Death row for self-defense [Archive] - Quarter To Three Forums

View Full Version : Death row for self-defense

Jason McCullough

12-13-2005, 09:34 AM

http://crookedtimber.org/2005/12/12/knock-knock-bang-bang/

I’ll put the details below the fold. I urge you to read them. The guts of it is that Cory Maye is a black man on death row for shooting a white police officer dead. The officer was part of a paramilitary no-knock drug raid which broke down the door of Maye’s apartment in the middle of the night, when he and his young daughter were sleeping. Apparently the officers thought they were entering the house of a suspected drug dealer, when in fact the building was a duplex and the individual named in the warrant lived on the other side. Maye woke up, took his gun and shot Jones, who later died. Mayes was tried, apparently was not well-represented, and was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.

Mississippi justice, I guess.

Marcus

12-13-2005, 09:36 AM

The guts of it is that Cory Maye is a black man on death row for shooting a white police officer dead.

That + Mississippi = yeah

Nellie

12-13-2005, 11:00 AM

Does presumably answer the question posed in, I think, EE about what happens if you shoot a police officer entering your house and you shoot him because you happen to think he's a burglar.

MikeSofaer

12-13-2005, 11:00 AM

Only the special case where you are black and poor in the South and his daddy is the police chief.

Ben

12-13-2005, 12:51 PM

Jason- Is your problem the death sentence or the jailing?

Jason McCullough

12-13-2005, 12:54 PM

The death sentence. I really have no idea how to treat this otherwise (manslaughter? The entire no-knock raid thing for anything short of Charles Manson is ridiculous in the first place), but it sure as hell doesn't deserve execution.

extarbags

12-13-2005, 01:39 PM

Jason- Is your problem the death sentence or the jailing?

Why can't the problem be both?

MatthewF

12-13-2005, 01:47 PM

There's no justice in that sentence. At the very least, he should have been tried on manslaughter, but I honestly think that he shouldn't be tried at all. It's not his problem that an armed, unidentified man entered his house unannounced and was shot as a result of it. The only lesson that should be learned here is that you better get the fucking address right before you break the door down, guns in hand, and start thrashing through someone's house.

Lizard_King

12-13-2005, 01:54 PM

Jason- Is your problem the death sentence or the jailing?

Why can't the problem be both?
Yeah, I'm with you on that one.

Ben

12-13-2005, 04:14 PM

extarbags

12-13-2005, 04:38 PM

extarbags- Jailing is a subset of execution. But, you know, outrage!!! Also, the jailing seems entirely justified while the death sentence seems to be an absolutely disgusting combination of racism and abuse of power.

I love the way the original quoted portion describes the police as being part of a "paramilitary no-knock drug raid". Scary!

How does the jailing seem entirely justified? To me, the jailing is an absolutely disgusting combination of racism and abuse of power, and the death sentence is over-the-top madness.

JeffL

12-13-2005, 05:21 PM

You know, this is one of those stories where you hope that someone has totally distorted the facts in order to make some sensationalized point. But I sure can't find anything to change the apparent fact that police broke into a man's home (no problem with that, knowing what they often face), that they got the wrong side of the condo (OK, as long as they don't hurt anyone it's a bad mistake but excusable) and that a man pulled his gun and shot the officer. That the convicted man had no reason at all to shoot a cop, nothing to hide, and thus must have done it in the mistaken belief that he or his daughter was in danger.

And that somehow a judge allowed a verdict of capital murder to stand, and that on top of that this guy has been sentenced to death. I really want to see the transcript of the trial. How in the world did the prosecutor push for this, how did he win, how did the defense lose this badly? Yeah, I hear people on the racism thing, but I know a lot of people in Mississippi, used to live there, and I know a lot of racists down there (of course I know a lot of them in Mi, IL, OH, etc. too.) And even the bigots I know wouldn't come down with a judgement like this, they're not that one dimensional. I mean, you'd have to have a jury full of klansmen if the facts are as presented.

