Posted on 12/10/2005 6:28:19 AM PST by TennMountains
Edited on 12/11/2005 12:54:13 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Only a link and title are allowed for any material from Gannett Publications.
If [and I don't know that this is the case] the decedent forcibly entered this person's dwelling without a facially-valid warrant authorizing the officer to enter the dwelling in the manner he did, then the decedent was a robber who got what he deserved.
Because they're more interested in protecting the guilty than the innocent.
If the cops did not have a warrant authorizing a no-knock raid for the dwelling they actually entered, this was very much a crime. Unfortunately, only one of the criminals has yet received any punishment.
In other words, the cops felt it appropriate to use forcible entry, but not appropriate to place spikes on the road in front of a potential escape vehicle (such action would not have harmed the vehicle if the suspect was captured without trying to use it; the cops could simply pick up the spikes and leave)
In the exchange on the front page of the source blog- the prosecutor from the case, who is in communication with the blogger- appears to have indicated that there were warrants for both dwellings in the duplex- but that Maye was not specifically named.
The blog has been updated today, BTW- for anybody who wants to hear more of the story.
It also indicates that the warrants were apparently issued on the basis of anonymous hearsay (supposedly the decedent knew who the informant was, but didn't tell anyone). Not sure how that squares with the "oath or affirmation" requirement, or even with anything even remotely resembling sensible procedure.
If the warrants were facially valid, and the other cops on the raid didn't know about their dubious nature, those other cops should probably not be prosecuted for capital murder. If there was no record whatsoever of the supposed informant, however, the judge who issued the warrants should be so prosecuted [though I know he'll claim immunity or somesuch nonsense].
That seems to be the weak point in the process. In story after story that I have read, some anonymous informant- apparently immune from consequence- always seems to be the catalyst for this kind of thing. Raid goes bad- it's the wrong house and somebody who is often just sitting around the house gets killed- for nothing.
I'm not sure where we ought to be heading with this. There's no question in my mind that there are bad-news types who need to be taken down, and that the object is to get the evidence and the suspect at the same time and the same place- so that people who really are a problem can be taken out of circulation for some period of time, as detrmined by due process- such as it is. Cops ought not die for doing their jobs.
The other side of it appears to be a case like this. Joe Blow is asleep in his home, the door gets kicked in in his kid's room, he fires a weapon, and now he's going to the needle.
I talked with a couple of cop friends of mine about this. After the anger was past, there was general agreement that, given the story as we know it at this time, Maye is only guilty of Negligent Homicide. He fired before properly identifying his target, and that he had no intent to shoot or kill a cop. The fact that he grounded his weapon when there was no longer any doubt that it was the police, suggests that that was his intent.
My personal opinion at this point, given the sketchy information that we have available to us, is that Maye fired in a panic, not knowing that his target was a cop. That act, firing in a panic where it results in killing someone who is (let's assume for the sake of argument) on lawful business- constitutes Negiligent Homicide.
If this is true, then the warrant itself comes into question, and becomes the object of argument.
The cops avoided a running shootout in a residential area. A spike strip on the car would have escalated the activity into shooting outside the trailer. The safety of the small child was taken into consideration. Nobody was killed and the suspects were apprehended the next day without incident.
BTW, I heard every shot from my open window a mile away. My wife was the dispatcher on duty at the time.
From what I understand, he wasn't normally a part of the tactical unit the jurisdiction uses for this kind of thing.
From the blog:
Sometime in late 2001, Officer Ron Jones collected a tip from an anonymous informant that Jamie Smith, who lived opposite Maye in a duplex, was selling drugs out of his home. Jones passed the tip to the Pearl River Basin Narcotics Task Force, a regional police agency in charge of carrying out drug raids in four surrounding counties. The task force asked Jones if he'd like to come along on the raid they'd be conducting as the result of his tip. He obliged.
I have questions as to why Jones is leading the element into the building at all. He doesn't appear to be a part of the unit that regularly does this kind of thing and trains for it.
