Police Home Assault Informer Revealed, and Chesapeake PD apparently made deal with bad informer

[Jim675]

imported post

BobCav wrote:

This filthy stinking rat Steven orchestrated the entire thing. Everyone else is a victim here. Shivers AND Ryan both.

That was my inital read as well. But I'd like to add another party to the list.

To me the judge in these situations serves the exact same roll that the 911 operator does in the classic "man with a gun" call. That is the point where someone is responsible for bringing some non-hysteric adult supervision to the process.

What's the evidence? Why should I believe him?
Is this the best (for BOTH sides) possible solution? WHY?

This guy was accused of growing not mass murder.

Shame on the judges without the backbone to say "No. We can afford to treat this one like a human being."

 

[Citizen]

imported post

swillden wrote:

SNIP Bottom line: Possible disappearance of evidence does not justify the risk of injury or death to officers or suspect that is created by kicking down doors.

Ilike this idea. In that some 40 innocent people have died in high-risk entries in the War on Drugs (google "Radley Balko") then its obvious that it needs to be a life-or-death matter, or very serious.

This ideacan be worked with. It can be adjusted to suit the circumstances.

For example, if it is the piece of evidence that will help locate bin Laden, or nail a crime syndicate chief and it must be done now, and the suspect is known to be dangerous, maybe OK.

Positioned against Swillden's comment, one has to wonder why the police do these things at all. What have they been thinking? Why haven't they been taking charge of this?

Who's up to propose a legislative solution at the next General Assembly?

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Jim675 wrote:

So LEO, you're saying that shooting is NOT justified if you "believe" a threat is present but can't see a weapon, right?

Aren't you the one that said the officers in some previous threads WERE justified in firing when they could see no weapon? That we should not expect them to wait for the BG to get his gun and draw before firing (through dark-tinted windws, for instance)?

"San Diego LEO shoots woman and son in Oceanside" (closed) and the thread about the New York guy and friends where 50 rounds left 1 dead and 2 wounded.

How is a darkly-tinted glass and a door different exactly?

As for the arguments here about wether 8PM is middle of the night or not - at exactly what hours of the day is it OK for unknown people to batter my door? How does time factor into this at all?

Again, I'm truly not anti-cop. I'm also not anti-LEO 229. I'm fascinated by your opinions on this board. You have an extremely high degree of loyalty to your chosen carreer. You obviously have a wealth of knowledge and experience.

It does seem to me at times that you (unconsciously) use your knowledge to the benefit of an officer when you would not bend your reading in the same manner for a badge-less citizen.

I hope you stay on this forum for years. I'd love to see if your resistance ever falters!

May you have a long life and no arthritis in your hands!

Killing me here Jim!!! :lol:

In regards to the shooting at the car.... This is not just a case oftwo cars sitting in a lot. This is one car smashing into the other. We now havethe threat. You should be aware that YOU are the target if your in the vehicle being struck.

Serving any warrants.. arrest or search as I recall must be done before 9 PM. Warrants to be served after that must get given special permission since you will be waking the occupants and this is not always necessary. This is reserved for extremely dangerous people.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

swillden wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Why do you need to search for more proof when you may have enough to get it.

Now it would be better to to do a full investigation but what if the guy never does a thing to prove what the informant is telling you he has seen first hand?

You have wasted time and evidence could have disappeared.

The last sentence is the bright line that decides whether or not a single -- apparently reliable -- informant is enough: If the WORST that is likely to happen is that evidence disappears, then you MUST take the time and do the investigation. In cases where there is real danger, there MAY be justification for aggressive entry.

Either that, or find a non-aggressive way to apprehend the suspect. Like waiting until he goes to work in the morning (just how hard is that, anyway?).

Bottom line: Possible disappearance of evidence does not justify the risk of injury or death to officers or suspect that is created by kicking down doors.

We are talking about a search warrant and not an arrest warrant. So waiting for him to go to work only makes sure he is not athome. This does not mean there will not be someone else at home.

