even slightly. It IS illegal in Georgia, and nobody cares what "all the States" (less than half) are doing. You're in Georgia, you follow Georgia law. Period.
The reason this stands out is because that seems to be the narrative that a lot of folks are leading with. Like it's the law's fault that this happened.
It doesn't matter if you don't like the law. It doesn't matter if you think the law is unjust. It doesn't matter whether the voting body is considering repealing it. What matter is that it IS the law and that DeAngelo Adjessom was suspected of breaking it.
That brought law enforcement to his door. Should it have? Yes. Disagree, take it up with your legislators.
Randall was a victim of systemic failures and deliberate
indifference by the City and its policy-makers, like Mayor Stimpson and Chief Prine
lol, hay guys it's rAcIsM again - that still werks rite?
https://i.imgflip.com/9exnzz.jpg
And let's not forget dEfUnD teH PurLeeces!
"In her statement, Akouvi Adjessom questioned the role of police within a community. “They’re supposed to be peace officers, aren’t they?”"
Yea, they are. Keep the peace, preserve order, serve the community - all of which are done by arresting criminal suspects. And when they're dealing with criminal suspects, like DeAngelo, then they shift gears a bit into the role of... wait for it... law enforcement officers.
SWAT teams should be reserved for truly dangerous situations, not pot raids on family homes.
Hamas, is that you?
The reason scumbags do this illegal crap and involve their "family homes" is because they're leveraging the threat of harm to the family in order to facilitate the illegal activity.
Here's a thought, CJ - maybe don't possess, sell, deal, or otherwise have any connection to marijuana in states where it's illegal (esp. in Georgia, where they don't mess around when it comes to peddlers). I'm not saying this was a good, or even a justified shoot - I'm saying that it was an avoidable one, had DeAngelo Adjessom not involved himself - and by extension his family - in the illicit drug trade.
You want to be a criminal drug dealer? Fine. But cut all ties to your family and never be seen near any of them ever again. For their safety. If you give a damn about it. DeAngelo doesn't seem to have. Better yet, don't do crime. And you CJ, don't encourage it.
We don't know why 5-0 thought DeAngelo lived at that property. Probably because he does, very recently did, or was seen coming and going to it enough times for that to be a reasonable assertion in a search warrant application. We don't know, because you make ZERO effort to investigate these kinds of things before running off to Narrative Town.
But here's what we DO know: DeAngelo returned to the home later on where he was promptly arrested for possession and a weapons charge. Hmm.
Speaking of Narrative Town:
didn't obtain authorization for a nighttime raid from a judge
Pre-dawn raid. 5:30am. Report objectively.
All those errors became a force that swept together—like a malevolent current
All those alleged errors.
However, MPD officers "can be seen on a BWC stepping over his body instead of bending down to comfort or care for him."
Of course. He's clearing the area first, in case there's any other half-cocked sleepy firearm wielders ignoring the rules of gun safety.
Now, about Randall and his blaster. Facts are spotty on what actually happened. We'll need to wait on that bodycam footage before we can make any clear conclusion about the situation. There's a sticky point here that virtually every article I read on the subject points out: video of the shooting clearly shows Randall begin to retreat.
They say that he did this when he realized they were cops. But you're not supposed to retreat. You're supposed to surrender. And you're supposed to surrender the firearm. It's "drop the gun," not "could you please not point that at me." By his own complaint and his attorney's version of it, he did neither. Again, not enough to go on for any kind of conclusive determination - especially if he was genuinely disoriented (poor gun safety, but OK) - but enough to question whether the people in the tank for him are giving us a... jaundiced interpretation of that bodycam footage.
Clean shoot? We don't know. Sloppy, obviously biased axe-grinding jOuRnaLiSm? Yep.
I don't even know why the police entered the house at all. They knew or strongly suspected there was an armed criminal inside. There should have been no other option but to level the house and look for remains later. Then at least nobody would have gotten shot.
If you can't do the time then don't be suspected of doing the crime.
You're right. They probably should have just watched from a safe distance and then, impotent to do anything about crime, just all quit their jobs and turn the city over to anarchy.
So we agree the only options for the cops were flattening the house or retiring from the force? If that's the case, why did these police officers do neither?
Because the people who pay their salary don't want anarchy.
They also don't want a fascistic police state in which the cops can murder with impunity.
