So it goes before a grand jury

[RP88]

if he was growing pot and the informant took the alleged pictures of the plants that the last article before this one that I read stated, then Frederick's defense is out the window. But even then, if Frederick was a dealer and was bent on killing the police to make a getaway, why did he quickly surrender himself after the shooting of Shivers? If he was a dealer, then surely he would have known or suspected that his house was being raided.

And as for the informant. What the hell? If there was no buy from Frederick, then I shudder to think where this informant guy came from and, worse, how he got the evidence. Frederick said that his house was broken into just a couple days before the so-called raid. Did an informant, whom apparently did not have a warrant or was just a hired crook by the police, break into Frederick's home and looked for evidence? If they apparently have pictures, then who the hell took them? An informant with a camera who broke into Frederick's house, made it look like a ramsacking or burgulary, took pictures, then scooted off and gave them to the police? Better yet, why is the police tight-lipping on the evidence that they based the raid on and the informant that helped them supposably obtain said evidence? Could it be that the police broke the law and took away Frederick's constitutional rights, even if they did know that he was growing, despite not finding the plants?

why are those sentences ending with question marks? Because i don't know. I'll remain skeptical and give frederick the benefit of the doubt until the police say or show otherwise. So far, concealing hearings from journalists and reporters, and not commenting on the evidence that they are seeking a felony drug charge are pretty good reasons for the skepticism, especially when one considers how many tin-foil stories we've heard that start out just like this.

 

[mbt2001]

Well if he IDENTIFIED his target then he knew is was a police officer. So by your logic the 1st Degree murder charge should have no problem sticking. You've done a great service to your country MBT.

The battering at the door with a ram, which creates an unearthly sound shaking the frame and the house ID's the person at the door as HOSTILE (in the mind of the homeowner). I don't know if they did or didn't ID themselves, my point was it was a SHODDY plan, poorly executed and quite possibly unneccisary and resulted in the death of a Police officer. I didn't say the homeowner in this instance was 200% right. I will say though that the bad guys use the same tactics as the good guys, further confusing the issue.

At best, your door being broken down doemonstrates a burglary in progress, since you haven't been threatened yet. And we've all pretty well agreed around here that you can't kill to protect property, except in Texas.

Anyone who says that does not understand property rights. If you steal someones food, they die. If the government is going to say that you cannot protect YOUR PROPERTY, then theft is legal...

As I stated in a previous post, if a firefighter starts hacking down your door to get to a fire and you shoot him, let me know how that works out for you when your defence is "Well, I thought it was a cop or a burglar."

Usually, the smell of smoke and the searing heat would have some affect on the decision making process there.

I will remind you Malice, that the Soviets did crap just like this back in the day. I am a citizen, the cops work for me, I don't support these kind of tactics in this type of case....

Certianly in this case, you can point out the blunders as being blunders or are we just supposed to nod our heads and agree???

 

[MASTEROFMALICE]

I'm not saying the cops didn't screw up. They should have returned fire.......oh yeah, I forgot. They didn't want to shoot through a closed door since they didn't know who was on the other side.

But that doesn't make any sense, does it? You just said they were communists. You just said they were stormtroopers. Clearly this guys life should have been worthless. After all, a hostile act on the other side of the door is reason enough to fire wildly.

Unless........unless you're just an ignorant fool.

 

[Eric F]

Anyone who says that does not understand property rights. If you steal someones food, they die. If the government is going to say that you cannot protect YOUR PROPERTY, then theft is legal

Well maybe in texas but Virginia is a diffrent place. You can not shoot some one for steeling a can of soup In this state you are not suposed to shoot unless your life is threatened. The shooter in this case admits he did not see who was breaking the door down so therefore he could not know if they had weapons or even intentions of doing bodily harm to him. It was an illegal shoot regardless of the police departments legal or illegal search tactics. One illegal move does not justify illegal relaliation.

 

[Thernlund]

At best, your door being broken down doemonstrates a burglary in progress, since you haven't been threatened yet. And we've all pretty well agreed around here that you can't kill to protect property, except in Texas.

Except in most of the country you mean. VA is an exception, not the rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_US

As I am in AZ, I will cite AZ law...

A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.

C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent the commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.

D. This section is not limited to the use or threatened use of physical or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.

Other CD laws are similar.

This certainly won't apply to Frederick, as VA has no law either way. So I fear he will have a rough time. But, although I have little faith that it will happen, perhaps this will create new case law that will get VA a Castle Doctrine law on the books.

That said, and setting aside Ryan Frederick's conduct (for good or bad), I'll say this (again)...

There is no way this should have been a raid of any kind in the first place. PERIOD.

Shivers got shot because Ryan Frederick shot him. Ok. But run this up the rope to the top and you could just as easily say that Shivers got shot because the police in that particular jurisdiction in this particular incident...

...went too far.


-T.

 

[Wheeler44]

Unless........unless you're just an ignorant fool.