Is there any way to get a transcript of the case?

Ben

12-13-2005, 05:24 PM

He shot and killed a man who was innocent of any wrongdoing? According to the Crooked Timber, Jones had not drawn his weapon.

TheAgitator.com appears to be simply relying Maye's attorney's version of events(and at times making things up as you can note from the various corrections he's made). As usual, though, people who are extraordinarily skeptical of anything the government says on CNN accept without question the meanderings of any idiot with a webpage so long as that idiot agrees with you.

MatthewF

12-13-2005, 05:28 PM

If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you have the right to shoot them in self-defense. Or maybe you should check if they have a gun first? You know, maybe turn on the lights so he knows exactly where to find you, or ask him nicely, "hey Mr. Possible Murderer," do you have a gun so I know if it's ok to shoot you? Or when he runs into the room where your 18 month old daughter is sleeping, just give him a few seconds so he can draw his gun -- wouldn't want it to be an unfair gunfight, would you?

Also, he made two corrections, and it wasn't to correct something he had made up (he references it as a statement from Maye's attorney) but to give the police side of the story. A little hyperbolic are we?

edit: sorry, 2 corrections. (And both refer to attorney statements, not his own).

extarbags

12-13-2005, 05:38 PM

He shot and killed a man who was innocent of any wrongdoing?

Besides breaking into his house in the middle of the night, armed, with no warning or warrant or other indication that he was a police officer?

Jason McCullough

12-13-2005, 05:58 PM

I love the way the original quoted portion describes the police as being part of a "paramilitary no-knock drug raid". Scary!

Well, they are.

Ben

12-13-2005, 06:00 PM

forgeforsaken

12-13-2005, 06:06 PM

I swear every three months or so I read another story of a 'no-knock' raid going horribly wrong where they get the wrong house, and innocent people end up dieing.

Anyone listen to Lard? Drug Raid at 4am is a song about a 'no-knock' gone horribly wrong from back in 1990

MatthewF

12-13-2005, 06:11 PM

That's not actually true.

Actually it is, but it's subject to a legal grey area:
http://tkdtutor.com/07Defense/Laws.htm

Skip down to "Defense of Home." Neither your nor my statements are absolutes -- and depending on what actually went down, he may very well have been justified. For example, if he saw the gun on the officer's side, or he heard them break the back door down but didn't hear them identify themselves as police. Perhaps the cop kicked in the door to the room he was in? You can't make this assertion as an absolute.

forgeforsaken

12-13-2005, 06:16 PM

Besides breaking into his house in the middle of the night, armed, with no warning or warrant or other indication that he was a police officer?

He had a warrant and the police claim they identified themselves. Reading is fundamental, idiot.

If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you have the right to shoot them in self-defense.

That's not actually true.

If there's the percieved serious threat of harm it is in some states. Castle Doctrine. There was big to do about the law they passed in Florida not too long ago (but I think that was because it expanded it to on one's grounds i.e. yard and vehicles) Not 100% on that and don't feel like looking it up.

Here's another case from Mississippi about Castle Doctrine. (http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051130/COL0412/511300316/1144)

Ben

12-14-2005, 02:32 AM

You're missing the point. You can kill someone in self-defense legally, I never disputed that. You can't kill someone solely for the crime of breaking and entering in the middle of the night.

Lunch of Kong

12-14-2005, 05:11 AM

Ben, you're being pedantic. Someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you're going to have great fear for your life. You're not shooting him for breaking in. You're shooting him because he's in your house with malicious intent, and he might kill you.

You're going to court for sure, though, so have about $20,000 ready in attorney's fee every time you discharge your weapon in self-defense.

But hey, you're still alive.

SolomonGrundy

12-14-2005, 05:28 AM

Missippi law:
SEC. 97-3-17. Homicide; excusable homicide.