Then huzzah, because they don't have one.
Despite your efforts.
You're welcome.
Way to dodge the question. In the article about the woman whose home was destroyed, you seem to think the only options the police had were to do just that or leave the criminal alone. I was "MMQBing" to suggest that they could have just entered the house. Now here entering the house without first firebombing it is acceptable. Why?
In the article about the woman whose home was destroyed, you seem to think the only options the police had were to do just that or leave the criminal alone.
That is an inaccurate characterization of my position on the subject.
I was "MMQBing" to suggest that they could have just entered the house.
You were.
Now here entering the house without first firebombing it is acceptable. Why?
They were serving a warrant in an attempt to make an arrest. Their suspect had not intentionally barricaded himself having evidenced hostile intent.
When you bite into a zebra, do you get a tart crunchy sensation in your mouth?
Know why? Because apples aren't zebras.
That is an inaccurate characterization of my position on the subject.
You're lying. Again. Maybe stop lying so much?
They were serving a warrant in an attempt to make an arrest. Their suspect had not intentionally barricaded himself having evidenced hostile intent.
Irrelevant. It's indubitably safer for the cops to serve a warrant on a dead man. And safety of the officers is paramount to you. So you must their tactics were flawed from the start. Nuke the town, and thumbtack warrants onto the appropriate corpses later.
That is an inaccurate characterization of my position on the subject.
Chip, when all you have left is Straw Men - just stop.
I'm straw-manning? LOL. Pure projection at this point.
It's clear that the only time cops' actions can be questioned is when you do it (see: Arizona cops pummeling deaf guy). Any time you think they were justified in whatever action they were doing, then any attempt at blaming the cops for their actions elicits screams of ACAB, calling people anarchists, Marxists (legit LOL at that one, bruh.) etc.
You... don't actually know what a Straw Man is, do you.
Huh.
Does cop dick taste like avocados?
I don't know, does it? How about you go ask Reason staff instead. They seem like the sort that would probably accept the debasement of giving a cop a hummer to avoid a drug charge (certainly if only to keep it from their parents and getting kicked out of their basement).
They also seem the avocado toast type, if you get the stereotype.
It IS illegal in Georgia, and nobody cares what "all the States" (less than half) are doing. You're in Georgia, you follow Georgia law. Period.
This was in Alabama. Recreational MJ is still illegal, but when criticizing Reason for not getting their facts right, you kind of need to get your own facts right.
You are like clockwork AT, except that you have two markings for five o'clock and you are missing a minute hand.
This was in Alabama.
My mistake. I was discussing Georgia laws on the same subject earlier and I guess I still had it on the brain.
But thanks for pointing it out, because Alabama's laws are actually even more restrictive in Alabama.
but when criticizing Reason for not getting their facts
Oh, let's be very clear. I'm not criticizing them for "not getting them right." I'm criticizing them for intentionally distorting them to serve a misleading narrative that affirms their own biases and hateful prejudices with the clear intend of giving people like you the disinformation that makes them useful idiots to exploit.
"That brought law enforcement to his door. Should it have? Yes."
Except he didn't live there.
Well see, that's the $64,000 question that CJ conspicuously avoids isn't it. I asked it earlier:
Why did the cops believe he did? Whatever it was, it was basis enough for the warrant. As I said - "Probably because he does, very recently did, or was seen coming and going to it enough times for that to be a reasonable assertion in a search warrant application."
And sure enough, he popped back up there later that same day and was arrested.
Y'know one thing I'd really like to see? His driver's license, or motor vehicle registration. Or what address he used for the background check for the gun I'm sure he purchased legally.
That's the kind of a thing a real journalist, unlike our idiot axe-grinding chimp CJ here, might have looked into.
And sure enough, he popped back up there later that same day and was arrested.
Maybe he got a call saying that his brother had been shot.
If he had knowledge of that fact, one would think he'd have gone to the hospital instead. That's where his brother's corpse was, and presumably the rest of his family. I highly doubt they were still at home making tea and cookies.
I'd personally like to think that it was an overwhelming sense of guilt at having caused his own brother's death that led him to turning himself in. That was actually my initial read on it, if you can believe it. And hopefully this guy is a cautionary tale for all the other peddlers out there.
But I doubt it.