Real high Road there MOM I guess if the name fits.........

Once again someone dies in the drug war because of a "Questionable" no knock warrant and the LEOs and their supporters claim that no knocks just make it safer for all involved. I like some of the LEOs that I know, I wish them no harm. I hope that they can say the same for me.

Dynamic entry = dynamics = forces not in equilibrium

sometimes that gets people killed .......sometimes in uniform sometimes in pajamas.....

I would really like to see the studies and how they were conducted on the relative safety of no knocks for all involved..

until then I will be hoping that if some a*****e claims that I have a grow operation in my home, that the LEOs will at least do a little investigating or just stop me on my walk down to the post office.

 

[mbt2001]

I'm not saying the cops didn't screw up. They should have returned fire.......oh yeah, I forgot. They didn't want to shoot through a closed door since they didn't know who was on the other side.

I don't know if the did or didn't return fire. They found a .223 shell... It is relevatory to see that the "team" breaching the house wasn't the SWAT team, and that he actually surrendered to the SWAT officers.

But that doesn't make any sense, does it? You just said they were communists. You just said they were stormtroopers. Clearly this guys life should have been worthless. After all, a hostile act on the other side of the door is reason enough to fire wildly.

No, I said that they did stuff like this in the Soviet Union. That is the advantage of reading, you actually know what people say.

Also, I am not advocating shooting through the door. I am putting myself in this guys shoes, at home, alone, getting dark... most likely he was scared, so he fired. I can see that happening to a lot of people. I don't see what is hard to understand about that.

The police, bless them, do not change tactics until something goes horribly wrong. The FBI shootout in Miami, the CHP stop / shootout that changed traffic stop tactics... Pointing out blunders helps them, helps us. We live in America and when we can start comparing our current tactics with the tactics of the Soviets / Nazi's it is time to explore possible alternatives.

Unless........unless you're just an ignorant fool.

 

[Thernlund]

I like some of the LEOs that I know, I wish them no harm.

I don't think any of us do. Nor do we wish to bash cops. The problem is not with the cops who carried out this warrant. The problem is with policy. Policy got Shivers killed.

Third time... NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN A RAID.


-T.

 

[ilbob]

This guy was non-violent and a cop got shot. The guy had illegal drugs and a gun... probably not a pacifist.

All violent offenders were non-violent to begin with...

The cop got shot almost certainly because of the tactics used.

Based on your statement no doubt you feel it is acceptable for police to use any level of force they want to without any restraint at all, for any reason they chose to do so.

 

[rickoshea]

"....Based on your statement no doubt you feel it is acceptable for police to use any level of force they want to without any restraint at all, for any reason they chose to do so."

Wow. What a stretch. Based on that logic, if I say I've been around guns my whole life, I must mean that I'm the best shot in the world.

Just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean you have the right to speak for me, so don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Thernlund]

Based on that logic, if I say I've been around guns my whole life, I must mean that I'm the best shot in the world.

I'd expect you to be pretty damn good, and would surprised if you weren't.


-T.

 

[rickoshea]

I can hold my own, but good aint best!!

 

[Thernlund]

Even best is a relative term, eh?


-T.

 

[rickoshea]

Well, yes... relatively speaking...

 

[Thernlund]

*heh heh*




-T.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Sans Authoritas wrote:

They were going after weed, a chemical less dangerous than alcohol

Eric F wrote:

There are lost of substances that are less dangerous than alcohol. But Alcohol is not illegal. Weed is. If he had not had any I would be on his side. If he had not had any the cops would have not been there to start with.

Eric F, and that is why you are a legal positivist. Because you believe that something is wrong/immoral because it is against the law. Not because it is wrong/immoral in itself.

Does your logic apply inversely? Would rape be all right as long as it were legal? How about kiddie porn?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Sans Authoritas wrote:

Legal positivism is a juvenile delusion: the idea that another grown adult saying "you should do it because I said so," is an actual reason to obey him.

Master of Malice wrote:

Like jaywalking? How about speeding, drink and driving, shooting into an occupied dwelling?

I don't jaywalk (when there are obviously cars coming) because it endangers me. If other people want to endanger themselves, fine. Just don't blame me for driving safely while they choose to be stupid. I do not refrain from jaywalking in traffic because someone said, "Don't do it because I said so."

I don't drive while incapable of driving safely because it endangers myself and others. Not because someone said, "Don't do it because I said so."

I don't shoot into an occupied dwelling because it is a reckless action that puts real people in serious and actual risk. I don't refrain from shooting into an occupied dwelling because someone said, "Don't do it because I said so."

