Home Invasion Death of Chesapeake Detective

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?

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?

Click to expand...

[font="Arial,Helvetica"] 76-2-405 Force in defense of habitation. <http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/76_02.htm>[/font]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 [font="<!--"] 76-10-511. Possession of loaded weapon at residence authorized. <http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_0C045.htm> which reads in whole:

[/font][font="<!--"]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.
[/font]

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.....

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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:

Click to expand...

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

[font="<!--"] 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. [/font]

imported post

My error... The link did not work and I clicked the wrong one and I tried to piece it together.

You spoke about camping and that was the code I found. I have changed to the other code section but everything is still the same.

imported post

LEO229 I have to disagree with you about waiting to see who's violently coming through my door. Since I am not a criminal and do not participate in such activities, I do not expect the police to be breaking down my door.

Therefore if someone is breaking down my door I will fire upon them to repel them. If however they are knocking hard on my door I would wait and assess the situation.

After all someone breaking through my do is not coming to say hello and give me a lotto ticket. And I would oppose any law that says I have to wait to see who's breaking through my door until they're completly through it so I can then identify them.

imported post

kimbercarrier wrote:

LEO229 I have to disagree with you about waiting to see who's violently coming through my door. Since I am not a criminal and do not participate in such activities, I do not expect the police to be breaking down my door.

Therefore if someone is breaking down my door I will fire upon them to repel them. If however they are knocking hard on my door I would wait and assess the situation.

After all someone breaking through my do is not coming to say hello and give me a lotto ticket. And I would oppose any law that says I have to wait to see who's breaking through my door until they're completly through it so I can then identify them.

Click to expand...

I am with you on this one kimbercarrier. I have taken responsibility for the protection of my family. If someone is violently assaulting my home I will defend my family.

imported post

Well guys... do what you feel is best.

Be sure you can successfully justify your actions to 12 of your peers.

We will all have our own opinions on the matter... I know a guy that decided to shoot and he is being charged with capitol murder right now. He must explain why he decided to go shoot someone on the other side of the door. The attorney fees are going to be high... but the charges may be reduced if he is lucky.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Well guys... do what you feel is best.

Be sure you can successfully justify your actions to 12 of your peers.

We will all have our own opinions on the matter... I know a guy that decided to shoot and he is being charged with capitol murder right now. He must explain why he decided to go shoot someone on the other side of the door. The attorney fees are going to be high... but the charges may be reduced if he is lucky.

Click to expand...

LEO 229,


You may be right about the high cost of attorney fees, but my family is worth it. I really hope that my home is never invaded, but if it is...

The big question for the 12 in the jury box is whether the shooter initiated the violence or responded to violence with deadly force.

imported post

So People breaking through or down your door is normal? What planet do you live on that this would'nt be justified. I would be in fear of great bodily harm or my life and that of my family in such a case and therefore I believe it to be justifiable.

imported post

Folks, its generally a bad practice and a sign that your training is severely lacking if you resort to shooting through house doors when defending your home if not under threat of deadly force. I can understand bringing a weapon to bear and holding it on the subject until you decide if they are a threat or not...but shooting through the door when you don't know if you are in danger is in my professional opinion, extremely reckless to say the least. There could be someone who has returned to the wrong house after having a night on the town (which does happen more than most people think), or someone who is distressed on the road (disabled vehicle), or whatever reason. If you don't feel you can make a quick decision to shoot or not shoot, you have two choices. First choice, get more training and practice on a regular basis so that you are able to maintain your weapon handling proficiency at a high level. Get force on force training. Second choice is to leave the job of defending people to those with the proper training and sound judgement. If it were me I'd choose option one because I want to be in control of my own safety. I have a very difficult time turning over control of my life and the lives of my family to people I don't know and people who I have no idea of their level of training and judgement. Remember this...Amateurs practice until they get something right.......Professionals practice until they don't get it wrong. Don't be an amateur!!!

imported post

As far as this case is concerned, I'm sure all the facts will come out in court. The only people who knew what happened that fateful night were those on the scene. We don't know what the informant said to the PD, however some of the info that is being spread around as to what happened seems to be contrary to normal procedures for executing a warrant. Its best not to pass judgement until all the real facts come out in court, and they will come out in trial. However, I still don't think it was in the defendant's best interest to discharge a round through the door, and for that I don't think he's going to walk away with clean hands. It is manslaughter at a minimum. Don't know if I buy off on first degree murder, but then again, I don't know what really happened. If the defendant knew he was firing at a police officer then he could be held for capital murder of a police officer and face the needle. I'm kind of curious as to why that wasn't the charge filed. It just sounds like a big mess!! I feel for the officer's family as well as for the family of the defendant. Hopefully, the courts will do their jobs properly and justice will be served. However, in court, you just never know what is going to happen!!

imported post

Charles,... you made me re-think my position on when to shoot, when someone is breaking in my house.



My take is now this.