And I also doubt he'll learn anything from it. Especially since the media, CJ, his own family, his attorneys, his local political representatives, and tens of thousands of internet randos are all blaming anything but his drug crimes for this young man's death.
I'd like to hope he will, but... well, just look at the response.
"It wasn't your drug peddling - it was unfair laws. It wasn't your drug peddling - it was the cops. It wasn't your drug peddling, it was systemic racism. It wasn't your drug peddling, it was literally anything but your drug peddling. That definitely had nothing at all to do with it. The drug peddling is perfectly fine!"
This is why they never learn. Dollars to dimes, he's been smoking joints and selling it to all his regular buyers ever since he posted bail.
That's just how these druggie losers are. They never learn. Even when the lesson is covered in their own baby brother's blood.
If people would just OBEY, then government wouldn't have to use force. /Jeffy
Is there some specific objection you have to the rule of law, as determined by the will of the people?
For laws to be obeyed they must be just. As far as "the will of the people" goes, there is no such thing. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
For laws to be obeyed they must be just.
I disagree, but there's no need to go down that rabbit hole because the laws at issue here aren't unjust.
Yes. In a Constitutional Republic, the will of the people and the actions of state agents are constrained by our protected rights.
There is no constitutional right to peddle drugs.
There is a constitutional right to not be murdered by government agents.
Indeed. Good thing one didn't happen here.
Why would the family necessarily be at the hospital and not at home? Is there a Georgiabama law about that too?
I like this new War on Drugs strategy: murder a member of a pot seller's family, then lie in wait for when the nefarious dealer comes back to the family home.
Just for the record, this is a libertarian publication, so people are going to point out the problem with enforcing shitty laws, regardless of other police failures and incompetence factored into the harm those laws caused. So once again, the drug trade is not illegal because it's dangerous; it's dangerous because it's illegal. This cop-caused death in a single drug case is one more than all the overdose deaths in the history of marijuana combined.
Yea, they'll do that - but notice how they can rarely, if ever, make an argument as to why they're "shitty laws" (language). Every time you press them on the subject, they invariably come back to, "Well I just don't like that law because I want to do the thing."
Which isn't anything anyone takes seriously.
This cop-caused death in a single drug case is one more than all the overdose deaths in the history of marijuana combined.
That seems like an odd comparison, and not one that would have any bearing on the subject matter. Would you mind elaborating on where you were going with that? (I'm kinda thinking it's some sort of utilitarian argument, but I'm not sure how it follows from the assertion, which I'd dispute, that the law is based on "dangers.")
Yea, they'll do that - but notice how they can rarely, if ever, make an argument as to why they're "shitty laws" (language). Every time you press them on the subject, they invariably come back to, "Well I just don't like that law because I want to do the thing."
You just haven't been paying attention. Selling and buying drugs is a victimless transaction when the buyer receives what they asked for and the seller receives the agreed price in return. That's why it shouldn't be a crime.
No, I've been paying attention. You just keep using the term "victimless" as a blanket basis for anything and everything objectionable and abhorrent.
Dogfighting is a victimless transaction where the buyer and seller get what they want. Heck, so is a social media channel where the star puts a kitten in a burlap sack on a daily basis and burns, drowns, or beats it to death in return for clicks. Don't you dare protest - that is 100% victimless. Ooh, I have a fun one. Suppose I buy a plot of land knowing it's the last refuge of an endangered plant or animal. And then I just burn it for the lols. 100% victimless.
Your problem, Chip, is that your Marxist/Anarchist mindset has fooled you into believing that "victimless" therefore equals "acceptable."
It does not.
But now you're going to try and move the goalposts on what "victimless" means, aren't you. I'll wait.
No, I've been paying attention.
Everything you wrote after this indicates you're lying here. Please, on occasion, perhaps you could respond to what I say rather than what you wish I had said.
Should dogfighting and kitten burning be crimes, or are they like selling and buying drugs in your book?
Should dogfighting and kitten burning be crimes,
Yes.
or are they like selling and buying drugs in your book?
No.
How you think these are in any way analogous is beyond me. Talk about apples and zebras! Let's maybe go with an actually comparable activity that was once a federal crime for a short while: Purchasing alcohol.
Schmuck: "I'd sure like some vodka."
Schmoe: "I have a bottle of vodka I'll sell you for ten bucks."