Do you refrain from doing those things only because a law tells you you may not, Master of Malice? Or, like most mature adults, do you refrain from such actions because you do not want to endanger yourself and others? Does the mere existence of a law really prevent you from performing those actions? Or does the law rather exist to punish people who actually put others at risk? What I am trying to ask, Master of Malice, is should regulations exist for the mere sake of having regulations, or should regulations exist to curtail behavior that actually puts other people in serious danger? It seems that you would have no problem enforcing a regulation that states that no one may smuggle slaves to freedom, or that says children may not pick dandelions in the park. Would you have a problem with enforcing those regulations, Master of Malice? If the majority of voters and the people they voted for said that those regulations were the law?

So if you shoot into someone's house (which is illegal) that should be O.K. even if no one is hurt? Let's even say the bullet passes through two open windows so there's no damage.

By your logic you should be perfectly allowed to do that. Good call, Sans. I like your thinking.

As noted above, it appears you have absolutely no concept of the course of the logic I was using, and no concept of what I was thinking.

The fact that someone could very likely get hurt is irrelevant. The law says not to so we should all go out and do it just to show 'em how stupid the legislature really is.

I'm with ya, Sans! Just give me a time and a place and I'll bring my rifle.

Somewhere I'm sure the Constitution says something like, "Congress shall pass no laws abridging the right of the people to act like complete idiots and jeopardize the lives of everyone else around them."

Master of Malice, did you catch my response to you in another thread, from a day or so ago? If you read it, you might understand what I have said in these past few posts. As it is, I have never said that anyone has a right to unnecessarily put another person in grave and imminent danger. I invite you to find a post of mine that says otherwise.

It is clear that you are entirely missing the concept of legal positivism vs. laws that exist to actually do nothing but protect the individual life, liberty and property of actual real individuals from unjust aggression and fraud.

Where in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (the enumerated and only powers that Congress have) does it say that the federal government may regulate marijuana? It seems to me that they had to add an amendment to the Constitution to "legitimately" prohibit alcohol. Does your state constitution say that your government may regulate alcohol or other such substances?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[MASTEROFMALICE]

Fine. You're all right. Shivers was scum and got what he desrved. Marijuana is great and the government sucks. Poor old Frederick got served a "no knock" warrant at 4:00 A.M. while asleep in his underwear and was so wholly terrified by the stormtrooper Nazis rolling Panzer tanks through his living room that he had no other alternative but to fire his gun through a door into a target he sure hoped was there.

I have no idea what I was thinking suggesting otherwise.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

No, Master of Malice. Respond to the points. You're ignoring the logic and going to emotion. Don't cop out like that.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Eric F]

Does your logic apply inversely? Would rape be all right as long as it were legal? How about kiddie porn?

these things are also illegal for a reason. They are imoral. The pot issue is impairment. There are some laws that I do not agree with, seat belts being one helmets being another.

 

[MASTEROFMALICE]

No, Master of Malice. Respond to the points. You're ignoring the logic and going to emotion. Don't cop out like that.

-Sans Authoritas

There's only one point and no one wants to hear it. So, screw it.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Eric F wrote:

Does your logic apply inversely? Would rape be all right as long as it were legal? How about kiddie porn?

these things are also illegal for a reason. They are imoral. The pot issue is impairment.

Eric, why not ban alcohol again? Alcohol still impairs. Let's be logically consistent. Do you want to ban alcohol for the reason you cite in your desire to keep marijuana banned? Impairment? I have a bottle of alcohol that would impair you more than all the marijuana you could smoke at one time. Ban it?

And would you ban everything that is immoral? How about pornography with consenting adults? Who defines what is moral or immoral? Where do you draw the line on banning immoral things?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Eric F]

Eric, why not ban alcohol again? Alcohol still impairs.

Its a whole diffrent thread really and is nonrelivent to this thread but just for your entertainment its a much slower acting drug, yes alcohol is a drug too. and besides it cant be made illegal again as I am also a brew master in my own home. Personaly and way off topic I have made the best beer I have ever had way better than anything I have had store bought yet. But I even abide by my 200 gallon a year limit.

I have a bottle of alcohol that would impair you more than all the marijuana you could smoke at one time.

Doubtful at best I say send it to me and I will be the judge of this. Well unless it is real UZO with the opium.

And would you ban everything that is immoral? How about pornography with consenting adults? Who defines what is moral or immoral? Where do you draw the line on banning immoral things?

again this is way off here but some things have laws because of their lack of morality others because of harmful implications and some are a mixture of buth. There are a whole slew of laws just for revanue, like parking laws for example. So answer the questions in order. 1. no 2. no 3. aparently elected officials(law makers and judges) 4. too much to explain here but there is a line might not be streight but there is a line.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Your point, Master of Malice, is legal positivism. And you're right. People are sick and tired of that nonsense concept. They want laws that make sense and actually protect people. That puts a damper on over 80% of the "law enforcement" performed by police as they stand now. I understand your frustration.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Eric, how is it a different drug? Does it impair you less than marijuana? Are drunks less violent than stoners? Please, explain what you mean. You said "impairment." What are your criteria, and why should the rest of us accept them being forced on us, as they are, by the government?

-Sans Authoritas