The killing of any human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another shall be excusable:

(a) When committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent;

(b) When committed by accident and misfortune, in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation;

(c) When committed upon any sudden combat, without undue advantage being taken, and without any dangerous weapon being used, and not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

So actually you can kill him in your house if you can prove b. or c. Seriously are you going to wait for him to show you a badge? you know they went in yelling and screaming, what would your first instinct be if you were not involved in anything illegal? click Boom. you are in my house univited in teh middle of the night with my kids home..i'm taking you out.I'm not gonna do an interview to find out your intent.

TriggerHappy

12-14-2005, 05:28 AM

You're missing the point. You can kill someone in self-defense legally, I never disputed that. You can't kill someone solely for the crime of breaking and entering in the middle of the night.

Self defense can be pre-emptive. Someone breaking and entering in the middle of the night can certainly be viewed as a deadly threat.

Houngan

12-14-2005, 05:55 AM

Look, just to defuse the fagdance, you can absolutely kill someone who breaks into your home at night, provided it isn't extremely obvious that you were able to determine that the person wasn't a threat to you. For example, if anyone here has ever used a flashlight (and I'm guessing at least 20% have) you will know that if you have a flashlight shined (shone?) in your face in the dark, you cannot see anything, particularly anything behind the light. It's 99% certain that the officer was leading with his light, so any argument about whether he has drawn his gun is moot; the defendant had no way to determine if a gun was pointed at him or not.

Secondly, since the officer broke in at night when the man was sleeping, they cannot argue whether the man heard him identify himself as a cop or not. And, as I pointed out in the EE thread I started on this very subject, exactly what prevents the run-of-the-mill home invader from saying they are the police, anyway?

Absolutely shoot the motherfucker, and get a handshake for doing so. If the police are comfortable with occasionally shooting an innocent man due to clerical error or mistakes in the night, they should be well able to absorb the occasional casualty on their side for the same reason.

H.

Ben Sones

12-14-2005, 06:26 AM

Self defense can be pre-emptive. Someone breaking and entering in the middle of the night can certainly be viewed as a deadly threat.

Especially if you live in a bad neighborhood--you know, like one where your next door neighbors are the sort of people likely to get raided by the police. If I were him, I don't know that I would even believe intruders claiming to be the police if they broke into my apartment in the middle of the night. As far as he knows, there is no reason why the police would want to raid his apartment.

extarbags

12-14-2005, 06:57 AM

Besides breaking into his house in the middle of the night, armed, with no warning or warrant or other indication that he was a police officer?

He had a warrant and the police claim they identified themselves. Reading is fundamental, idiot.

Sorry, I guess I should have specified that he didn't have a warrant for him. Oh well.

Seriously, Ben, the cop broke into the wrong guy's house and started traipsing around with a gun in the middle of the night. How is that not wrongdoing? I'm sure it wasn't malicious, but this guy shouldn't have to pay the price for that incompentence, either.

Jasper

12-14-2005, 07:06 AM

If you can't shoot someone who busts into your house with a gun unannounced in the middle of the night, what practical purpose is there to even have a gun in your house?

Also Ben, what's up with being out NRA'd by all the pansy ass liberals on this forum? ;-)

extarbags

12-14-2005, 07:19 AM

Also Ben, what's up with being out NRA'd by all the pansy ass liberals on this forum? ;-)

I guess his NRA part is running up against his "I <3 Kops" part, and he's just not sure what to do.

JeffL

12-14-2005, 08:01 AM

Ya know, I sure wish that we had Nicolas Cage and 50 Cent and Jesse Jackson, etc. rasing hell over this case. I suppose this one just isn't as glamorous as a guy that intentionally murdered 4 people but saw the light in prison and got a lot of PR.

Nellie

12-14-2005, 09:25 AM

But hey, you're still alive.

Only as long as you can stump up the $20k legal fees and aren't black by the looks of it.

Does seem a little harsh that when you have cops shooting people for twitching around bags and pulling gun shaped wallets that getting one of your own popped for kicking the door of someone who's done nothing wrong down warrants executing the perpetrator rather than just holding a brief enquiry and finding out he did nothing wrong.