1. I am a law abiding person so I do not expect the police to be at my door.

2. If the police are doing their job, they will identify themselves BEFORE they try and break down my door.

3. If they are police and they have done their job,including identifying themselvesand I shoot through my door and kill one or more of them I am guilty of murder.

4. If someone is breaking down my door and they have not identified themselves as police, and I fear for my life, they will be shot....door or no door.

5. If someone is breaking down my door and have identified themselves as police, I will a. Try and get them to allow me to open the door and check their identity, while covering them with my weaponor b. Stand at ready and if they are not police, defined myself and my home.

6. If the police have not done their job and they are breaking down my door, and have not identified themselves...heaven help them.

imported post

LRS76251 wrote:

However, I still don't think it was in the defendant's best interest to discharge a round through the door, and for that I don't think he's going to walk away with clean hands. It is manslaughter at a minimum.

Click to expand...

This is one of the problems I have with this case. The "shoot through the door" thing may be nothing more than intentional disinformation being spread to prejudice the possible jury pool.

The slain officers' partner, the only other policeman on the scene, has given no public statement. The first police spokesman, a friend of Det Shivers who was not there, stated that the officers were wearing body armor and helments as well as badges, so Frederick should have known they were police and not fired.

Frederick, in a jailhouse interview, claimed that he fired on an intruder who was crawling through the bottom of his broken, but not opened, door.

It was only after that, four weeks after the fact, that a second police spokesman, the local FOP Pres., said that Fredericks was guilty because he shotthrough a door without seeing his target (which would have made readingthose markings on thevest and helmet impossible.)

The story from the police keeps changing, and it is always hearsay. The police know what happened, they have physical evidence to back it up (the door) but no direct testimony or evidence has been released to the press, just spokesmen with changing tales while the truth remains hidden for no rational purpose.

imported post

LRS76251 wrote:

Folks, its generally a bad practice and a sign that your training is severely lacking if you resort to shooting through house doors when defending your home if not under threat of deadly force. I can understand bringing a weapon to bear and holding it on the subject until you decide if they are a threat or not...but shooting through the door when you don't know if you are in danger is in my professional opinion, extremely reckless to say the least. There could be someone who has returned to the wrong house after having a night on the town (which does happen more than most people think), or someone who is distressed on the road (disabled vehicle), or whatever reason. If you don't feel you can make a quick decision to shoot or not shoot, you have two choices. First choice, get more training and practice on a regular basis so that you are able to maintain your weapon handling proficiency at a high level. Get force on force training. Second choice is to leave the job of defending people to those with the proper training and sound judgement. If it were me I'd choose option one because I want to be in control of my own safety. I have a very difficult time turning over control of my life and the lives of my family to people I don't know and people who I have no idea of their level of training and judgement. Remember this...Amateurs practice until they get something right.......Professionals practice until they don't get it wrong. Don't be an amateur!!!

Click to expand...

We don't know if the defendant saw the officer or not. It seems that the door was at least partially breached.

This was a case of somebody trying to enter a home through use of violence. That doesn't sound like a confused drunk or a guy who ran out of gas.

I train with my handguns twice a week and my shotgun at least once a month. Training is a good thing. This case is not, however, about handgun proficiency, it is about judgment. If the defendant feared for his life was he justified in shooting before the threat was all the way inside his home? I say yes, others say no.

imported post

Imagine if 'training' was an allowed infringement of the Second Amendment, much as Sarah Brady and FOPs would have it now with "well regulated".

Only the elites would ever have sufficient training to be safe with a gun. Safety is a tyrant's tool; no one can be against safety.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

LRS76251 wrote:

Folks, its generally a bad practice and a sign that your training is severely lacking if you resort to shooting through house doors when defending your home if not under threat of deadly force. I can understand bringing a weapon to bear and holding it on the subject until you decide if they are a threat or not...but shooting through the door when you don't know if you are in danger is in my professional opinion, extremely reckless to say the least. There could be someone who has returned to the wrong house after having a night on the town (which does happen more than most people think), or someone who is distressed on the road (disabled vehicle), or whatever reason. If you don't feel you can make a quick decision to shoot or not shoot, you have two choices. First choice, get more training and practice on a regular basis so that you are able to maintain your weapon handling proficiency at a high level. Get force on force training. Second choice is to leave the job of defending people to those with the proper training and sound judgement. If it were me I'd choose option one because I want to be in control of my own safety. I have a very difficult time turning over control of my life and the lives of my family to people I don't know and people who I have no idea of their level of training and judgement. Remember this...Amateurs practice until they get something right.......Professionals practice until they don't get it wrong. Don't be an amateur!!!

Click to expand...

