Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 147

Thread: Home Invasion Death of Chesapeake Detective

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Link is here:

    http://tidewaterliberty.wordpress.com/

    Dr. Tabor is clear about many of the issues to gun owners surrounding the handling of this case.

    His concern about the (mis)handling of this case, and the implications for any that would defend their home are clear.

    1. Where did the .223 casing found in the search of the home after the shooting come from? - Not the homeowner. Police only foundthe home defenders.380 handgun but no .223 rifle. Chesapeake PD do have AR-15s. Did Chesapeake PD fire at or into the home? Did Chesapeake PD fire first?

    2. Was the warrant a night time no-knock warrant, or was the night time home assault simply a method of police intimidation?

    3. Why charge the defendant with 1st Degree murder, when the circumstances surrounding this case clearly do not call for 1st degree murder charges?

    We do not know everything about this case, but what we do know does not giveme confidence that my city police department is conducting itself in a proper manner. One can understand the police dept. desire to quickly put away one who has killed a police officer, but the Chesapeake PD should not ride roughshod over our justice system. If the CPDwas incapable of properly handling this case, they should have stepped aside and asked the state police to handle the investigation. The Chesapeake Commonwealth's Attorney already has stepped aside.

    I am usually on the side of police, as is the owner of Tidewater Liberty, Dr. Tabor. This is not police bashing, this is crying foul when the stench is bad.

    Remember,if the shooter is railroaded, we all lose some of our ability to defend our homes.



    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  2. #2
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    This case stinks more and more. According to tidewaterliberty there were only two detectives at the scene. That just does not make sense. Did the warrant authorize a home assault, or were the detectives doing this on their own to intimidate the suspect???

    Now what we apparently have isCommonwealth testimonyfrom onlyone detective, who may have taken liberties with respect to the 4th A, and who was the partner of the dead detective.This detective'sobjectiveness will be an issue.



    Please no flame wars. My concern is for the future of gun owners defending themselves in their homes if this defendant is railroaded. I mourn the loss of Detective Shivers and attended his memorial service.


    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    As we all attend the annual Independence Day memorial services. Each mourns in his own way. Each recognizes the passing Sic Transit Gloria Mundi of the glories of the world. Some will rest in peace requiescat in pace.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    This is off topic but a valued discussion since it has something to do with home defense.

    One thing to remember is to never believe everything you read from the press.

    Q1: The media is trying to discredit the confidentialinformant now and make him out to be a burglar when there is absolutely no proof of this.

    Q2: I have no explanation. This is actually agood question.

    Q3: It is not necessary to say you are going to be making "Forced Entry"in the warrant. You identify why you need to go in and what you intend to search. If the person is not at home you would be forcing entry anyway. You do not sit on his front porch waiting for him to return from work and unlock the door.

    Q4: Those that were at the scene were likely orderedto not talk about it at all to ANYONE due to an internal investigation that will be conducted. This is common. Most departments have someone trained to speak to the media.

    Q5: How did the police know the growing operation did not exist? The informant stated itwas thereand that is why the the policewere there.

    Q6: The .223 shell casing could be from anyone and dropped weeks prior. The mediais now playing that this mystery bullet is from the cops and they shot at the house. Typical of the media.

    Q7: How do we know the results on the door have been completed? How do we know they have not been released? There is no proof offered. At this point the public is not really entitled to the evidence since this is an active case.

    The defendant is will be going to court and the media wants to try his case and release all the details so the Jury pool can be poisoned.

    In the closingcomments the author clearly identifies why has has written this biased story. :X



    Thundar.... it isyour opinion or fear that if the defendant is convicted that you will lose the ability to defend your home in some way. I highly doubt that.

    I believe in protecting yourself and your family at home.... But we must still do so responsibly. This guy shot at the door with people on the other side!! Maybe we should have clear cut guidelines drawn up that says why you can shoot.

    Was it a bad idea to go in at night? With what I have been told.. Ya. But Maybe there was a time constraint and the plants were going to be moved soon. We just do not know.

    I am keeping an open mind here.....