Schmuck: "I'll take that deal! Here's ten dollars."
Schmoe: "And here's your bottle of vodka."
Now in the above transaction, was there a victim prior to the Prohibition Amendment being ratified? Was there a victim during the time that Amendment was in effect? Was there a victim after the Amendment was repealed?
And for the sake of argument, Captain ButWhatIf, the vodka is just vodka. It's not actually water, and it's not laced with turpentine or anything else. The money used to buy the vodka wasn't counterfeit or stolen, and there was no other request like choking kittens to death or whatever other sick thing you may fantasize about.
I seriously doubt it's in any way possible for you to answer the above three questions as directly and succinctly as I answered your two, but maybe you'll surprise me.
Why should dogfighting and kitten burning be illegal? It's a victimless act.
Now in the above transaction, was there a victim prior to the Prohibition Amendment being ratified? Was there a victim during the time that Amendment was in effect? Was there a victim after the Amendment was repealed?
This is what you intentionally choose not to get. The question of whether there was a "victim" is irrelevant.
I seriously doubt it's in any way possible for you to answer the above three questions as directly and succinctly as I answered your two
Called it.
No, you didn't call it. You just didn't like the 100% direct answer. Much like a homeowner who wakes up to a mousetrap with the cheese gone, but no dead mouse.
See, what you're doing is a little rhetorical trick where you try to slip false terms into your premise - in this case, "victim" - in order to rationalize your false conclusion. This is why I accused you of being intentional about it.
You asked three questions that all came loaded with that. The direct (and correct) answer - which I gave you - was to challenge your doing so as fallacy. Which is precisely what I did.
Your counterargument, incidentally (should you be foolish enough to continue stepping on that rake), would be to assert how "whether there was a victim" IS relevant when answering the question, "Is it a crime?"
I could answer it for you, but I'm doing enough of your homework on this subject as it is. Learn to walk on your own.
No, since this started as an easy refutation of your own patently ridiculous false premise, which was this:
but notice how they can rarely, if ever, make an argument as to why they're "shitty laws" (language). Every time you press them on the subject, they invariably come back to, "Well I just don't like that law because I want to do the thing."
I will not ever 'come back to, "Well I just don't like that law because I want to do the thing."' because I have no personal interest in using narcotics. Never had such an interest, and never will. I simply don't care if some other consenting adults want to snort, smoke, or inject chemicals into their bodies provided they aren't robbing people to pay for their habit or out driving where they can be a danger to others.
Historically speaking, there was a time when making, owning, selling and consuming alcohol of any kind was also just as illegal at the federal level as smoking crack is today. Are you of a mind that only 'dregs and skells' (your words here) drank alcohol during Prohibition, given that it was highly illegal, but before and after it was a perfectly okay thing to do? I would be curious to see you square that circle.
You were the one coming up with ridiculous analogies in an attempt to refrain from answering simple questions directly. Attempting to draw any parallel between selling drugs and animal cruelty is laughably moronic. Anyone more intelligent than you would probably be ashamed to have made the attempt.
Oh shit another diddonuffin with his “hands up don’t shoot”?
Too bad the Lefty’s lied so much about Michael Brown that we don’t believe anything they say anymore - they have themselves to blame!
It's evident you're quite happy with the police shooting here, but you have just enough awareness not to say so explicitly.
Could be your projection, not sure…*squints in Futurama* just don’t become a detective if you think my comments are “evident” of your baiting assertion.
Any response to the actual points made about over-saturation of false claims of virtue of the victim by the raging Leftist MSM or their partisans here at Reason like C.J.?
“…diddo…” = virtue claim
“…Lefty’s lie so much…” = over-saturation
I enjoy readying your replies SRG2 - usually have in the past. Were you about to shamefully attempt to call me a “rrrhhhaaaaaacist” or some other totally not hurtful meme anymore?
You realize that charge carries (checks Rolodex, reads ticker-tape, hand-cranks old-timey calculator) ZERO weight?
Say what you mean out loud brother, don’t dance around bushes hinting at something! If you think you smell something, then say what’s on your mind. Just make it semi-entertaining next time, if you can (I’m still working on it, lol)
I sure know that when I was 16 I was likely to have SWAT RAIDS on my home.
And my first instinct was to grab a gun (!) when the cops come!
