Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

Seems interesting, but I can see people purposely aggravating police (or trying, at least) to try and claim the money.

So, standard policing tactics?

Not to say "They did it first" justifies anything, but y'know. I probably wouldn't get too broken up about it.

[Zangi]

Seems interesting, but I can see people purposely aggravating police (or trying, at least) to try and claim the money.

So, standard policing tactics?

Not to say "They did it first" justifies anything, but y'know. I probably wouldn't get too broken up about it.

I'd rather people weren't given an incentive to be twats.

Police action will be exonerated if they had body cams recording the purposeful aggravation though.

[SalmonGod]

Right wing extremist makes terrorist threats and then shoots police chief who shows up to investigate three times.  He then surrenders.  The police do not fire a single shot in return, and say that they do not expect there to be any charges...

Link

WTF

[LordSlowpoke]

well, at least nobody died?

that's a positive isn't it

[Xantalos]

What the even fuck.
I'm tempted to comment on the irony of the situation since the police chief was apparently black and the shooter was a white guy, but it kinda speaks for itself.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

It's Texas. He's white. He's a right wing gun fanatic. The shot officer was black. No charges will be put on him, and his terrorist threats will be ignored until he starts actually shooting up schools. That's the end of the story.

[smeeprocket]

I keep hearing more and more examples of this absurd double standard.

I feel like a lessening of police presence in general would be nice, an overhaul of the entire system best.

There's just a lot of police that shouldn't be police, and they have their department covering for them.

[Strife26]

A police chief was the first person walking in the door to get shot multiple times without fire being returned? Between that and a helluva smeary article, I gotta say that if not quite at the point of calling bullshit, I'd certainly be checking my shoes.

[SalmonGod]

I did a brief check for other sources before posting... and found that the event wasn't very widely reported.  Only local news and articles all similar to the addictinginfo one citing the local news.

[scriver]

What seems most unclear to me is what kind of situation it was/would have been.

Also, isn't Texas that one state where it is legal to defend oneself against police if they try to enter your house on unlawful grounds, because of a case where that happened some years back? I'm wondering if that might be related.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As far as I know, it is technically legal to attack police forcing entry by unlawful means in any state that has castle doctrine, which is a large number of them. That said, actually succeeding with that defense almost certainly means shelling out for a lawyer who's smile could singlehandedly cause runaway global warming.

[Loud Whispers]

*DISCLAIMER
WALL OF TEXT IN SPOILER
NOTHING IN THIS WALL OF TEXT IS A PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE STATEMENT TOWARDS ANYONE HERE, EXCEPT BOB
APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE TO BOB

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Shit's fucked. I would advise waiting until the bigger picture is made clearer though and evidence is made known. I cannot find a single source as of yet that doesn't reek of some political agenda, be it some narrative of survivalists shooting an authoritarian shill, an unhinged zombie killer infected with violent video games driven to insanity or a right-wing nutjob shooting a black man on a home defence fantasy.

Right wing extremist makes terrorist threats and then shoots police chief who shows up to investigate three times.  He then surrenders.  The police do not fire a single shot in return, and say that they do not expect there to be any charges...
Link
WTF

'Investigators said an OSBI computer analyst determined the 911 calls did not come from Horton's home.'

Evidence does not suggest the terrorist threats originated from his home.

The homeowner who nearly killed an Oklahoma police chief during a raid won’t face charges since cops busted the wrong house.
Chief Louis Ross borrowed a bullet-proof vest from a Washita County Sheriff’s Office deputy only minutes before kicking down the front door of a suspected bomb threat hoaxer.
The last thing Ross remembers 6 a.m. Thursday is identifying himself as a law officer.
Officer Louis raided the wrong house.

It is useful to look at similar cases.
Marvin Louise Guy, a black man in his own home, was visited by a friendly neighbourhood SWAT raid after the police obtained a search warrant to investigate his apartment for drugs. Like Horton, he believed he was experiencing a home invasion and so opened fire on the police, wounding three and killing one. He could be facing capital punishment for killing a police officer who was lawfully searching his apartment.

Contrast with the earlier case of Ryan Frederick, who likewise faced possible capital punishment for killing a police officer during a lawful raid also claiming that he didn't know the people in his home were police officers. This bloke was white and got a long prison sentence, but not capital punishment.

And what comes to mind as well is Jose Guerena, who was a white Iraq war vet. Got gunned down by the police who claimed he was firing from his house despite him never having fired a single shot. This one embodies all the police raid stories the news keeps remaking: police malpractice, AR-15s, protecting family from intruders, trigger discipline, police incompetence, marijuana and even topped it off with a marine veteran being the victim.
'The Pima County Attorney's Office, under County Attorney Barbara LaWall, released the results of their review of the shooting, concluding that "under the circumstances, and based upon our review of all the available evidence, we have concluded that the use of deadly forces by the SWAT Team members was reasonable and justified under the law. Accordingly, the Pima County Attorney's Office finds no basis to prosecute."'