Moore

12-14-2005, 10:29 AM

I bet there would be a market for gun shaped wallets. Seriously.

TriggerHappy

12-14-2005, 10:35 AM

Also Ben, what's up with being out NRA'd by all the pansy ass liberals on this forum? ;-)

That's the funniest thing I've read on QT3 in ages. Maybe ever.

Jason McCullough

12-14-2005, 12:16 PM

Oh yes Jeff, Hollywood can be blamed for not latching on to cases that no one has heard of. including us up to now.

Flowers

12-14-2005, 12:56 PM

They need to do thermal imaging prior to executing warrants.

JeffL

12-14-2005, 12:59 PM

Oh yes Jeff, Hollywood can be blamed for not latching on to cases that no one has heard of. including us up to now.

Yeah, it's all their fault.

Nah, I was just saying that I wish these guys would give this case the PR they gave Tookie. But I don't believe it fits their mold of causes of the day.

For fun, I actually emailed Jesse Jackson today (an email address someone gave me who has done some fundraising for his Rainbow Coalition) and asked him to look at the case. He's such a PR hound that this looks like something he could really get his teeth into.

I continue to look for more information - surely some of the lawyers here have a way that we could get trial transcripts? I just can't believe that the story is as cut and dried outrageous as presented. Although I really can't come up with any scenario that would make it much less aggrievious, unless he shot him accidentally, then when the officer was down and showing his badge with a shaking hand the guys stood over him and said "I've always wanted to kill me a cop" and fired 3 more into his head.

MikeSofaer

12-14-2005, 01:05 PM

If we let people who actually kill a cop by accident while he's executing a warrant go free, then anyone could get away with fighting cops who are executing warrants just by claiming that they did not know they were cops. Therefore no leniency can be allowed.

"Good-Bye, Rights of Man"

Flowers

12-14-2005, 01:14 PM

There is the case of the man who was convicted of assaulting a police officer for breaking up a fight between two people. One was a suspect and the other was an undercover. He had no idea. The charge stuck.

MikeSofaer

12-14-2005, 01:15 PM

Jason McCullough

12-14-2005, 01:53 PM

Ben

12-14-2005, 03:05 PM

I love that extarbags completely makes some shit up, I call him on it, and I get dogpiled because, um, I'm not NRA enough.

The cop "broke" into a house they had a warrant for, identified himself as a policeman(allegedly, Maye says otherwise, both sides have obvious reasons to lie), and was, you know, a uniformed officer of the law.

Houngan- Yeah, and if a black and white car gets behind you with flashing lights do you stop? It could be criminals with a cleverly manufactured patrol car!! OMG!! Better make a run for the fallout shelter.

Also, you just invented that part about the flashlight up. "But sah, he was shining a light at me!! How was I supposed to not shoot?"

"the defendant had no way to determine if a gun was pointed at him or not."

He also had no way to determine if he was being attacked by dragons, then. Firing wildly with your stolen gun when you get scared is not reasonable behavior, despite what crazy NRA-types and kneejerk anti-police liberals think.

Here, I'll go Trodknee on you:

An innocent man is dead. That is a bad thing, yes?

MatthewF

12-14-2005, 03:18 PM

Houngan- Yeah, and if a black and white car gets behind you with flashing lights do you stop? It could be criminals with a cleverly manufactured patrol car!! OMG!! Better make a run for the fallout shelter.
Well isn't that just a load of strawman shit. Seeing a patrol car behind you is a bit different than hearing someone break into your house, where you can't see them, and them announcing themselves as police as they go stomping through your shit and straight into your baby daughter's room.

Firing wildly with your stolen gun when you get scared is not reasonable behavior, despite what crazy NRA-types and kneejerk anti-police liberals think.

Who's making shit up now? Just back down from this one, because you're really reaching now.