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    92

    Post imported post

    Look I am not sure I understand this correctly, but LEO can you please explain why the reason for a no knock at night when the evidence they were searching for was supposedly outside in a green house?

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    The citizen is presumed innocent while the cops aren't.

    A fully informed jury cannot be 'poisoned' but jurors may be excused on voir dire.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    Thundar, there is still a lot to learn before jumping on either bandwagon.
    The media coverage is a good thing because it tends to balance what the police department may release or leak.

    The PD there does have a bad track record and that scores against them...but we still don't have much in the way of facts yet.

    With only two Detectives, I can almost guarantee that Detective #2, didn't see anything at all. If he wasn't watching the back, something really stinks.

    Where were the holes in the door? Even Kiddie cops have enough sense to NOT position themselves in front of the door when knocking. Was the Detective just testing the doorknob to see if it was unlocked?

    What alerted the homeowner? Knocking? That is a common procedure. Knock and when the owner asks, "who is it"...knock harder.

    There is a lot to find out before crying foul. Nothing makes a group look worse or reduces their effectiveness, than to actively support someone that is wrong. I think I said to you in a PM once, "choose your fights wisely".

    This may be a good one....but then again.....

    Remember, to most seasoned cops, it is just a job. Not a fast run down the ski slope or a fast day on the mountain bike...just a job that is for the most part, pretty dull.
    whether this Detective was having another day at the office or, on Safari will come out sooner or later. Wait for the facts!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    worrbaron wrote:
    Look I am not sure I understand this correctly, but LEO can you please explain why the reason for a no knock at night when the evidence they were searching for was supposedly outside in a green house?
    Be happy to if I knew more about it being a greenhouse.

    Can you elaborate a little?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    Snipped.....
    What alerted the homeowner? Knocking? That is a common procedure. Knock and when the owner asks, "who is it"...knock harder.

    .... snipped
    It would be interesting to know the exact details and how long they were at the front door before the homeowner came running.

    I guess they could not kick the door open and could only punch a hole in it. In my experience.. door jams are pathetic and easy to bust apart.

    I can understand how scary this would be to the homeowner... It would be hard to NOT fire. But maybe it is my professional training that makes me want to wait and see what it is first.

    Maybe Virginia does need to create some kind of law to protect homeowners but also provide a guideline for when deadly action can be taken.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    Snipped.....
    What alerted the homeowner? Knocking? That is a common procedure. Knock and when the owner asks, "who is it"...knock harder.

    .... snipped
    It would be interesting to know the exact details and how long they were at the front door before the homeowner came running.

    I guess they could not kick the door open and could only punch a hole in it. In my experience.. door jams are pathetic and easy to bust apart.

    I can understand how scary this would be to the homeowner... It would be hard to NOT fire. But maybe it is my professional training that makes me want to wait and see what it is first.

    Maybe Virginia does need to create some kind of law to protect homeowners but also provide a guideline for when deadly action can be taken.
    That's one of the things that I really want to know. Since it was a drug related warrant, I seriously doubt they knocked.

    Most doors will splinter at the jackpost and even with a steel jamb, pop right open. I'm sure this Detective knew enough to hit it between the security lock and the door knob, and if he did, he should have been in the house before the homeowner had a chance to react.

    Just a lot that's unclear.

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    OH....let me qualify the seriously doubt they knocked, remark.

    I seriously doubt it IF.....the warrant included the residence.

    If the warrant was for a detached structure only and they had already peeked and were sure no one was in there, they may well have knocked on the residence door, just to have the owner in hand.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    92

    Post imported post

    Sorry I mis-read the article, it said garage. However that still leaves me with some confusion regarding the tactics involved. Where exactly did the informant suggest drugs were? And why were there only two officers?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    That's one of the things that I really want to know. Since it was a drug related warrant, I seriously doubt they knocked.

    Most doors will splinter at the jackpost and even with a steel jamb, pop right open. I'm sure this Detective knew enough to hit it between the security lock and the door knob, and if he did, he should have been in the house before the homeowner had a chance to react.

