Maye on Death Row; Shot Police Officer breaking into daughters bedroom

The Hattiesburg American | January 23, 2004 | Hattiesburg American

[Riley]

There seems to be a bit of interest in this case building in the blogosphere and the web at large. One way or another- the more light that gets shined on it, the better.

[TennMountains]

You are of course correct. And of course there will be MANY appeals. But I started this thread with the desire to shake out the leftist propoganda and act accordingly. If someone from the prosecution's side of this matter doesn't step forward with more facts than what I've read so far, I'm going to be contributing to a defense fund for this young man.

[Mark was here]

The right to murder police officers. Which Amendment was that again?

The right to be secure in ones property, if the case is the cops came in unannounced.

[El Gato]

The jury, who has all the facts, found him guilty That's extremely naive. The judge decides which facts the jury is allowed to hear. Usually that's legitimate and goes to protect the accused. For example past convictions aren't generally admissible during the trial. In those jurisdictions where the jury also sets the punishment, priors are generally admissible during the punishment phase. This scenario played out during a child molestation trial for which a co-worker was the jury foreman. He was somewhat surprised at how long the perps record was, and wished he could have known during the earlier phase as they likely would have convicted on a more serious charge, for which there wasn't enough evidence available, but which was very likely warranted. They did give him the maximum allowable during the punishment phase.

[Moonman62]

No drugs were found at the yellow duplex, which authorities said Maye rented.

The police are way too quick to do forced entries, and I'm on the anti-drug side.

[El Gato]

How?

How about asking the father, who was there to be asked.

[NELSON111]

The right to murder police officers. Which Amendment was that again? Hmmm...let's see. Premeditated? No. Let's see? was the "muderer" listed on the warrant? No. Were there drugs found? No. I think we have a few amendments to pick from. You can't even admit it was a screw up and in your world it's Ok for the cops to bust in the wrong place as long as long as they say they are sorry afterwards. Thank God you were around in the 18th century. You just ain't getting it.

[fnord]

Why aren't the Tookie fan club demonstrating this case, which seems from what I read to be a travesty of justice. Maybe there is more to the story.

Tookie killed 4 innocents to pick up a little cash. This guy defended his toddler from an overzealous cop during a break-in ...

[Mojave]

How about asking the father

Did they?

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

Mayes had no prior criminal record. No drugs were found at the duplex. Local law enforcement officials have refused to say what the officers were searching for or whether Mayes was a suspect in the raid. Two other residents of the duplex were temporarily detained, but then released without charges

[NELSON111]

If as recorded (and I have my doubts) the guy needs a new lawyer ASAP

And I think that is what people are saying...that the idiot known as Mojave can't seem to grasp. IF AS REPORTED. Bottom line is we really wil never know. Why? Because cops ARE human and if they DID screw up they WILL cover their own collective butts just like the majority of us would and say they announced. We could ahve it all wrong and the guy deserves death row...who knows. What people are saying MOJAVE...is that if cops don't announce and bust into your house...they run the risk of getting shot like everyone else...especially when the first thing running through your mind is protecting your kids...and not your drug stash because there is no drug stash to protect...and the cops (which the facts DO SHOW) were wrong in that aspect.

That's what people are saying...IF the facts are true...and a guy is asleep with a kid in another room...and all of a sudden there is are people busting into his house without any announcement of "police police"...then it is an accident when a cop gets shot. When there are no drugs present and a cop doesn't announce...that's an error. Period. Set the facts of this case aside and make it hypothetical. If you are sitting in a chair asleep and you have a kid...and people bust into your house...if you don't know they are cops and the very first thought is not the protection of your child through whatever means necessary...you don's deserve that child. Just because they are cops doesn't give them a pass to just come on into my house any time they please...especially when they are wrong...as they were here.

[Jonah Johansen]

"I'd love to read a transcript of the trial"

I suspect a troll,hehe.

Normally Freepers are very fact oriented and are diligent truth seekers. (What make Free Republic great) Unfortunately when it come to issuing an opinion concerning someone using a gun or police overreaction, a number of Freepers are telepathic, they can tell you exactly what happened from simply reading a headline and two sentences.
[Template, homeowner shoots X, homeowner innocent
Law enforcement official shoots X, lawman guilty
(Exception armed suspect in the commission of felony) (Exception to exception ATSF agents are always guilty)]

I have absolutely no idea what really happened. It is possible that the man is innocent and this is a case of small town justice with racial overtones. It is also possible that if presented with all the evidence, we would all agree with the jury. Without more information I am mystified how people can have such strong opinions as to guilt or innocence.

And while,
I am strong supporter of people’s right to own guns and protect themselves with them. I have little or no sympathy for the criminal element. I have no problem with store owners shooting robbers. I do think the idea of shooting at "intruders", should necessarily be one’s default reaction.

Despite all the anecdotal information people love to sight, I think it is incredibly rare that an armed homeowner confronts an intruder and is subsequently killed, because they hesitated to long trying to identify the intruder. I think incidents in which someone fired a gun without identifying, their target and killed an innocent person are far far more common (by a ratio well over a 100 to 1).

I think we are dealing with the same fallacy as people who have this fear their children will be abducted by a stranger, but let their kids ride their bikes around the neighborhood after dark. Even though statistically you can prove that their kids are 1000 times more likely to be hit and killed on their bikes, they still see the bike as benign and strangers abductions as the real threat.

[El Gato]

The right to murder police officers. Which Amendment was that again?

Self defense is covered by the ninth amendment. The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—

The second amendment protects the right to the means of self defense, while the ninth protects rights not enumerated in the other amendments, which includes the right to life as enumerated in the Declaration.

To not even consider that the accused might have thought he was defending his and his child's life is pretty darn statist, IMHO. If nothing else the accused is supposed to be given the benefit of any reasonable doubt, of which there seems to be plenty in this case.

Negligent homicide is about the most severe case to be made, and even then you'd have to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have known the people breaking in were police.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

Southern Justice

AH yes, this would never happen in LA, NY, Philly, Detroit, Chicago ......

[Mojave]

Hmmm...let's see. Premeditated? No.

What did the jury decide?

Let's see? was the "muderer" listed on the warrant?

Interesting "logic".

[Steamburg]

***Usually defense attorneys who have a weak case will keep their clients OFF the stand. As a general rule, you only let innocent defendants expose themselves to cross-examination.***

Thirty years of testifying in such cases and the only other place I ever heard that was from an ACLU lawyer.

[Mojave]

Self defense is covered by the ninth amendment.

Silently?

The Declaration of Independence states:

The Bill of Rights is in the Constitution.

The second amendment protects the right to the means of self defense,

Not murder.

[NELSON111]

Hmmm...let's see. Premeditated? No. What did the jury decide?

OMG...you are dumb...of course it was not premeditated...what did they jury decide? The jury would have decided it was not premeditated. Maybe you need to look up "BIG" words before discussing things here on FR. Go back to dummie land where you are the smart one.

[Mojave]

the idiot known as Mojave can't seem to grasp. IF AS REPORTED.

Newspaper reports don't count, only frothing at the mouth screeds?

[Mojave]

The jury would have decided it was not premeditated.

The jury convicted him of murder.