Ben

12-14-2005, 04:51 PM

Scry- What am I making up?
I'm using about the same idiotic hyperbole as "hearing someone break into your house, where you can't see them, and them announcing themselves as police as they go stomping through your shit and straight into your baby daughter's room."

JeffL

12-14-2005, 05:33 PM

Should the guy go to jail or be punished? Probably, though debatable if he really didn't know it was the police or it seems they didn't identify themselves or if he was just woken up at 2:00 AM from a deep sleep and disoriented and afraid.

But is anyone really debating whether this guy should be executed for this? That it should be treated as worse than 90% of all intentional murders? That a guy who kills a clerk at a 7-11 should have a lighter sentence than this guy?

extarbags

12-14-2005, 06:47 PM

An innocent man is dead. That is a bad thing, yes?

Yeah, it's a horrible thing. Whose fault is it?

It's his fault for going to the wrong house.

It's the judge's fault for approving a warrant that apparently allowed him to go into a house that was completely unrelated to the guy they were after.

It's the fault of the police officers who made the case for that warrant without properly researching the residence they wanted to search.

It's the fault of whatever secretary did the research on the location and didn't realize that a whole different, unrelated person lived in the other half of the duplex.

It's the fault of whatever legislators proposed and voted to allow these ridiculous no-knock raids, which are just open invitations for this kind of trouble.

You know whose fault it isn't, though? The guy who's sitting on death row right now.

Jasper

12-14-2005, 07:06 PM

They need to do thermal imaging prior to executing warrants.
Hah! Nice one Flowers. :P

Jasper

12-14-2005, 07:11 PM

The cop "broke" into a house they had a warrant for...
Maybe you missed the part where the warrant was for a different place? Or perhaps you're trying to insinuate that because it was a duplex they had a warrant to his side place too, but aren't warrants more specific than that?

The police officer doesn't seem to have been as nearly in the right as you suggest, and clearly over leapt his authority.

Squirrel Killer

12-14-2005, 07:18 PM

The cop "broke" into a house they had a warrant for...
Maybe you missed the part where the warrant was for a different place? Or perhaps you're trying to insinuate that because it was a duplex they had a warrant to his side place too, but aren't warrants more specific than that?
If he's insinuating it, it's because it's true.
The building was a duplex and the officers had a warrant for Jamie Smith, the person who lived in the other half, and for “occupants unknown” in Maye’s half.

Ben

12-14-2005, 08:03 PM

extarbags- So, let's travel over to, say, the Miami incident thread.

Yeah, man. How come the spotlight is always on the murderers, and never on what the victim might have done to provoke them?

Wise words.

Jasper

12-14-2005, 09:27 PM

Wise? Yah, for a completely different context. :roll: What do you think this man did to provoke the police busting into his place guns drawn and unannounced? Oh right -- nothing!

Now, lets see. What did the police do to provoke him to use his gun? Oh right -- busted into his house guns drawn and unannounced!

The only common factor here is your apparent belief the police can do no wrong. Some of us, Ben, don't want to live in a police state.

Jasper

12-14-2005, 09:32 PM

If he's insinuating it, it's because it's true.
The building was a duplex and the officers had a warrant for Jamie Smith, the person who lived in the other half, and for “occupants unknown” in Maye’s half.
I'd missed that, but frankly that makes it even worse. Warrants like that should not be issued -- the Police can damn well check who's living there first, and shouldn't be violently busting in on pure speculation. Seems like a clear constitutional violation to me.

Ben

12-14-2005, 09:39 PM

Jasper- Are you trolling? Maye isn't Alpizar in the analogy.

Also, maybe you could read the fucking article? Or even the thread? That Jones hadn't drawn his gun is not in dispute, and the police claim they announced themselves.

And I never posted in the Miami thread, and I've never even hinted that the police can do no wrong. Christ.

bago

12-15-2005, 03:53 AM

The definitive roundup (http://www.theagitator.com/archives/cat_cory_maye.php).

The fundamental problem is that there are enough people who think that getting high is such an intolerable offense that in order to prevent it we are willing to kill anyone involved with such commerce.