But focusing back on home defenders succeeding in shooting police with search warrants, my main points I'm highlighting are:

• The raid on Horton was the wrong house. This makes all the difference. The police were illegally raiding Horton's house.
• Marvin and Ryan, though by no means perfect comparisons, make much better comparisons. I don't think Marvin's verdict has yet passed, though I did find a conviction for a Marvin Louise Guy for bank robbery who I believe is a different Marvin Louise Guy on account of that verdict having been passed in 1991 not 2015, so it will be interesting to see if he is sentenced to life or death.

In Marvin's case a police informant led the police to believe that Marvin had bags of cocaine and could have been supplying or storing the drugs. After the raid evidence was found that Marvin used drugs, but certainly there was absolutely none to suggest that Marvin was dealing or storing drugs and indeed no drugs were found. They found a 9mm pistol, a bong, a grinder and 3 cellphones; none of which was close to the police informant's description of bags of cocaine being present. The police had a warrant to search his apartment.
In Ryan's case a police informant led the police to believe Ryan was growing marijuana and supplying it in vast amounts. After the raid evidence was found that Ryan used drugs, but certainly there was absolutely none to suggest that Marvin was dealing or storing drugs and indeed the marijuana he was reportedly growing was in fact a nippon maple tree; Ryan was fond of simple gardening, his irrigation equipment, lighting and plants were assumed to be for the purpose of growing drugs. They found a small bag of weed and his gun. They also had a no-knock warrant.

Both Ryan and Marvin currently or have had wider media coverage in addition to public support in trying to get their respective sentences to be as lenient as possible, with both arguing that both should('ve) been safe under self defence laws and the police's actions meaning that there was a joint responsibility in their deaths. The difference is of course, one is white and the other black.

In Horton's case the police raided the wrong house. Race baiting or drawing up party lines on a bipartisan clusterfuck or taking 'sides' (if ever you can justify even taking 'sides') does not help clarify what actually happened, nor does it help any reasoned debate. It also helps to obscure cases where race is appropriate for discussion (with the definition of appropriate being relevant and proper), for example I began looking up death row stats and I found this thing here:

"In 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."
- United States General Accounting Office, Death Penalty Sentencing, February 1990"

I can't quite yet find the US General Accounting Office report of 1990 and is something I'll try dig up later, but it is interesting to note nonetheless that race could play a large role; just not in the role that is usually assumed. It is not the race of the attacker, but the victim which influences sentencing.
http://i.imgur.com/WPUqCKm.png
This is especially relevant in possibly explaining the larger proportions of prisoners having been executed being white, what with most white murder victims having been murdered by white murderers, whilst simultaneously having black capital punishment rates being higher in proportion to their demographics. Of cases where there was a black defendant and a white victim 291 cases resulted in capital punishment. Of the remaining 193 capital punishment sentences for black men, they were the result of a case where the Defendant and victim were black. The majority of capital cases where the defendant was black were also ones where the victim was white, meaning a greater proportion of black men relative to their demographics are sentenced.
It is my hypothesis that the US law system is biased towards exacting greater punishment against those who commit crime against white victims, not on who the accused is (unless you're talking about gender, but that's a whole other admittedly related topic worthy of discussion. I'm just too tired to give it justice right now).
Source for the stats, I'd recommend giving it a look. Hardly unbiased, but a well read.

Now that I'm done with that rant I'd go on about no-knock warrants but wikipdia summed it up nicely with their page:

No-knock warrants have been controversial for various reasons. Some consider them to be unconstitutional. In addition, there have been cases where burglars have robbed homes by pretending to be officers with a no knock warrant. There have been many cases where armed homeowners, believing that they are being invaded, have shot at officers, resulting in deaths on both sides. While it is legal to shoot a homeowner's dog when an officer fears for his/her life, there have been numerous high-profile cases in which family pets lacking the size, strength, or demeanor to attack officers have been shot, greatly increasing the risk of additional casualties in neighboring houses via overpenetrating bullets.

Police and prosecutors are criticized for the use of no-knock search warrants. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution assures and protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Police, civil libertarians, and/or criminals may interpret the phrase “unreasonable searches and seizures” in different ways. Police view unreasonable searches and seizures as entering a home or property without obtaining what is deemed as probable cause. Probable cause is based on the officer having reason to believe a crime has been committed or exigent circumstances defined in United States v. McConney: Emergency conditions. "Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts."

Overreaching state and abuse of power that should not be there imo. The topic of the police also jumping on innocent citizens on the words of police informants with ultimately wrong information should also be scrutinized and talked about, though I suppose there's not much to say about that other than 'It's stupid, but hindsight's a bitch. Maybe have some patience next time.'

[UXLZ]

concluding that "under the circumstances, and based upon our review of all the available evidence, we have concluded that the use of deadly forces by the SWAT Team members was reasonable and justified under the law. Accordingly, the Pima County Attorney's Office finds no basis to prosecute."'

I believe someone in this thread paraphrased this: 'It's cool gaiz, we investigated ourselves and found ourselves totally innocent and not guilty.'

[Loud Whispers]

In the land of the blind the one-eyed watchman watches the watchman, concluding that the watchman is best

[Lagslayer]

The following is directed at everyone reading it. Do a little self-reflection before we continue.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)