But then again, Amish culture glorifies and promotes that reaction - hell since this young MAN was 8 he’s grown up being told that’s the correct reaction! Shoot at the President multiple times, imprison J6er and shoot them, lie about everything, and cheer on CEO assassins.
Live that life, eat those bullets!
But yes, let’s all bow down to BLM - look at all their glorious contributions to society - they invented the traffic light! (Or was it the lightbulb? Or was it all technology? I forget - all I know is Whitey stole it ALL! Kangs I tell yas!)
I sure know that when I was 16 I was likely to have SWAT RAIDS on my home.
I always find it odd that Leftists, such as many here, get so worked up about this happening, but then are oddly silent when their fellow leftists take advantage of swatting in hopes of seeing their Twitter enemies harmed.
He didn't DROP the gun. It was still in his hands and therefore still a threat, no matter where it was pointed. Or does 'reason' believe that once someone raises their hands, the hands are immobile?
And do you think that the police have the right to shoot anyone holding a gun even if it's not in a position to be fired immediately at them?
As I said earlier: it's "drop the gun," not "could you please not point that at me."
You don't get to give orders about what a resident does with his gun when you've just kicked down his door in the middle of the night on a bogus pretense.
Actually, they do. Because 5-0 has a legal monopoly on the use of deadly force. You do not.
Theirs is presumed necessary and therefore justified until determined otherwise. YOU have to provide affirmative defense (both in criminal AND civil court).
And this is not a new concept. This has been the status quo for law enforcement since America became America.
But since you don't ever seem to know anything about anything, I wouldn't expect you to understand that. In fact, I wholly expect you to illustrate your ignorance in stark display, using a letter and a number you also don't understand.
Aaaaaand.... go.
Because 5-0 has a legal monopoly on the use of deadly force. You do not.
That's not true at all. Deadly force is justified for you and me under certain circumstances.
What police have the monopoly on is the initiation of force and of deadly force. We can only react to force with force. Whereas the job of a policeman is to commit assault, battery, robbery, larceny, breaking and entering, destruction of property, kidnapping and murder. Not to mention raping the occasional hooker. For cops, life is one big game of Grand Theft Auto.
That's not true at all. Deadly force is justified for you and me under certain circumstances.
Wrong. It's an affirmative defense to a criminal act.
Homicide is homicide. If you take a person's life, you have committed a criminal act. The justice system will then decide whether or not there's some basis to excuse you from the consequences of criminal act. Maybe that happens prior to arrest, maybe that happens prior to charging, maybe that happens at the behest of a jury - but in NO case do they say, "You were legally permitted to kill that person." They say, "We get why you had to, and will therefore not hold you accountable."
It's an ocean of difference.
We can only react to force with force.
That's all cops are allowed to do either. Again, the difference is that their reaction is presumptively justified, whereas the rest of us have to make the case for ourselves that it was.
Whereas the job of a policeman is to commit [crimes]
No it's not. Don't be a bigoted fool.
(I know, I know, you can't help yourself. But try, would ya?)
It's an ocean of difference.
No, it's retarded gibberish.
No, it's American jurisprudence.
Wrong. It's an affirmative defense to a criminal act.
It's not criminal if they have to let you off for doing it. Deadass, if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night you are not expected or required to figure out if it's a cop or not. You can shoot them stone dead and it's 100% not against the law. It's not a criminal act. It's self defense.
It's not criminal if they have to let you off for doing it.
Yes it is.
If you are doing 80mph down the road on a 60mph street, you are committing a crime. If you don't get caught, that doesn't mean it's not a crime. If you do get caught, when the cop pulls you over and deigns not to ticket you, it doesn't mean you HAVEN'T committed a crime. The commission of the crime is crystal clear. It means he chose to not charge you with a crime.
Or, let's say you evade arrest and pull straight into the hospital, at which point the cop tickets you and you go to court and say, "Your honor, my wife was in labor and the kid was crowning in the backseat! It was an emergency!" The Court might decide to excuse you. Again, you WERE STILL SPEEDING. But you provided an affirmative defense that was a valid reason not to hold its commission against you.
It's not a criminal act. It's self defense.
YES IT IS A CRIMINAL ACT! YOU JUST SHOT A GUY TO DEATH! That is NOT legal!