Innocence, guilt, accuracy and fact are all sacrificed upon the altar of "sending a message".

According to our sentencing laws you will spend less time in jail for rape and murder than you will for hooking a brother up.

Disasterous results such as this are the natural economic consequence of the pricing of such behaviors by a legal system gone mad.

Houngan

12-15-2005, 04:35 AM

Ben, I won't even bother quoting your post to me, it stands alone. However, here's the crux: If this guy had shot anyone but a cop, he would not be in jail.

Breaking into a home while someone is asleep is pretty much a gimme in the home-defense shooting market. Your other points are laughably simple, i.e. identifying themselves, the patrol car analogy (nice comparison, patrol cars are just as easy to come by as a voice box!)

While we don't know exactly what happened in this incident, to suggest that it is impossible, if not extremely likely, that this man legitimately defended his house from what he perceived to be a non-cop intruder, is the height of folly.

H.

extarbags

12-15-2005, 05:26 AM

Also, maybe you could read the fucking article? Or even the thread? That Jones hadn't drawn his gun is not in dispute,

If you aren't a police officer, and you break into someone's house, and you have a gun on you, are they not allowed to defend themselves until you actually draw it?

and the police claim they announced themselves.

Yeah, fucking awesome. "Hey, motherfucker, we're the police! This is a raid!" Yeah, right. Like I said, no-knock raids are ridiculous and invite this kind of trouble, because that could be any crackhead burglar saying that. You know what would have happened if this had been a regular warrant? The police would have knocked on his door, shown him the warrant, realized their mistake, and left. Probably happens all the time. Nobody dead, nobody in jail, just a minor inconvenience.

And I never posted in the Miami thread, and I've never even hinted that the police can do no wrong. Christ.

Dude, when a cop barges into the wrong fucking house in the middle of the night, and gets shot by the completely innocent and scared shitless resident of that house, and you say that yeah, that guy should go to prison... well, that's a pretty big hint.

JeffL

12-15-2005, 07:59 AM

The one discrepency that I'm seeing, that apparently is why the jury voted to convict and for the death sentence (and the jury did contain two African Americans who voted to convict and for the sentence,) is that it appears that they didn't simply knock the door down with no announcement. It appears that they knocked on the front door, announced, got no response, went around to the back door, banged on the door, and when they didn't get a response there they finally broke down the door and went in. They apprently did the same procedure at the residence next to him and the occupants opened the door and let them in and surrendered.

So the jury was convinced that the police went up to the building, with the porch lights on so they could be seen, banged on the doors, gave the occupants warning, the one guy on the one side opened the doors and surrendered, and they believed that Maye heard them bang on the front door, didn't respond (he was in a chair and not in bed, though he claimed he was sleeping in his chair), heard them then bang on the back door, laid on the floor aiming at the door (his testimony) and killed the first cop as soon as he came in the door. When he then saw the other cops flood in he dropped his gun and surrendered.

So somehow they were convinced by the testimony he knew it was the cops, for some reason intentionally fought back as they entered, then surrendered when he saw the rest.

While I still want to read the entire transcipt, at least now there's some logic into how the jury justified the verdict in their minds. Not saying I agree, want to read the entire transcript, but that at least makes more sense than a jury hearing that a guy was asleep in bed, with no warning a bunch of people break down the door, he fires and then realizes too late its the cops - well, too bad you made a mistake, you're getting the death penalty. They apparently believe he knew it was the police.

TriggerHappy

12-15-2005, 10:32 AM

Firing wildly with your stolen gun when you get scared is not reasonable behavior, despite what crazy NRA-types and kneejerk anti-police liberals think.

What, exactly, would *you* do at 4AM if someone busts into your house? Give them milk and cookies?

I despise the NRA, and I'm certainly not anti-police, but thanks for putting words in my mouth! I'm pro-police unless they fuck up. Which they did here. Self defense laws in many states allow you to shoot first when your home is invaded. I also think the right to bear arms is an anachronism that's all but useless in today's world, and does more harm than good. But I guess if I support a single case where a cop gets shot, regardless of the circumstances, I'm anti-police.