He's a 'guest' on the raid. So why is he the first man through the door? My best guess is that this is what the police refer to in technical jargon as a 'f**k-up'.
Elsewhere in the blog- it states that Jones' pistol is holstered so that his hands would be free to force the door. It seems to me that the cop whose hands need to be free to force the door should back away the instant the door opens, so that the next man can lead the element in.
Quite apart from any question of the raid's fundamental legitimacy- that is clearly bad procedure. Officer Jones had his pistol holstered entering the building because he was caught up in the moment, and not thinking about what he was doing.
Or he was still behind a closed door. Entry by the other officers was probably made after the shot(s) from Maye. How else can one explain this perp not being dead. Officers in the same room with a perp who has just fired on them? They don't return fire? I don't think so.
Quite possible. Hopefully, we'll be able to read the transcripts and get a better idea of who was where, doing what, and when. Closed door or not- Maye is responsible for any injury or death that results from any rounds that he fired. It still looks to me like a sleep-addled blind-panic shoot on Maye's part.
If it turns out that Jones is the 'door man' but not also the 'point man', that would explain a lot, as well. I would still wonder about having him perform a tactical role at all, though.
I would imagine that a door with bullet holes in it would figure prominently as evidence.
There is some question as to whether the door was yet open when the shots were fired. I understood him to be leading the element in- but we can only establish that if we find that the door was open at the time. If it wasn't- then he might have just been acting as the 'door man'. It's a good question.
All of the detail analysis aside for a moment, Maye did:
-Fire shots
-Strike a person, who subsequently died and
-is now on Death Row.
Still looks to me like shooting blindly in a panic. I fail to see -with the incomplete information that we have at this point- any indication of intent to kill a cop. That's Negligent Homicide if I understand correctly, and not something you get the needle for.
"If I were being tried for a Capital Crime and my case was so weak that I had to take the stand; you can bet I'd have a real good story too."
What do you mean by this? Just because the guy decided to testify doesn't mean he knew he was shooting a cop. How does it make his case weak that he decided to testify? He had a clean record so there were no prior convictions to be introduced to impeach his testimony. Maybe he really felt the need to stand up and defend himself. I probably would too. Who else could explain his actions? His two year old daughter? Somebody has to explain that he didn't know these were law enforcement officers kicking his door down. Wouldn't you want to testify if the same thing happened to you? Whether a defendant in a criminal case testifies or does not testify doesn't make him any more or less innocent or guilty. You have a right to testify. Sometimes it's a good idea, sometimes it isn't.
If the guy blew out his tires and did not immediately surrender, the cops should have been well situation to confront him. I see no reason for them to think they'd have a better opportunity if they let the guy get away.
Clearly in this guy's case, his choice to testify wasn't a good idea. There is a presumption that underlies the right of defendants to testify. In the traditional english system, it is assumed they will put themselves in the best light. Remember this dude had time to go get his gun and load it. The jury must have thought people don't think clearly enough to lock and load without time to examine the situation. Still this is a sad situation all the way around. There are no winners in this one.
You always bust on Arnold supporters for being anti-2nd Amendment. If your home was being broken into in the middle of the night would you not use deadly force in response?
What makes you so sure it would have turned out any different had he not testified? Look, I don't know anything about this case except what I read in the article. I will say though that I am a criminal defense attorney and I have tried a lot of cases over the years where I have had clients testify because we really felt like we had no choice in the matter. Sometimes you just have to do it to get the evidence out. Sometimes you need to do it because you can see the facts are such that a judge or jury is going to need to hear the story coming from the horse's mouth.
I do not subscribe to the belief that defendants in criminal cases should never testify. I'll advise against it if I don't think the testimony is really necessary, in which case it would be more likely to hurt us than help us, and I'll advise against it if my client has a bad record that will only come in if he gets on the stand. I'll also advise against it if I just think my client will be a terrible witness unless I really need his testimony. Ultimately though, it's their choice whether they testify or not. Sometimes they're screwed if they testify. Sometimes they're screwed if they don't. Sometimes they're screwed either way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.