    Just a lot that's unclear.
    True

    I am going to try not jump to any conclusions and seethingsexplained more.



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    worrbaron wrote:
    Sorry I mis-read the article, it said garage. However that still leaves me with some confusion regarding the tactics involved. Where exactly did the informant suggest drugs were? And why were there only two officers?
    Very hard to believe it was just two officers.

    If it was... this is really strange and I would love an explanation.

    Normally.... you would have a team that would cover all exterior doors so that evidence does not walk out the back while you are at the front.

    Even if the drugs were reported to be in the garage alone... attached or otherwise... I am confident the officers would ask to go for the house too.

    Past events will show that illegal activity is not confined to a single location in a home. In this case.. you can grow in the garage and process the plants in the house where you can be more comfortable.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chesapeake, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Leo,

    I don't usually respond to these things, but I have never been referred to as "media" before. I can't let that pass. I am the Chairman of the Tidewater Libertarian Party and the proprietor of the Tiderwater Liberty blog. I am pro-gun and pro-police, as well as being personally opposed to drug use.

    You may think you understand my motives for taking the stand I have on this issue, but I doubt it. If you want to know why this concerns me so deeply, see :

    http://tidewaterliberty.wordpress.co...2/knock-knock/

    I believe a brave police officer is dead because his superiors sent him into unnecessary danger. The warrant could have been served just as effectively in a non-confrontational manner that would have placed neither the citizen or the officer at risk.

    I further believe that the leadership of the CPD is covering up bad policy and in doing so is placing other citizens and police officers at risk.

    The police in a free society should be honest with the citizens they serve. When mistakes are made, they should be admitted so they can serve as lessons that will save lives later.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Good of you to join us....

    The web link does say "world press" where your story is being posted. Maybe I should have said "Press" but I am used to the word media as this is who loves to embellish and give half the story on a regular basis. Please forgive me.

    I have learned over the years that you cannot believe everything you read. The pressor authorwill often times embellish things to stir interest and generate ratings, or solicit a response from the reader. It is not that often astory is posted that is not biased in some way towards the views of the pressor author.

    Your story was targeted in the end at the leadership of that department. But the items you pointoutmade it appear that the detectives and others are all bad and there is some type of cover up going on. This is my take on it.

    I know nothing about that department so am Iexpected to believe everything you post while you have not backedit up?It may be your opinion alone or perhaps that department really isbad.

    However... whatwas the point in your speculation in the numerous points you have made?

    You have done nothing but promote rumors and speculation. You are should be sticking to the facts in your story.

    Two items of interest are

    • Was the Confidential Informant also the burglar
    • no explanation for that .223 leading many to speculate that there is a sinister reason for not accounting for that round
    Pure speculation on your part!! It is my opinion that the press should NEVER be doing this.But I guess you are NOT the press since you are a "blog" even if your web link contains the word "press?"

    Do you see where I am coming from?


    Ihave also read your story you conveniently posted after the shooting event happened. As I said previously... You cannot believe everything you read. I am now being presented with a story of an event that is reported to havehappened 36 years ago in another state.

    Not saying it did not happen.... and not saying it does not happen. But I am not going to believe everything I read.

    It is clear what your views are as far as the department goes and the charges that have been placed.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Good of you to join us....

    The web link does say "world press" where your story is being posted. Maybe I should have said "Press" but I am used to the word media as this is who loves to embellish and give half the story on a regular basis. Please forgive me.

    I have learned over the years that you cannot believe everything you read. The pressor authorwill often times embellish things to stir interest and generate ratings, or solicit a response from the reader. It is not that often astory is posted that is not biased in some way towards the views of the pressor author.

    Your story was targeted in the end at the leadership of that department. But the items you pointoutmade it appear that the detectives and others are all bad and there is some type of cover up going on. This is my take on it.

    I know nothing about that department so am Iexpected to believe everything you post while you have not backedit up?It may be your opinion alone or perhaps that department really isbad.

    However... whatwas the point in your speculation in the numerous points you have made?

    You have done nothing but promote rumors and speculation. You are should be sticking to the facts in your story.