It's the classic neo-con tactic. "If you aren't with us, you're against us." The world ain't absolutes, honeycakes. Are you eatting something right now? Why are you anti-food?!?!?!?

Lizard_King

12-15-2005, 11:56 AM

It's the classic neo-con tactic. "If you aren't with us, you're against us." The world ain't absolutes, honeycakes. Are you eatting something right now? Why are you anti-food?!?!?!?

I'd say it's a pretty popular tactic all round, the neo cons just tend to state it more pithily.

Ben

12-15-2005, 02:35 PM

extarbags- Yeah, but this guy was a police officer. With a warrant. He wasn't doing anything illegal.
If you can see that he's armed you can see that he's dressed like a cop and hold your fire. If you can't see that he's armed you might try, I dunno, yelling at the guy before shooting him. If an unarmed black guy got killed by a white guy in Mississippi after getting lost and letting himself into what he thought was a friend's house you'd be in a goddamn flurry of hatred. "OMG MIKE MOORE WAS RIGHT TEH NRA IS EVIL!!!ONE!!"

Yeah, fucking awesome. "Hey, motherfucker, we're the police! This is a raid!"

Doesn't it bother you that in nearly every post you've made in this thread you've made at least one massive factual error? It's sort of impressive how you keep on trucking through it. As in right here:

You know what would have happened if this had been a regular warrant? The police would have knocked on his door, shown him the warrant, realized their mistake, and left.

Going to his house wasn't a mistake. Seriously, you might try reading even a little bit about the case. They had a warrant for Maye's residence and they had reason to believe that the unknown occupants therein may be involved in the same criminal enterprise as their neighbor. But I'm sure you'll just ignore that and yell some more.

TriggerHappy- Well, this occured at 11PM, but as it appears I'm the only person in the goddamn world who has read the links in this thread I'll let that pass.

These were police who identified themselves. Under a system of law that allows Maye to shoot this cop because he got scareded, no criminal would ever answer the door when the police serve a warrant. They'd destroy some evidence, wait in their bedroom with a gun on the door until the police bust in, shoot the first cop they see, then claim they were taking a nap.

MatthewF

12-15-2005, 03:01 PM

If you can see that he's armed you can see that he's dressed like a cop and hold your fire. If you can't see that he's armed you might try, I dunno, yelling at the guy before shooting him. If an unarmed black guy got killed by a white guy in Mississippi after getting lost and letting himself into what he thought was a friend's house you'd be in a goddamn flurry of hatred. "OMG MIKE MOORE WAS RIGHT TEH NRA IS EVIL!!!ONE!!"
Actually, if I really believed the guy thought his life was in danger, I'd think the same way, because my thoughts are not based on irrational hatred of authority like you think they are. Why do you do this? Why do you try to apply some theoretical straw man situation as some weird bullshit justification for how you're completely right and we're completely stupid? It's a fun little game and all, but it's pointless.

Going to his house wasn't a mistake.
Actually, it turned out that it was. I thought you read the links?

Seriously, you might try reading even a little bit about the case. They had a warrant for Maye's residence and they had reason to believe that the unknown occupants therein may be involved in the same criminal enterprise as their neighbor. But I'm sure you'll just ignore that and yell some more.
They had reason to believe based on...? Because he was living in the same duplex? That's enough of a reason to bust in his door in the middle of the night? They didn't even know who the fuck was living there, it was "occupants unknown." Yay investigate police work.

These were police who identified themselves.
So they say. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. You've now gone to "they say they identified themselves" to "they did identify themselves." They have an equal amount of interest in saying this as Maye did for saying they hadn't. Your willingness to believe in the police' side of the story is no different than ours for believing Maye. They're just conflicting points of view based on how we each evaluated the information.

