Posted on 12/28/2013 9:03:20 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
On December 19th, a sheriff’s deputy was shot and killed during an attempt to serve a “no knock” warrant near Sommerville, Texas. Just before 6:00 A.M. an 8 member SWAT team broke through the door of Henry Goedrich Magee to serve a warrant which would permit the team to search the mobile home in which Magee and his pregnant girlfriend were living. Reacting to the pre-dawn, forced entry Magee grabbed a rifle propped against a bedroom door frame and fired at the unidentified intruders, killing 31 year old sheriff’s deputy Adam Sowders. No one else was injured and Magee was taken into custody. He is being held on $1 million bail and has been charged with capital murder, punishable in Texas by life in prison without possibility of parole or death by lethal injection.
These are the broad facts of the case as first reported by a number of print, radio and TV sources. The following additional information has been made public during the past few days:
1.) The “no-knock” warrant was issued at the request of...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
LOL — It's funny `cause it's true.
(…and I've seen it in programmers, too. So, it's not just politicians.)
Judge Corbett should be the ONLY one facing Murder One. If this was the practice Judges might think twice about approving no-knock warrants.
As things stand today, why shouldn’t a judge sign a warrant. Doesn’t cost anything. If it is bad info, still doesn’t cost the judge anything. By signing warrants he can be sure to keep his job though.
I say make Judges personally responsible for the warrants they issue. By responsible I mean criminally responsible, and civilly responsible. The officer asking for the warrant should face the same consequences. That way, the little hero’s would be careful about asking for and writing warrants.
Thanks! :^)
Wow. Great cartoon — exactly!
No-knock forceful entry entirely appropriate in some circumstances.
Or do you think police should approach a hideout for heavily armed terrorists by politely knocking on the door? Perhaps one where hostages are being held?
What? Afraid to stand behind posting n twisting a version of Newton’s scientific theory?
The challenge was to THINK about what you posted, not to put you on the receiving end of a firing squad, my FRiend. Obviously you also did not believe what you posted.
Why the hell is this "capital murder", as he was defending his home against an unannounced invader? The fact that the invader had a warrant that let him bust in doesn't relieve the fact that the accused has the RIGHT to defend himself and his family.
Even criminals have rights - unless they stand up to the cops, it appears.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I think the operative word is “secure”.
You say: “Or do you think police should approach a hideout for heavily armed terrorists by politely knocking on the door? Perhaps one where hostages are being held?”
By your definition, no-knock warrants should be relatively rare? Are they?
How hard is it to get a no-knock warrant? Oh yeah, you just have to ask.
My original comment to which you responded says basically the same thing.
These authorized home invasions need to stop except in exceptional circumstances.
I fail to understand why you think I differ with you.
There are three possibilities for allowing such warrants: Never, Sometimes and Always.
You originally claimed that they were Never allowable. I pointed out an exception which you agreed, I think, applied.
So Never is out the window.
We both agree Always is a bad idea, though that is close to what we have now.
So we appear to agree on Sometimes, for which there is of course a wide spectrum of potential disagreement on exactly where to draw the line.
The hysteria of war is not a good time to go back to for precedents. WWI and its immediate aftermath was possibly the most hysterical period in our nation’s history.
You might also want to go back and check out how the Founders treated those who dissented from the Patriot position in the Revolution. Admittedly, this was before the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
But their treatment of Tories and those accused of being Tories shows little respect for their “rights,” which are theoretically not granted by the B of R, but only recognized.
IOW, wartime does not make for good legal precedents.
I am not the original guy you were arguing with. I don’t say that no-knocks should NEVER occur.
I can imagine a very few instances. But rare as the Pope at a Baskin Robbins.
No, look at the construction:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.There is flat prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure conjoined with requirements for a warrant (it must be specific in nature, and it must be supported by oath/affirmation — meaning that warrants obtained via lies are perjury.)
No-knock forceful entry entirely appropriate in some circumstances.
No. They are not. Not for police. — For soldiers, there are some cases (the waging of war may necessitate the taking of a town), but for police it violates a long history/tradition of jurisprudence.
William Pitt (member of parliament; supporter of the American colonies rights/grievances), voiced the common-law as this:
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, the rain may enter,—but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!Indeed, we can see this even expressed in USSC citations; Boyd v. United States - (1886):
The principles laid down in this opinion affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security. They reach farther than the concrete form of the case then before the court, with its adventitious circumstances; they apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employees of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors and the rummaging of his drawers that constitutes the essence of the offence, but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty, and private property, where that right has never been forfeited by his conviction of some public offence -- it is the invasion of this sacred right which underlies and constitutes the essence of Lord Camden's judgment. Breaking into a house and opening boxes and drawers are circumstances of aggravation, but any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man's own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence to convict him of crime or to forfeit his goods is within the condemnation of that judgment.And in the opening paragraph of Weeks v. United States (1914) reads as:
[…]
And any compulsory discovery by extorting the party's oath, or compelling the production of his private books and papers, to convict him of crime or to forfeit his property, is contrary to the principles of a free government. It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman; it is abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes of despotic power, but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom.
Under the Fourth Amendment, Federal courts and officers are under such limitations and restraints in the exercise of their power and authority as to forever secure the people, their persons, houses, papers and effects against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law.
Or do you think police should approach a hideout for heavily armed terrorists by politely knocking on the door? Perhaps one where hostages are being held?
[Domestic] Terrorists should be dealt with by the militia, that is the body of the citizenry armed for war.
Granted; but if you read that decision it is a clear positioning of: "the Constitution is Supreme Law, except when it isn't."
If the Constitution is deficient, over-restrictive or over-liberal in what it allows/disallows, then there is a clear means by which it can be altered: amendment.
Or pulling select quotes from this article:
To the legal positivist [laws] are more a matter of convenience or expedience or personal preference than attempts to codify permanent standards of right and wrong.
[…]
Tyranny is rank egotism, the haughty belief that the world will be a better place when everyone else does what I think they should do.
[…]
When there are no fixed principles, then law becomes a cruel and unjust weapon. Equal treatment before the law is supplanted by cronyism and special interest deals. The governors and governed no longer share equal standing before the law, but the former exalt themselves above the law, and use the law as a tool to oppress and control the latter.
Oh I believe what I posted, but only a fool would take a round from a rifle even with body armor, and only an a$$hole such as yourself would suggest it. Any moron knows including you I suspect that it's the hole the bullet makes, but some fr posters are so arrogant and so militantly ignorant that they cannot accept the facts. Said fact being that the momentum of the bullet and the rifle are the same in magnitude but opposite in direction. This is not a twisted version of Newton, but the reality.
Projection, big boy. If you are unaware of it, look it up it could be very helpful in understanding your hostility to almost every person you come into contact with.
Guess I’ll replace 12 gauge shotgun w/00 buckshot with my 444 rifle and 454 Casull pistol w/300 grain solid points. Maybe the M-1 rifle w/military rounds. At least the bruises will be significant.
Concoct story is an important part of police actions.
Picture 2 looks like excessive use of donuts.
Stupid is as stupid does.
It will if repeated at my home.
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.