    Two items of interest are

    • Was the Confidential Informant also the burglar
    • no explanation for that .223 leading many to speculate that there is a sinister reason for not accounting for that round
    Pure speculation on your part!! It is my opinion that the press should NEVER be doing this.But I guess you are NOT there press since you are a "blog" even if your web link contains the word "press?"

    Do you see where I am coming from?


    Ihave also read your story you conveniently posted after the shooting event happened. As I said previously... You cannot believe everything you read. I am now being presented with a story of an event that is reported to havehappened 36 years ago in another state.

    Not saying it did not happen.... and not saying it does not happen. But I am not going to believe everything I read.

    It is clear what your views are as far as the department goes and the charges that have been placed.
    Way to go.....LEO

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chesapeake, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Good of you to join us....

    The web link does say "world press" where your story is being posted. Maybe I should have said "Press" but I am used to the word media as this is who loves to embellish and give half the story on a regular basis. Please forgive me.
    I see the confusion. Wordpress is a hosting service that hosts a number of blogs, Tidewater Liberty being one of them. Tidewater Liberty is a forum, much like this one, for Libertarians and others to express their opinions. It is more like a group of ladies and gentlemen discussing politics and the affiars of the day in a Pub, than an arm of the media or press. You are welcome to comment there if you choose.

    Of course there is speculation. That is the point. The CPD has withheld important information from the public, and specualtion has filled that vaccuum. If you think my views are speculative, you should see the posts on the VA Pilot's online blogs. I have had to moderate my blog to remove posts I found unnecessarily insulting or insensitive to the family of the fallen officer.

    You point out some possible explanations for that .223 casing. There is a lot of speculation about that round down here. The CPD has known the truth about that round since the day of the raid. They could end that speculation simply by telling the truth about it. But over a month after the raid, they have not said a word about it in any of the interviews of the spokesmen they have provided.

    I want very much to believe there is no wrongdoing associated with that round, but by stonewalling on the subject, the CPD invites speculation, some of it very dark.

    36 years ago, I came within a couple of seconds of killing a police officer, who, with all the noblest of intentions, took a short cut around the law and made a serious mistake. We have laws and procedures for good reasons. The history that taught those lessons is written in blood. We should not ignore those lessons.

    In almost every case, when mistakes are made, the coverup does more harm than the mistake.


  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    I see where you are coming from then.

    We post here openly and speculate on stuffbut it is obvious what we are doingas we actively exchange information, thoughts, and ideas.

    In your case... your posting speculation however it is one sided as it isnot discussed. You can only give your opinion and you are clearly entitled to it.

    The bad part is that the casual reader that pops in and reads what appears to be an official press report may run with it and believe what you say is the real deal.

    We truly have enough speculation and arm chair quarterbacking in the world already. Even here.... I prefer to wait for the information to be revealed and understand that not everything you want to know is going to be told immediately.

    How about before speculating you try to obtain the information yourself and then you can speak from a first hand experience.

    Having said all that..... I do hope some good will come out of this and changes made to prevent this tragic loss in the future.



  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:

    I believe in protecting yourself and your family at home.... But we must still do so responsibly. This guy shot at the door with people on the other side!! Maybe we should have clear cut guidelines drawn up that says why you can shoot.

    Perhaps off topic, but I will point out that Utah's defense of habitation law allows me to use deadly force to prevent an unlawful ATTEMPT to enter my home. I need not wait until my perimeter is actually breached. Someone illegally trying to pick my locks, or to illegally force his way in IS subject to catching a load of double-ought THROUGH the door. And while caution needs to be exercised, one cannot really expect me to walk up and put an eye to the peephole in the case of a violent and potentially armed criminal trying to force his way through my front door.

    And here is the problem with any forced entry by police, much less a no-knock or no-announce entry. As a law abiding person I certainly don't expect the police to be executing a forced entry of my home. For that matter, since I don't mingle in criminal circles, my odds of ANY forced entry or home invasion are very low.