Some areas of the job are going to have some danger. Just like traffic stops where you can be shot by the vehicle occupant or hit by another motorist. The cop does not have to do it.. He chooses to do it. It is his decision to face the danger.

In regards to evidence... you cannot conduct a3 week investigation to make sure you have everything you need only to find the evidence that was seen there is no longer there. So you have to act quickly to be sure you willget it.

Example would be a child porn operator.... he could take several days to destroy his hard drives and erase themwhileyou wait to finishyour investigation or wait for him to leave. And what happens when he takes it with him and you go to the house?

You may not feel risk of death or injury is justified but it is a risk of the job that is known.Most search warrants are not met by a gun wilding man who shoots first and asks questions later.

Who would haveever thought a minor crime like this would result in a home owner firing a gun. But this reminds me of another search warrant where the SWAT team was used and was raised into question. Most commented there was no threat and theSWAT team was not necessary.

It seems that in this case... the SWAT team would have been a better option.

Damned if you do.... Damned if you don't.

 

[DKSuddeth]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

DKSuddeth wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Funny how rightscreatedby the government that benefit you aregood but when the police are given certain rights or authority to do thingsby the same government it is not.

excuse me, the government did not 'create' my rights. the police are not 'given' any rights. lets make sure we have the correct information here.

Is that all you have to say?

You understand my meaning so what say you about that?

a single misunderstood word or phrase can greatly change a viewpoint or cause unnecessary confusion. My statement was meant to ensure that didn't happen in this important discussion.

As to 'understanding' your meaning.....no 'authority' should EVER trump the rights of a citizen. The 5th amendment states as much, unfortunately we have complicit courts who have rewritten the constitution.

 

[Thundar]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

.. Ryan failed to warn he had a gun and would fire.

Someone trying to break down your door is NOT an immediate threat. Once they are inside and are actively approaching YOU... then they are a threat.

The police did not even see Ryan.

Ryan had the advantage the entire time and simply shot to keep them outside.

Ryanhad a right to fear someone kicking in his door but that does not give him the right to kill. If I fear a gang member who walks up and gets in my face do I have the right to shoot him too?

It comes down to justification to use lethal force and that requires a threat to target you and show they mean you harm. Ryan had no idea if he was going to be harmed or not.

I think you are wrong LEO. Ryan did have the right to use deadly force if he reasonably feared for his life. The question is what is a reasonable fear?The Virginia Gun owners guide has a very good discussion about this issue. Is an assault upon your home at night sufficient? Can you repel the invaders at the door, or must you permit them to enter the home before using lethal force?

There is no legal warning to give a warning before you fire a gun.

My training says I wait until I see the bad guy. This significantly reduces blue on blue (friendly fire) incidents. I do not think, however,that there is a legal requirement to hold ones fire until you see the whites of their eyes.

To answer the question about the gang member, words and an aggressive attitude would not usually cause me to fear for my life.If I were 80 years old and the gang banger said "give me your money or I will bash in your skull" must I wait until he strikes the first blow to answer with violence.

If I were on a jury for this case the issue for me would be: Did Ryan Frederick reasonably fear for his life? If the answer is yes - he walks. If the answer is no - he is guilty of manslaughter.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

a single misunderstood word or phrase can greatly change a viewpoint or cause unnecessary confusion. My statement was meant to ensure that didn't happen in this important discussion.

As to 'understanding' your meaning.....no 'authority' should EVER trump the rights of a citizen. The 5th amendment states as much, unfortunately we have complicit courts who have rewritten the constitution.

Sorry... the law makers decided otherwise.

Don't hate the police who are working within the laws and doing what they are allowed.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

I think you are wrong LEO. Ryan did have the right to use deadly force if he reasonably feared for his life. The question is what is a reasonable fear?The Virginia Gun owners guide has a very good discussion about this issue. Is an assault upon your home at night sufficient? Can you repel the invaders at the door, or must you permit them to enter the home before using lethal force?

There is no legal warning to give a warning before you fire a gun.

