Posted on 02/11/2015 3:00:30 AM PST by maddog55
Gun owners and self-defense advocates are lauding a rare victory in which a Texas grand jury has refused to indict a homeowner for shooting and killing a police officer who entered his home unannounced in the middle of the night.
The homeowner, Henry Magee, 28, said he thought the officers who broke through his door were robbers and he acted in self-defense to protect his pregnant girlfriend and two children.
Police were acting on a tip from a criminal informant that led them to believe Magee had more than a dozen marijuana plants, all at least six feet tall, in his rural home in Burleson County. Officers included a line on the warrant that Magee also had possible illegal guns stolen from the local sheriffs office. The local magistrate signed off on the warrant, with deadly consequences.
Before the sun came up on Dec. 19, nine deputies broke down the door to Magees mobile home and set off a flash-bang grenade. Magee confronted them, firing away as they barged through the door. One of the deputies, Adam Sowders, fell dead.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I wanted to check the reaction of the cop defenders. I see that we can no longer view the comments on www.policeone.com
They usually confirm every terrible suspicion you ever had about lunatic cops. So, naturally, now they are hidden.
And the guns were legally owned & locked in a safe.
Where have we seen this before?
Ha, quite possibly true; but I put more (blind) faith in the police than I would a KNOWN element of crime (informants).
Though, I don’t recall any blow-back from the Duke lacrosse, or Brawley, or...Hell, women falsely accusing their spouses of abuse/etc. during divorce would fall into that category IMHO.
Course, I also believe those ‘in power’ should be held and sentenced more harshly too....
According to the article, the guy had 4 legal guns, three in a safe and one in his hands. Even in Texas, criminal background checks are required to purchase a gun. Does this mean the police would have knopwn that he had the legal guns? Does anyone from Texas know the answer to that question?
My point is that if they knew he had legal guns, wouldn't that be just as scary (from a no-knock perspective) as if he had illegal guns?
So why not mention the real legal guns instead of merely speculating about illegal guns?
Could it be that legal guns can't support a no knock warrant in Texas but illegal ones can?
Any Texas lawyer know the answer to that question?
Holding women accountable for lying to authorities about men would be a "war on women" donchaknow.
Of course, holding Amish informants accountable for lying to authorities would probably be "racist" ...
Whole-heartedly agree!
“possible” illegal guns...what a crock! So all the LEO need do is bring the “illegal” gun with them and plant it. They are then home free.
I know...WHAT was I THINKING?! That ‘all equal under the Law’ is so, so....blase!
"Major" cities (NYC, LA, Chicago) might justify them, but that would create a slippery slope as second-tier cities then demanded their own. Better to have it be a state function, and have the state permanently station a SWAT unit in any region whose legitimate needs for one would justify it.
As a state unit, it would also make it cost effective to have the team be very highly trained, and give them helicopter transport to get to the scene where they are needed.
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.