    But if one happens I am forced to determine whether it is bad guys trying to kill my entire family, or "good guys" who misread an address, or accepted inaccurate information from some informant without verifying it, etc. If I assume it is the police and I'm wrong, my whole family dies after being raped and beaten and tortured. If I assume it is bad guys and I'm wrong, police officers may die and I may go to prison on trumped up charges.

    Not a pretty choice, but for any man worthy to be called such, I can only see on viable option if I can't very quickly determine that it is "good guys" beating down my door.

    Which brings me to a general philosophical view of such things: forced entry and no announce warrants need to be reserved as the very last resort and certainly not to keep some small amount of drugs from being flushed or something similar. They should not be conducted until AFTER trained AND SWORN officers (not CIs, but sworn officers) have done proper surveillance on the address long enough to determine that information is accurate, that a less intrusive method (such as arresting someone as he goes to the mailbox or out to buy pizza) is not viable, that innocents are accounted for, etc.

    A man's home is his castle and breaching it in a violent manner needs to be reserved for most limited and extreme cases such as a known hostage with failed negotiations.

    Our entire criminal justice system is based on the premise that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be wrongly convicted. It seems not too much to expect that police procedure, the issuance of warrants, etc would likewise temper desires to catch the bad guys with assurances that the good guys are never wrongly targeted, AND that if they are that they not be railroaded. Indeed, even a criminal has a right to defend his home from unknown invaders and until he has a reasonable chance to know that those kicking in his door are in fact police officers executing a warrant, he should not be expected to treat those persons as anything other than home invaders.

    And yes, I realize this is heavy burden to place on police officers. I just don't see how a free society can accept anything less and survive. Much less an armed society.

    I was living in Boston some 15 years back when the police executed a forced entry. I forget whether it was based on bad info from a CI looking to cut a deal, or a bad address or what. But long story short, they burst in on an elderly and retired minister who was as clean as the day is long. They did not figure that until AFTER they had yanked him from bed, put a boot on his back, AND he suffered a fatal heart attack as a result of the stress. Not a gun or pot plant to be found. Just a dead retired minister in hand cuffs on his bedroom floor. I recall the taxpayers got off for only a couple of million in a wrongful death settlement with the city. One innocent man dead.

    We had a recent case here in Utah where a husband and wife and a vocal argument and neighbor called the police. Someone knew the guy was a vet from Iraq and had some guns so the cops called in the full swat team. Fortunately, they did not try force. He sent his wife and kids out to make clear there were no hostages and then in a stroke a genius called the local TV station to explain there had been a misunderstanding, but no violence and that he had violated no laws. But he wasn't about to come out and be railroaded because the police decided to over react and call in the full SWAT team. He refused to come out until someone brought him a signed letter from a judge that he was NOT going to be charged with anything. He never brandished a weapon, never threatened anyone, he simply refused to come out.

    After a couple of hours and with mounting media pressure the police finally contacted a judge who looked over the facts, and signed a letter. Turns out no crime had been committed. End of story. Everyone goes home alive AND FREE. But any bets on how this turns out had the fellow not played his cards just as he did?

    Our police do a tough job. But they are not the military and we need to resist and turn back the militarization of peace officers who need to presume that people are innocent until proven guilty. The military makes no such assumptions on the field of battle.

    Concerns about how and where and under what circumstances forced entries are used and how mistakes or even reasonable defense from home owners is handled ARE of central concern to gun owners.

    If I can't ID potential intruders as cops, I WILL defend myself, my family, and our home. I'd really prefer not to face a 1st or capital degree murder charge for doing so when it turns out the home invaders had a badge.

    Charles


    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    And in your state...

    I am sure the police are aware of the risk and plan appropriately.

    Here in Virginia we do not have such a law that I am aware of. This is why I submit that we need some guidelines so the people know exactly what the state will allow.

    Would you mind posting a link to the law for your state for all to read?

  22. #22
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    And in your state...

    I am sure the police are aware of the risk and plan appropriately.

    Here in Virginia we do not have such a law that I am aware of. This is why I submit that we need some guidelines so the people know exactly what the state will allow.