My training says I wait until I see the bad guy. This significantly reduces blue on blue (friendly fire) incidents. I do not think, however,that there is a legal requirement to hold ones fire until you see the whites of their eyes.

To answer the question about the gang member, words and an aggressive attitude would not usually cause me to fear for my life.If I were 80 years old and the gang banger said "give me your money or I will bash in your skull" must I wait until he strikes the first blow to answer with violence.

If I were on a jury for this case the issue for me would be: Did Ryan Frederick reasonably fear for his life? If the answer is yes - he walks. If the answer is no - he is guilty of manslaughter.

So in your eyes... if a person is pounding on my door saying he is going to kill me if he gets in...

Do I have the right to shoot him through the peep hole?

This is actually a step above the Ryan incident as the person outside has clearly told me what he intends to do once he does get inside. I have no idea if he will even try but under your logic... I have a reasonable fear and can kill him.


[line]


True... no requirement to warn someone but would you not agree that Ryan had an opportunity to warn the intruder before shooting since entry had not yet been made?

Would it not be better for me to warn the guy outsidethat I have a gun and will shoot him if he comes in. And if he did not stop or leave... I can then assume he truly intends to harm me when he does make entry.


[line]


And your straw man argument in regards to a gang banger standing before an 80 year old threatening them with physical injury during a robbery.

If the gang member makes a threat and is capable of carrying it out immediately.... this is far different than someone on the other side of a door who will need to take some time to get in first.

How about if a gang member calls me up and threatens to kill me if I do not turn over all my cash. He then knocks on my door. Do I get to shoot him before he kicks in the door?

 

[swillden]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

We are talking about a search warrant and not an arrest warrant. So waiting for him to go to work only makes sure he is not athome. This does not mean there will not be someone else at home.

It did in this case, as a little investigative work could have verified.

In any case, I wasn't suggesting waiting for him to leave, then entering the house, I was suggesting waiting for him to exit the house, then stopping him to serve the warrant. With the suspect detained, you can assure his cooperation -- and lack of a weapon -- before entering the house. It also means you can go in by unlocking the door, rather than entering violently, so if anyone is home the first sound they'll hear is "POLICE! SEARCH WARRANT!".

LEO 229 wrote:

In regards to evidence... you cannot conduct a3 week investigation to make sure you have everything you need only to find the evidence that was seen there is no longer there. So you have to act quickly to be sure you willget it.

That is insufficient justification for tactics that have killed 42 people and wounded many more, except in cases where not getting the evidence results in significant public danger.

Keep in mind that we're talking about a guy growing some weed.

LEO 229 wrote:

Most search warrants are not met by a gun wielding man who shoots first and asks questions later.

Enough are, and if we 2nd amendment and armed-citizenry advocates can make progress, more will be.

LEO 229 wrote:

Who would haveever thought a minor crime like this would result in a home owner firing a gun.

Wow. Just wow.

What the hell difference does the nature of the crime have to do with whether or not a home owner will defend himself? Ryan didn't know anything about what "crime" he was being invaded for -- he didn't even know that it was the police who were breaking down his door!! He had no reason to think they would be busting in, because he wasn't doing anything to justify it.

You have put your finger on the heart of the problem here. It was a minor, non-violent crime that Ryan was suspected of. And yet, the decision by the police, including Detective Shivers, to break the guy's door down unnecessarily CREATED a very dangerous situation.

We've been talking a lot about whether or not the word of a single (criminal) informant is enough to justify an aggressive response by the police, and that's a worthwhile discussion. To my mind, though, it really misses the primary point which is that even if the allegations were accurate, the response was still not justified.

LEO 229 wrote:

It seems that in this case... the SWAT team would have been a better option.

No, it wouldn't. The better option would have been to avoid breaking the door down. Again, why not just grab the guy as he's heading to work?

 

[ilbob]

imported post

even more reasons that "information" from rats should NEVER, EVER be the considered legitimate testimony and should never be used as the soleinformation for granting any kind of warrant.

 

[swillden]

imported post

ilbob wrote:

even more reasons that "information" from rats should NEVER, EVER be the considered legitimate testimony and should never be used as the soleinformation for granting any kind of warrant.

The more I think about this, the more I think the source of the information wasn't the biggest problem. I don't think the response was warranted even if the allegations were supported by the testimony of every justice of the US Supreme Court, who all swore to have personally seen Ryan's pot-growing operation.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

BobCav wrote:

I can understand taking the word of just one informant if it was regarding something as sinister as bomb making, threats against innocents, evil and twisted plots against society in general...but for allegedly growing marijuana? Where is the absolute urgency and immediate need to protect the public from a slow growing plant that doesn't kill anyone?

This whole thing was preventable. I hope justice is served.

But even a bomb manufacturerwould be no different. How do you take the word of someone you do not know? Unless you know this person well or they have been truthful with you in the past as was the reported case here... the situation is the same.

I don't think so. Manufacturing a bomb is in many places illegal simply because the risk of an accidental explosion injuring others in an urban area is high, the same reason discharging a firearm in city limits is generally prohibited. The very manufacturing of the item is potentially an imminent threat of grave bodily injury or death to untold numbers of people. Although in that case I also don't want a no-knock midnight raid that may cause the bomb builder to accidently set off an explosion in the dark. Just as with Frederick, they should arrest him on his way to work in the morning if at all possible.

...snipped

So you are saying it is OK to take the word of an informant that someone is making a bomb and go kick in the door?

I'll try again. I am saying that IF LE is going to use no-knock warrants based on the word of one informant, they should be reserved for imminent threats to public welfare and someone ILLEGALLY building a bomb (maybe I wasn't clear enough on the illegal part) that may be one of those imminent threat situations that does warrant a "shock and awe" warrant service.

"LEO 229 wrote:
In regards to the shooting at the car.... This is not just a case oftwo cars sitting in a lot. This is one car smashing into the other. We now havethe threat. You should be aware that YOU are the target if your in the vehicle being struck."

If I am sleeping in my bed, in my own home, with my doors locked, when it is dark outside, and someone begins to smash in my front door to the point of putting a hole in the door, I should be aware that I am the target! The same way that White was aware that he was the target. And remember, I defended both White and Frederick and have been consistent. Being attacked is being attacked.

LEO 229 wrote:
"So in your eyes... if a person is pounding on my door saying he is going to kill me if he gets in...

Do I have the right to shoot him through the peep hole?

This is actually a step above the Ryan incident as the person outside has clearly told me what he intends to do once he does get inside. I have no idea if he will even try but under your logic... I have a reasonable fear and can kill him."

That is NOT a step above the Ryan incident!!!! In your scenario, someone is outside of the house, outside of the door, pounding on the door and making a threat. The door has not been breached. There is no indication he has the ability or means to breach your door. As long as he cannot breach the door and does not try to come through a window he is an outside threat. This is a step below the Ryan incident.

In the Ryan incident they were actually in the process of breaching the door and had already made a hole in the door. They clearly had the means and willingness to breach the door and were doing so. Your example is a step BELOW the Ryan incident. The verbal threat does not raise it above it. A threat with no means to carry it out is not much of a threat. If a muscular guy walks up to me and pushes me and says he is going to beat me up, that is a viable threat. If a quadrapalegic runs into my shins with his wheelchair and says that if he could get up he would beat me up, that is not a viable threat.

In your example, if the person were outside the door, had threatened to kill you and was instead of pounding on the door, actually breaching the door to the point of already creating a hole in it, then yes, lethal force through the door is absolutely justified to stop the threat. Case law in my state supports that position. VA may be different legally, but as a moral matter it should not be.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

swillden wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

We are talking about a search warrant and not an arrest warrant. So waiting for him to go to work only makes sure he is not athome. This does not mean there will not be someone else at home.

It did in this case, as a little investigative work could have verified.

In any case, I wasn't suggesting waiting for him to leave, then entering the house, I was suggesting waiting for him to exit the house, then stopping him to serve the warrant. With the suspect detained, you can assure his cooperation -- and lack of a weapon -- before entering the house. It also means you can go in by unlocking the door, rather than entering violently, so if anyone is home the first sound they'll hear is "POLICE! SEARCH WARRANT!".

LEO 229 wrote:

In regards to evidence... you cannot conduct a3 week investigation to make sure you have everything you need only to find the evidence that was seen there is no longer there. So you have to act quickly to be sure you willget it.

That is insufficient justification for tactics that have killed 42 people and wounded many more, except in cases where not getting the evidence results in significant public danger.

Keep in mind that we're talking about a guy growing some weed.

LEO 229 wrote:

Most search warrants are not met by a gun wielding man who shoots first and asks questions later.

Enough are, and if we 2nd amendment and armed-citizenry advocates can make progress, more will be.

LEO 229 wrote:

Who would haveever thought a minor crime like this would result in a home owner firing a gun.

Wow. Just wow.

What the hell difference does the nature of the crime have to do with whether or not a home owner will defend himself? Ryan didn't know anything about what "crime" he was being invaded for -- he didn't even know that it was the police who were breaking down his door!! He had no reason to think they would be busting in, because he wasn't doing anything to justify it.

You have put your finger on the heart of the problem here. It was a minor, non-violent crime that Ryan was suspected of. And yet, the decision by the police, including Detective Shivers, to break the guy's door down unnecessarily CREATED a very dangerous situation.

We've been talking a lot about whether or not the word of a single (criminal) informant is enough to justify an aggressive response by the police, and that's a worthwhile discussion. To my mind, though, it really misses the primary point which is that even if the allegations were accurate, the response was still not justified.

LEO 229 wrote:

It seems that in this case... the SWAT team would have been a better option.

No, it wouldn't. The better option would have been to avoid breaking the door down. Again, why not just grab the guy as he's heading to work?

Nice idea.... we will wait all night and all day tomorrow in hopes that he will eventually go to work. And if he has tomorrow off.... we will just sit here all day and wait.. and wait.. and wait some more.

We will give the bad guy plenty of time to destroy any evidence we are going after. Why don't we just call him and make an appointment.

"Hello, Ryan? Yes.. this is the police. We have obtained a search warrant for your home and need to know a good time to stop by and serve it. What time will you be going to work tomorrow? Great!!

I'm sorry Ryan... we cannot tell you what we are looking for. Well, that is up to you if you want to get rid of any and all evidence. We worked quickly to get this warrant so that we could get into your house ASAP but since we will not be there until tomorrowmorning... you have plenty of time to get rid of anything you do not want us to find.

OK. Then we will see you around 7 AM then, OK? Great.. Thanks Ryan."


[line]

The case is simple...... an informant that provided credible information in the past decided to lie this time. A search warrant was requested based on this information and was all legal. So no fault can be placed on the officers whoproperly requesteddocuments that were obtained in good faith.

The search warrant was legally being served around 8 PM and while trying to open the door they put a hole in it instead. While unknown "intruders" wereoutside the house the home owner decides to shoot at them saying nothing at all. He gave them absolutely no chance to retreat.

The homeowner shot blindly at the door and to me this was wrong. I find it hard to believe that at that point he was in fear for his life that he needed to take a life.

These "intruders" are still outside the home.

Means, Motive, Opportunity.

Did they have the means to cause him harm? Possibly. But hehad a gun and he had no idea what they had.

Did they have the motive to cause him harm? He has no way of knowing. All he knows is someone is breaking his door apart.

Did they have the opportunity to cause injury or death to him at the time he fired the shots? NO! They were still outside and he was upstairs.

Sorry guys... Ryan was wrong. :uhoh:

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Who would haveever thought a minor crime like this would result in a home owner firing a gun.

:banghead: Who would have thought that a minor crime like this would result in a LEOs, heavily armed and dressed like ninjas, breaching the door to a man's house at night while he is sleeping??

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

I'll try again. I am saying that IF LE is going to use no-knock warrants based on the word of one informant, they should be reserved for imminent threats to public welfare and someone ILLEGALLY building a bomb (maybe I wasn't clear enough on the illegal part) that may be one of those imminent threat situations that does warrant a "shock and awe" warrant service.

"LEO 229 wrote:
In regards to the shooting at the car.... This is not just a case oftwo cars sitting in a lot. This is one car smashing into the other. We now havethe threat. You should be aware that YOU are the target if your in the vehicle being struck."

If I am sleeping in my bed, in my own home, with my doors locked, when it is dark outside, and someone begins to smash in my front door to the point of putting a hole in the door, I should be aware that I am the target! The same way that White was aware that he was the target. And remember, I defended both White and Frederick and have been consistent. Being attacked is being attacked.

LEO 229 wrote:
"So in your eyes... if a person is pounding on my door saying he is going to kill me if he gets in...

Do I have the right to shoot him through the peep hole?

This is actually a step above the Ryan incident as the person outside has clearly told me what he intends to do once he does get inside. I have no idea if he will even try but under your logic... I have a reasonable fear and can kill him."

That is NOT a step above the Ryan incident!!!! In your scenario, someone is outside of the house, outside of the door, pounding on the door and making a threat. The door has not been breached. There is no indication he has the ability or means to breach your door. As long as he cannot breach the door and does not try to come through a window he is an outside threat. This is a step below the Ryan incident.

In the Ryan incident they were actually in the process of breaching the door and had already made a hole in the door. They clearly had the means and willingness to breach the door and were doing so. Your example is a step BELOW the Ryan incident. The verbal threat does not raise it above it. A threat with no means to carry it out is not much of a threat. If a muscular guy walks up to me and pushes me and says he is going to beat me up, that is a viable threat. If a quadrapalegic runs into my shins with his wheelchair and says that if he could get up he would beat me up, that is not a viable threat.

In your example, if the person were outside the door, had threatened to kill you and was instead of pounding on the door, actually breaching the door to the point of already creating a hole in it, then yes, lethal force through the door is absolutely justified to stop the threat. Case law in my state supports that position. VA may be different legally, but as a moral matter it should not be.

I have known burglars to break in with absolutely no intent to make contact with the homeowner. They wanted to steal stuff. So just making entry does not automatically mean YOU are a target. You can fear that you could be the target but this is not always the case.

So there is no automatic justification that someone entering wants you or to even harm you. The person may think you are out of town and the home unoccupied. It can also be a drunk that thinks he is locked out of his own home. This too has happened.

So in your mind... killing anyone who enters the house is OK. I hope you do not have kids that may pop in and visit. You could end up killing them in the dark.

When I say "step above" I am referring to you have someone advising they are there to harm you so there is no mystery. Ryan had no idea who was there or why. A person saying they will cause you harm and then shows up on your door step can easily break in through a window or kick in your door.

What if he throws a rock through my window? He has breached my domicile? So do I get to shoot the guy?

Some people here are just like Ryan.... Shoot first and ask questions later.

You see what that got him.

Cardinal Rule of safety.... Know your target and what is beyond. Ryan had no idea who the target was or what else was on the other side of the door.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Who would haveever thought a minor crime like this would result in a home owner firing a gun.

:banghead: Who would have thought that a minor crime like this would result in a LEOs, heavily armed and dressed like ninjas, breaching the door to a man's house at night while he is sleeping??

They had no idea he was sleeping at 8 PM.

The reason they have to be heavily armed and protectedis because some people like Ryan shoot first and ask questions later.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Means, Motive, Opportunity.

Did they have the means to cause him harm? Possibly. But hehad a gun and he had no idea what they had.

Did they have the motive to cause him harm? He has no way of knowing. All he knows is someone is breaking his door apart.

Did they have the opportunity to cause injury or death to him at the time he fired the shots? NO! They were still outside and he was upstairs.

Sorry guys... Ryan was wrong. :uhoh:

MEANS: Whatever they were using to batter a hole in his door was certainly sufficiently strong enough to batter a hole in his skull and kill him

MOTIVE: Someone violently breaking in the door of a private residence at night is prima facie evidence of an intent to do harm to any reasonable person

OPPORTUNITY: A door in the state of imminent breach, is in a state of imminently allowing someone violently assaulting your property and your living space with a weapon or tool sufficient to kill you through that door and lethal force is justified to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury. Once it becomes imminent, justification exists legally most places.

Sorry, LEO. The death of the officer was tragic and I pray for his family, however, his death doesn't change the fact that Ryan acted in a reasonable manner to defend his home and person from what, from his perspective, was an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. You know I am not a cop-basher and I am a reasonable man. Unless something drastically contradicting the news stories were presented at trial I could not convict this man of anything and I hope the Fates find him 12 honest, law-abiding citizens who are as reasonable to sit on his jury. Regardless of the verdict though, he will have already lost everything he owned, lost his job, and likely had his credit rating destroyed before he ever sees his first day in court. A tragic, stupid, stupid unconsciounable situation over a misdemeanor amount of a plant.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Who would haveever thought a minor crime like this would result in a home owner firing a gun.

:banghead: Who would have thought that a minor crime like this would result in a LEOs, heavily armed and dressed like ninjas, breaching the door to a man's house at night while he is sleeping??

They had no idea he was sleeping at 8 PM.

The reason they have to be heavily armed and protectedis because some people like Ryan shoot first and ask questions later.

They had no idea about a whole lot of things which is exactly the problem with this situation!


"LEO 229 wrote:

So in your mind... killing anyone who enters the house is OK. I hope you do not have kids that may pop in and visit. You could end up killing them in the dark."

:banghead: WTF LEO229!! Are you trying to be obtuse? Did someone promise you a dollar every time you use an ad hominem this week? BREACHING THE DOOR!!! BREACH, BREAK IN KNOCK DOWN VIOLENTLY OPEN. Yes, somebody breaches my door and they are going to get shot, perhaps before they get it open. The courts here in this part of the world and reasonable people here on juries apparently agree with me as to this being an imminent threat to life or seriously bodily injury. Is the difference between knocking, pounding and breaching too subtle for you today?

Your arguments on this run something like:

Someone says: If I am on the street and a man suddenly pulls out a gun and points it at me in a threatenting manner I will try to shoot him before he shoots me.

LEO responds, OH, so if my grandmother points her finger at you you will shoot her? Too many people on here want to shoot first and ask questions later.

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

MEANS: Whatever they were using to batter a hole in his door was certainly sufficiently strong enough to batter a hole in his skull and kill him

MOTIVE: Someone violently breaking in the door of a private residence at night is prima facie evidence of an intent to do harm to any reasonable person

OPPORTUNITY: A door in the state of imminent breach, is in a state of imminently allowing someone violently assaulting your property and your living space with a weapon or tool sufficient to kill you through that door and lethal force is justified to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury. Once it becomes imminent, justification exists legally most places.

Sorry, LEO. The death of the officer was tragic and I pray for his family, however, his death doesn't change the fact that Ryan acted in a reasonable manner to defend his home and person from what, from his perspective, was an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. You know I am not a cop-basher and I am a reasonable man. Unless something drastically contradicting the news stories were presented at trial I could not convict this man of anything and I hope the Fates find him 12 honest, law-abiding citizens who are as reasonable to sit on his jury. Regardless of the verdict though, he will have already lost everything he owned, lost his job, and likely had his credit rating destroyed before he ever sees his first day in court. A tragic, stupid, stupid unconsciounable situation over a misdemeanor amount of a plant.

I feel he acted prematurely.

There was no imminent threat at the time he fired the shot. As I said.... the threat was still outside trying to get in. All they could do after all that smashing was put a hole in it, right? What if they could not get the door open at all?

We can agree to disagree.

 

[Nelson_Muntz]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I feel he acted prematurely.

Shoddy police work. I feel they acted prematurely.

Here's a tip: don't rely on information from known criminals and neither innocent HO's, nor overzealous PO's will get shot dead.