Rad Green has the essence right here. Amen.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Although it does not contain specific penalties for violations, it does declare illegitimate any actions, ordinances, statutes, warrants, etc. which would violate it.

A cop who breaks into a person’s dwelling without reason to believe that either (1) he possesses a legitimate warrant for the address in question, or (2) there are sufficient exigent circumstances to justify a break-in, is a burglar or a robber (depending upon whether he intends to avoid or confront any occupants). Anyone who knowingly entices or assists the cop in such action without having reason to believe it legitimate is a conspirator to burglary or robbery. If someone happens to get killed as a foreseeable consequence of the crime, the participants are murderers.

To be sure, if a cop is given a warrant to serve which facially justifies a search, and if the cop has no reason to believe the warrant to be illegitimate, that cop should not be held to blame if the warrant is in fact not legitimate, provided he assists in the prosecution of those who are to blame. His escape from blame should not be predicated upon his being a cop, but rather the fact that prosecution for most felonies (or at least most crimes that should be felonies) requires a demonstration of criminal intent. The situation should be analogous to someone who rents a vacation property from someone who, unbeknownst to the renter, doesn’t actually own it. If the “renter” can demonstrate that he had a reasonable belief to enter the property, he should not be charged with trespass.

Of course, all of the above presuppose the existence of a constitutional republic. I can’t think of any reason why a legitimate government wouldn’t want to prosecute robbers in uniform, but our government certainly shows no desire to.

Today, a judge in Chesapeake certified the first degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony charges against Ryan Frederick. The next hearing is before the grand jury on 3 June….

Doc Tabor and I waited for…

“S BROWN wrote: THEY GOT THIS CERTAIN KNOCK THAT YOU KNOW THAT IT IS THE POLICE. I BELIEVE THAT THE YOUNG MAN KNEW IT WAS THE POLICE AND GOT SCARED, AND START SHOOTING.”

Would that be Morse Code? Would that be an unsubstantiated “fact”?

The [i]fact[/i] is, the man had his own door kicked down, while he was home, in the middle of the night. The police apparently found NOTHING else to charge him with – which seems to suggest that the police had no business being there in the first place.

There are many, many people who live in the USA, whose very first response to their home being invaded is to grab the home defense gun.

Police responses involving violent invasions into homes in search of evidence of non-violent non-crimes is a very stupid policy.

The message me and my generation, and doubtless millions more, got hammered with was that America was exceptional because it had this tradition of liberty, rooted in both logic and emotion. The godsend was supposed to be the “checks and balances” built into the governmental structure, but the unexamined assumption there was that the people who seek office would be, on the whole, motivated by that same libertarian tradition.

Hayek argued in “The Road to Serfdom” that central planning would inevitably lead to the basest, most evil of self-aggrandizing men seeking to control the power structure. I would submit that Hayek’s argument should be updated to show that the same thing is true of democratic republics.

If the cops keep on going like this even their most heartfelt apologies won’t be enough.

The warrant, if they had one, is phony. It’s based on provably false information (mj grow operation) from an “informant” who committed a crime to supposedly obtain the false information.

As we keep saying, we (as in, our society) need to find a way to hold the judges who sign these things accountable – I mean like “lose your job and go to jail” accountable.

Don’t you think that the police videotaping any actions they take and making sure that they positively identify themselves to as many people as possible prior to the raid are good results?

Not that I’m trying to put words in anyone’s mouth, but I think that the idea that more communication and understanding being put out so that fewer people, on ALL sides of the drug ‘war’, die from stupidity and confrontation would get a lot of support from the folks who read this blog. And to that end, anything that reduces the confusion these raids present would help.

I did too. Earlier today. Same result. Comment went off into space somewhere.

hamptonroads.com/2008/05/hearing-today-man-accused-killing-chesapeake-detective

Unless judges are routinely signing warrant applications based on ZERO evidence, this case sounds like the police have learned the mistakes Atlanta PD made with Kathryan Johnston. Although, not in a manner we would like, but just better at covering-up when these raids go bad.

I do agree, police were invading that house illegally. With that said, every officer attempting to invade this man’s home should be dead.

I tried posting that link as well. Oh, well. Here, for what it’s worth, is my link-free comment (minus what you already pointed out):

The Virginian-Pilot story contains two statements that make little sense to me:

1. “Roberts said police knocked and announced themselves before attempting to gain entry.” This point is made multiple times in the story.

2. “At some point, police began to yell ‘eight ball,’ a code meaning the raid had been compromised and that the individual inside the house knew of the raid.”

Did the police want Frederick to know his house was being raided or not? If they were announcing themselves, then why would the raid be “compromised” once he knew they were there? Also, did the officer yell “eight ball” because the shot was fired? If so, this suggests the police did not want Frederick to know they were there up until the point of the shot.

I think it’s rather extreme to say that simply because the police had no legal right to be there means they are not protected by the law from lethal force. Do you really feel that *any* tresspasser can be met with lethal force regardless of the specific circumstances. Of course, this is an abstract debate because in this case the officers were threatening, acting with violence and had lethal force at their disposal so it is clearly justified, but I don’t think it can be boiled down as simply as “no legal right after the fact” = “can be shot at.”

Also, technically they did have a legal right to be there since they were executing a valid search warrant. Just because the warrant was incorrect does not mean it was illegal for them to be there. However the fact that no elaborate, illegal operation was taking place is relevant to whether he intentionally and knowlingly fired on police officers.

The police had no legal right to be there, and as such they have no legal protections against someone protecting his house from intruders (which is what they are without a valid warrant). Of course, it’s difficult to get a prosecutor who will simply follow the law….