Theres a big difference between someone pounding on your door adn shouting "Help, open up i need help!" or saying "Open up man, im drunk!" or somethign like that (most drunk people dont knock down doors, or even pound on them if they are too drunk to know the address) and someone actively trying to break your door down. Its not too hard to tell between a foot and a fist on the door.

imported post

Bottom line in states such as Virginia is this: if you shoot through a door and you can't visually determine that there is a deadly threat, you are going to be arrested and more than likely will be in jail until trial. You'll probably be charged with murder. Forget about keeping your guns because they'll be taken at least until after trial. Forget your job because its gone too and nobody wants a "murderer" working for them. If you have a permit to carry...kiss it goodbye, its gone too. As to your friends...well, you'll find out who your true friends really are if you are in this situation. I hope your relationship is strong in your marriage if married. The news media pressure may make your mate bolt from you. Make sure you know what you are doing before you dump somebody because you'll soon find out what its going to cost you a lot so you better be right. Its going to come down to a jury of 12 of your peers and juries can go either way. Court is a trying time for some folks. Even if you win in criminal court, its not over yet. Yes, there is civil court and the rules are different. Honestly, this is why I don't think a homeowner should be held responsible for shooting an intruder if that intruder was there to commit a violent felony.

As to proficiency, training and judgement, they go hand in hand with one another. Firearms proficiency is a tangible skill. Just because you go to the range and shoot at stagnant targets a couple times a week doesn't mean much. Paper doesn't shoot back. If you get some force on force, even if its access to something such as FATS, you are much better off. You get to experience shoot, don't shoot scenerios so your judgement will be improved.

This situation is very bizarre, because normally when you breech a house and do a dynamic entry you'll have the breeching team hitting one door and at least a second team covering the rear and/or other doors to the building. There are always at least two teams at any given time. The second or third team is there to make sure nobody leaves the house. Typically, they don't come in the house until they get word from the entry team that the house is clear and secured. LE will identify themselves prior to making entry and even after making entry. It doesn't add up from what has been released to the media. Then again, it could be a lot of speculation. However, it is very odd that SWAT wasn't already on the scene since they are the ones who are responsible for raids. This is why I don't believe anything the media says. The facts being stated don't add up to what is routinely practiced throughout the country for executing warrants. This one is going to be one to watch.

imported post

The shooter has made it to Wikipedia under no knock warrant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_knock_warrant

In the US, a no knock warrant is a warrant issued by a judge that allows law enforcement officers to enter a property without knocking and without identifying themselves as police. It is issued under the belief that any evidence they hope to find can be destroyed during the time that police identify themselves and the time they secure the area.

The Department of Justice writes:

The number of no-knock raids has increased from 3,000 in 1981 to more than 50,000 last year, according to Peter Kraska, a criminologist at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, Kentucky. Raids that lead to deaths of innocents are relatively rare, but since the early 1980s, 40 bystanders have been killed, according to the Cato Institute in Washington, DC.







Contents[hide]

• 1 Examples
• 2 See also
• 3 References
• 4 External links

//



edit] Examples

• Kathryn Johnston (c1914-2006) was an elderly Atlanta, Georgia woman shot by three undercover police in her home on November 21, 2006 after she fired one shot in self defense, assuming her home was being invaded. While the officers were wounded by gunfire, none of the officers received life threatening injuries, but Johnston was killed by the officers.[1][/suP]

• Corey Maye is currently serving life in prison without parole for the murder of Prentiss, MS Police Officer Ron Jones, after police entered his home on a search warrant in which they sought out a large amount of marijuana. In the pre-dawn hours of Dec. 26, 2001, Maye was awoken by pounding on his door. When police entered the home, Maye fired 3 rounds from a handgun, killing Officer Jones. According to Maye, it was only then that he realized the intruders were police and gave himself up. Officers testified that prior to breaching the duplex, they announced their presence and knocked repeatedly. Although he has expressed regret and sympathy for the Jones family, Maye maintains that he was only trying to protect his sleeping daughter from unknown intruders. [2][/suP]

• Ryan Frederick of Chesapeake, VA is awaiting trial for the shooting death of Detective Jarrod Shivers. At 8:40 January 17, 2008, Chesapeake Police were executing a no-knock raid on Frederick's home. Acting on a tip from an informant, police suspected Frederick to be in possession of marijuana plants. While attempting to gain entry to the residence, Frederick shot Det. Shivers once, fatally. Frederick claims he fired in self-defense, saying that he had been the victim of a break-in three days prior. In addition to first-degree murder, he has been charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Police also seized tub containers, lights, a smoking device, and a fan. When interviewed about the incident, Fredrick claimed police made a mistake and stated, "It’s a damn shame, too, because someone had to lose their life over it." Det. Shivers was a eight year veteran and left behind a wife and three children. [3][/suP][4][/suP]

• Fifteen former LAPD officers have plead guilty to running a robbery ring, which used fake no-knock raids as a ruse to catch victims off guard. The defendants would then steal cash and drugs to sell on the street. This tactic lead Radley Balko, editor of Reason Magazine, to complain "So not only can you not be sure the people banging down your door at night are the police, not only can you not be sure they’re the police even if they say they’re the police, you can’t even be sure it’s safe to let them in even if they are the police."[5][/suP][6][/suP]