Self defense IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. The clue is right there in the name! For pete's sake, how can so many people be so pathetically ignorant of how their own society and legal system works?!
It's not a criminal act. Actually read the criminal code for once, maybe?
Wow, almost everything you wrote is wrong.
--An affirmative defense to a criminal *charge* is a justification for it. Ergo, killing someone in self-defense is *justified*.
--Homicide is not a crime. Murder is a crime. Not all homicides are murder.
Here's the start of the illinois statute on first degree murder:
720 ILCS 5/9-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 9-1)
"Sec. 9-1. First degree murder.
(a) A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits first degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death:" (omitted subsections)
Note the 'without lawful justification' part. Self-defense is a lawful justification, as given here in illinois law:
(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)
"Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony."
So deadly force is justified (that is, not criminal, not murder) in certain contexts. They're not choosing to not hold you accountable, the law says what you did is not criminal. (Laws vary by state. Illinois is one of the less permissive states on the use of defensive force.)
Cops force presumptively justified/
No, it's not. Cops have to affirmatively justify every use of force. Every discharge of their gun requires justification (including paperwork documenting it). (Now, it is frequently the case that the cops justification is never challenged, and this may mean some of those justifications are bullshit, but they did need to provide a justification).
I didn't say all homicides are murder. I said all homicides are homicide. And people are not allowed to commit homicide.
They may be excused from having committed it. They may have its commission deemed justified. But both of those are after the fact considerations. Not a license to intentionally kill people in certain circumstances.
It's not, "You are allowed to kill that person."
It's, "You killed that person! Explain yourself!"
No, you are in fact allowed to commit homicide, so long as you have a legal justification for doing so. It is *not* a crime to defend yourself, it's a *right*, and *protected by statute*. I quoted one version of the relevant laws for you.
It's not an 'after the fact consideration', it's an affirmative defense because it provides a legal basis for your action, but (if it truly was self defense) it was legal from the moment you did it.
Like seriously, you literally wrote above that "YES IT IS A CRIMINAL ACT! YOU JUST SHOT A GUY TO DEATH! That is NOT legal!" (upper case is yours, and you should be ashamed of yourself). That's absolutely wrong. The law provides for self defense. It is absolutely legal. Just because you might get charged with a crime does not mean a crime has actually been committed, or that you committed one.
Self-defense is the same kind of legal claim as an alibi - an affirmatively asserted reason why you did not commit the alleged crime. The difference is the alibi means you couldn't have been the one who did it (you weren't there), while self defense means it wasn't a crime at all. (Just because you assert it doesn't mean it's true - that's for a jury to decide. But they aren't letting you off for committing a crime, they're deciding *if* you *did* commit a crime).
And the state has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was *not* self-defense if you assert self-defense. Because the *lack of lawful justification* is a *required* element of the charge that the state must prove.
Also, show me the law that makes *all* homicide illegal.
The rules for justifying the use of deadly force should be the same for the police as they are for everyone else.
So, basically, you don't want there to be a justice system. Full anarchy. Got it.
A Rogue (lawless) Justice System *is* Anarchy.
So, you're saying you're glad the cops shot this guy?
What part of the law required or even allowed the Police to shoot the guy?
Did they even have a warrant to knock down the door?
Try the exact opposite.
Um, yes, they did have a warrant. And when they served it, they were met with armed resistance. And until we see the bodycam, we have only allegations as to what happened between the cops serving the warrant and this guy coming out to meet them with a blaster.
Fair enough. If a warrant was issued and the person was obviously a threat.
As to your reply below. "Law Enforcement" isn't above the law and precisely why it is named Law Enforcement not Above-the-Law enforcement. They don't need to be Above-the-Law to enforce it.
Please quote from where I said I don't want a justice system.
"The rules for justifying the use of deadly force should be the same for the police as they are for everyone else."
That is saying that you don't want a justice system. Why even bother having law enforcement if that's the position you're going to take on the subject.
Why should cops need to shoot someone if it isn't in defense of themselves or another, or to prevent the commission of a violent crime?
Why is a 16 year old sleeping with a pistol on his nightstand?
Probably because he lives in a dangerous neighborhood. I've lived in places where I felt it was necessary to keep a firearm by my bed.
Apparently to protect himself from people breaking down the door trying to shoot him. Seems he was right.