    Would you mind posting a link to the law for your state for all to read?
    76-2-405 Force in defense of habitation. <http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/76_02.htm>I note that in Utah, habitation or abode has generally included temporary abodes such as identifiable camp sites. And yes, the older officers--including Forest Service Rangers and Wildlife Officers--who really understand the ramifications, as well as the culture that brought such laws into being, are generally quite polite and circumspect about entering a man's campsite, especially after dark. They are careful to fully identify themselves before entering. Trying to enforce some technical rule or even check on poaching just isn't worth getting shot and having the guy go completely free because he honestly thought you were a home invader. :shock:

    One codified example of our view of habitation is found in 76-10-511. Possession of loaded weapon at residence authorized. <http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_0C045.htm> which reads in whole:

    Except for persons described in Section 76-10-503 [ed essentially federally prohibited persons], a person may have a loaded firearm at his place of residence, including any temporary residence or camp.

    Regardless of law I would never expect a man to wait until his last physical defense is breached before taking action; nor would I ever expect a man to retreat from his own home before using deadly force against an intruder as I understand is required in Massachusetts. Of course, I'm kind of funny about expecting laws to actually reflect some proper principles and while there are many areas where I obey what I consider to be unconstitutional, immoral, or just plain bad laws because I don't care to risk the legal consequences, I'd take a whole different view on a jury. Despite my personal choices, I'm just not likely to vote to convict someone on some non-violent technical gun charge, for example.

    I would also hope that police officers and departments are properly mindful of protecting the innocent from mistakes (and downright malicious lies) as much as they are with catching the latest dope dealer, REGARDLESS of what the laws are. I far prefer to see Peace Officers discharging their duties with an eye toward service than to see "Law Enforcement Types" (as they are derisively called in some areas) going as far as the law will possibly allow.

    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Thundar.... it isyour opinion or fear that if the defendant is convicted that you will lose the ability to defend your home in some way. I highly doubt that.

    I believe in protecting yourself and your family at home.... But we must still do so responsibly. This guy shot at the door with people on the other side!! Maybe we should have clear cut guidelines drawn up that says why you can shoot.

    Was it a bad idea to go in at night? With what I have been told.. Ya. But Maybe there was a time constraint and the plants were going to be moved soon. We just do not know.

    I am keeping an open mind here.....
    I do not know all of the facts, but I am very concerned about this case. If (and this is a bigif) the shooter was in fear for his life, did not know that he was shooting at detectives,and the detectives were breaking down his door, then we have to think about whether the shooter committed a crime.

    When this is over, I hope we have a fair trial, with an appropriate outcome. I hope this case delivers a better understanding of the police policy about home invasion warrants and leads to an examination of any policy that unnecessarily puts citizens or police at risk. (I don't have enough info to opine about innocence or guilt.)

    I do notfear a guilty verdict, I fear the skewing of the system to make sure that gun owners are sent a message.

    Guidelines are like rules of engagement. Interpretation is everything. More to the point, would the guidelines really matter during the event? Perhaps, but I tend to think not.

    As you know Virginia relies upon common law in these circumstances. A castle doctrine lawmight be more clear, but I think that the law would do more to find innocence or guilt after the fact. I would be acting on adrenaline and past training if I were awoken at night with my home being invaded.


    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper
    Not wanting to go off topic since this is out-of-state...

    But for the sake of comparing how another state operates.... in light of the shooting that happened in Virginia....


    Corrected code section but still follows the same guidelines as before.

    You must have some indication serious harm is pending. You cannot use more force then is reasonably necessary.

    So you cannot shoot someone just for entering the house.


    http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_02025.htm


    76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation.


    (1) A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if:


    (a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or


    (b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.


    (2) The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran roscoe13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Catlett, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,134

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:

    76-2-407. Deadly force in defense of persons on real property.
    (1) A person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury against another in his defense of persons on real property other than his habitation if:
    If you're going to talk about people's homes, you might at least quote and comment on the correct section...

    http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_02025.htm

    76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation.
    (1) A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if:
    (a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or
    (b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
    (2) The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony.

    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •