Serving a No-Knock Warrant in Plain Clothes

[Nebor]

http://www.theagitator.com/200...as-defending-his-home/

Virginia Cop Killed in Drug Raid; Suspect Says He Was Defending His Home

Officer Jarrod Shivers was shot and killed while executing a search warrant in Cheseapeake, Virginia Thursday night.

The suspect had no criminal record (at least in the state of Virginia). And he says in an interview from jail he had no idea the undercover cops breaking into his home were police. The suspect, 28-year-old Ryan David Frederick, also says a burglar had broken into his home earlier this week.

Thought the raid was apparently part of a drug investigation, police aren?t saying what if any drugs were found. They won?t even confirm that police had the correct address. But they have arrested Frederick and charged him with first-degree murder.

As much as no knock warrants are a bad idea, serving one without uniforms is sheer idiocy. This guy was defending his home from an invader, after being invaded earlier in the week. Even if it turns out he had 4 tons of smack, and an arsenal of illegal machine guns, he's got to walk on this first degree murder charge. He was defending himself and his castle.

 

[Rainsford]

According to the story, the police won't confirm or deny what the officer may have been wearing except to say that it's not their policy to serve warrants in plain clothes...maybe you should read the article first, eh?

And seriously, "castle"? It's like your comments come pre-satirized for our convenience. It's your fucking house, you're not Lancelot.

 

[rpanic]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
And seriously, "castle"? It's like your comments come pre-satirized for our convenience. It's your fucking house, you're not Lancelot.

 

[Exterous]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
According to the story, the police won't confirm or deny what the officer may have been wearing except to say that it's not their policy to serve warrants in plain clothes...maybe you should read the article first, eh?

And seriously, "castle"? It's like your comments come pre-satirized for our convenience. It's your fucking house, you're not Lancelot.

I read into that "Yeah, he wasn't wearing what he was supposed to but we don't want you to know that yet" but thats just speculation

 

[Siddhartha]

The US needs to change its drug laws and put an end to this madness.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Nebor
http://www.theagitator.com/200...as-defending-his-home/

Virginia Cop Killed in Drug Raid; Suspect Says He Was Defending His Home

Officer Jarrod Shivers was shot and killed while executing a search warrant in Cheseapeake, Virginia Thursday night.

The suspect had no criminal record (at least in the state of Virginia). And he says in an interview from jail he had no idea the undercover cops breaking into his home were police. The suspect, 28-year-old Ryan David Frederick, also says a burglar had broken into his home earlier this week.

Thought the raid was apparently part of a drug investigation, police aren?t saying what if any drugs were found. They won?t even confirm that police had the correct address. But they have arrested Frederick and charged him with first-degree murder.

As much as no knock warrants are a bad idea, serving one without uniforms is sheer idiocy. This guy was defending his home from an invader, after being invaded earlier in the week. Even if it turns out he had 4 tons of smack, and an arsenal of illegal machine guns, he's got to walk on this first degree murder charge. He was defending himself and his castle.

We don't know that the raid was conducted without uniforms. We certainly don't know that the defendant was "invaded" earlier in the week, based on nothing but his own word conveniently given after he shot a cop.

One question I have after reading the article: did the defendant shoot through the door without seeing who was on the other side?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
According to the story, the police won't confirm or deny what the officer may have been wearing except to say that it's not their policy to serve warrants in plain clothes...maybe you should read the article first, eh?

Its not their policy to kick in doors of innocent people, but they do a fine job of fucking up the address all too often too dont they?

And seriously, "castle"? It's like your comments come pre-satirized for our convenience. It's your fucking house, you're not Lancelot.

You realize its called the "castle doctrine" right? I mean shit, the very laws label your house as a "castle", whats thew problem?

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Rainsford
According to the story, the police won't confirm or deny what the officer may have been wearing except to say that it's not their policy to serve warrants in plain clothes...maybe you should read the article first, eh?

Its not their policy to kick in doors of innocent people, but they do a fine job of fucking up the address all too often too dont they?

And seriously, "castle"? It's like your comments come pre-satirized for our convenience. It's your fucking house, you're not Lancelot.

You realize its called the "castle doctrine" right? I mean shit, the very laws label your house as a "castle", whats thew problem?

Is there an actual law that talks about the right to defend one's castle?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: punchkin
We don't know that the raid was conducted without uniforms. We certainly don't know that the defendant was "invaded" earlier in the week, based on nothing but his own word conveniently given after he shot a cop.

One question I have after reading the article: did the defendant shoot through the door without seeing who was on the other side?

Wouldn't be the first time, and people have walked after doing this before.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Rainsford
According to the story, the police won't confirm or deny what the officer may have been wearing except to say that it's not their policy to serve warrants in plain clothes...maybe you should read the article first, eh?

Its not their policy to kick in doors of innocent people, but they do a fine job of fucking up the address all too often too dont they?

And seriously, "castle"? It's like your comments come pre-satirized for our convenience. It's your fucking house, you're not Lancelot.

You realize its called the "castle doctrine" right? I mean shit, the very laws label your house as a "castle", whats thew problem?

Is there an actual law that talks about the right to defend one's castle?

The name of the law (or nicname I guess) is the "Castle Doctrine." That's what the OP was referring to. I find it hilarious that someone mocking the OP for not knowing how to read would not have heard a common phrase in the firearm/home protection lingo.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Rainsford
According to the story, the police won't confirm or deny what the officer may have been wearing except to say that it's not their policy to serve warrants in plain clothes...maybe you should read the article first, eh?

Its not their policy to kick in doors of innocent people, but they do a fine job of fucking up the address all too often too dont they?

And seriously, "castle"? It's like your comments come pre-satirized for our convenience. It's your fucking house, you're not Lancelot.

You realize its called the "castle doctrine" right? I mean shit, the very laws label your house as a "castle", whats thew problem?

Is there an actual law that talks about the right to defend one's castle?

The name of the law (or nicname I guess) is the "Castle Doctrine." That's what the OP was referring to. I find it hilarious that someone mocking the OP for not knowing how to read would not have heard a common phrase in the firearm/home protection lingo.

It's not the name or nickname of a law, but of a legal doctrine. Is there an actual law that talks about defending one's castle?

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
The US needs to change its drug laws and put an end to this madness.

QFT!

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
The US needs to change its drug laws and put an end to this madness.

QFT!

A woman and her baby were shot by a cop in a similar situation in Lima OH. The woman is dead and the baby is in critical condition.

Police shooting shakes up Ohio town

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
The US needs to change its drug laws and put an end to this madness.

And yet, none of the top-running candidates have spoken a word about the drug war.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
The US needs to change its drug laws and put an end to this madness.

Let the users go free, take the seller out back behind the shed never to be seen again.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
The US needs to change its drug laws and put an end to this madness.

Let the users go free, take the seller out back behind the shed never to be seen again.

That's not going to solve the problem, and obviously you didn't read the link Siddhartha posted.

 

[maverick44]

the problem is sometimes users are stupid enough to carry pounds of _(insert drug here) and get labelled as sellers...

I hope to god this wasnt a marijuana case....

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: punchkin
One question I have after reading the article: did the defendant shoot through the door without seeing who was on the other side?

If someone is breaking into your house ("forcing entry" as the police put it) it's entirely legit to shoot them through the door.

Some might say that only a fool would shoot blindly and recklessly, violating several basic firearms handling rules, and I would be one of them.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: punchkin
One question I have after reading the article: did the defendant shoot through the door without seeing who was on the other side?

If someone is breaking into your house ("forcing entry" as the police put it) it's entirely legit to shoot them through the door.

Some might say that only a fool would shoot blindly and recklessly, violating several basic firearms handling rules, and I would be one of them.

It's interesting that no one answers my very simple question. Are you debating against yourself now? And it is not necessarily "entirely legit" to shoot someone through the front door; it depends on the circumstances. An easy example would be someone who announces themselves as the police before they begin breaking down your door, because you have refused to open it.

Shooting blindly and recklessly could well make one guilty of a crime. You should watch the terminology.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think we should all stand around and see if the person who just charged through the door kills our family. We don't want to risk making the police angry.

 

[punchkin]

Here's an interesting case; I can't find out how it turned out, which may indicate a plea-bargain:
http://www.topix.com/content/k...play-out-in-bibb-court

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: punchkin
One question I have after reading the article: did the defendant shoot through the door without seeing who was on the other side?

If someone is breaking into your house ("forcing entry" as the police put it) it's entirely legit to shoot them through the door.

Some might say that only a fool would shoot blindly and recklessly, violating several basic firearms handling rules, and I would be one of them.

It's interesting that no one answers my very simple question.

I guess we all read the same article you did so why would you expect anybody to have a definitive answer?

Perhaps you could help us answer the question. Did the door have a window?

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I think we should all stand around and see if the person who just charged through the door kills our family. We don't want to risk making the police angry.

No, obviously not. But if multiple people charge through your door yelling "SWAT! On the ground!", and are wearing riot gear, you may want to lay down the weapons you almost certainly won't have in your hand unless you're waiting for an attack. You might especially want to lay down your weapons if you're a criminal and the warrant is justified.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: punchkin
One question I have after reading the article: did the defendant shoot through the door without seeing who was on the other side?

If someone is breaking into your house ("forcing entry" as the police put it) it's entirely legit to shoot them through the door.

Some might say that only a fool would shoot blindly and recklessly, violating several basic firearms handling rules, and I would be one of them.

It's interesting that no one answers my very simple question.

I guess we all read the same article you did so why would you expect anybody to have a definitive answer?

Perhaps you could help us answer the question. Did the door have a window?

I'm just wondering how much evidence there is that the defendant's belief that he was being attacked by criminals was reasonable. It's something the defendant will have to prove if he claims self defense. It may actually be true, especially if the police didn't identify themselves-- I just don't think that's likely.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: punchkin
Here's an interesting case; I can't find out how it turned out, which may indicate a plea-bargain:
http://www.topix.com/content/k...play-out-in-bibb-court

Found this:
http://www.macon.com/198/story/230143.html