Under a system of law that allows Maye to shoot this cop because he got scareded, no criminal would ever answer the door when the police serve a warrant. They'd destroy some evidence, wait in their bedroom with a gun on the door until the police bust in, shoot the first cop they see, then claim they were taking a nap.
But what they probably did was take a battering ram and bash the door in, this was a no-knock raid remember? See, what gets me is that he only shot the first guy he saw. There's nothing about him resisting or attempting to shoot at anyone else -- do you really think that someone who intended to get into a gunfight with police would just give up after shooting the first one? He knows he's going to get life or execution for killing a cop, why would he stop there? I think he shot the guy, realized he was a cop, said "oh fuck, what have I done?" then surrendered. Plus, nobody is going to kill a cop over traces of marijuana and a joint in the ashtray unless they're absolutely insane. And no mention of insanity so far. Everything points to it being an accident. A horrible one that resulted in a dead cop, but nothing that should result in his execution. An innocent man is dead, yes, but by all accounts, do we need to kill another one?

Ben

12-15-2005, 03:27 PM

Why do you do this? Why do you try to apply some theoretical straw man situation as some weird bullshit justification for how you're completely right and we're completely stupid? It's a fun little game and all, but it's pointless.

You know, after 2 pages of posts that are mostly personal attacks on me, you shouldn't ask that question. Or you can ask that question of me... but then you also have to turn Scry's eye of justice on the other people on this thread.

They had reason to believe based on...? Because he was living in the same duplex? That's enough of a reason to bust in his door in the middle of the night? They didn't even know who the fuck was living there, it was "occupants unknown." Yay investigate police work.

I'm afraid I don't understand. You, as some dude on the internet, now believe you know better than the investigating officer than asked for the warrant(who is now dead) and the judge that signed the warrant? I, who am neither of those people, am asked to defend their decisions?

Anyway, the reason I read on one of these blogs was unusual traffic at odd hours. But as you were there and all I'm sure you can shed more light on the subject.

You've now gone to "they say they identified themselves" to "they did identify themselves." They have an equal amount of interest in saying this as Maye did for saying they hadn't. Your willingness to believe in the police' side of the story is no different than ours for believing Maye. They're just conflicting points of view based on how we each evaluated the information.

I love how my initial allowance of the possibility that either side could be lying gets held against me. extarbags and Jasper make shit up with nary a word from you, you flatly believe Maye with no doubts, but that I've deleted some obvious modifiers(nobody who wasn't there can really know what happened) gets you on the inconsistency high horse.

But what they probably did was take a battering ram and bash the door in, this was a no-knock raid remember? See, what gets me is that he only shot the first guy he saw. There's nothing about him resisting or attempting to shoot at anyone else -- do you really think that someone who intended to get into a gunfight with police would just give up after shooting the first one? He knows he's going to get life or execution for killing a cop, why would he stop there? I think he shot the guy, realized he was a cop, said "oh fuck, what have I done?" then surrendered. Plus, nobody is going to kill a cop over traces of marijuana and a joint in the ashtray unless they're absolutely insane. And no mention of insanity so far. Everything points to it being an accident. A horrible one that resulted in a dead cop, but nothing that should result in his execution. An innocent man is dead, yes, but by all accounts, do we need to kill another one?

Hilarious that you started this post bitching about strawmen. What the fuck?
1. I have said IN THIS VERY THREAD that the death sentence is an outrage.
2. Good work on debunking my oft-stated theory that Maye had been waiting his whole life to shoot a cop. Wait, no, nobody ever said that.
3. Also, nice entirely fictional dramatic retelling.

extarbags

12-15-2005, 03:29 PM

You know what would have happened if this had been a regular warrant? The police would have knocked on his door, shown him the warrant, realized their mistake, and left.

Going to his house wasn't a mistake. Seriously, you might try reading even a little bit about the case. They had a warrant for Maye's residence and they had reason to believe that the unknown occupants therein may be involved in the same criminal enterprise as their neighbor. But I'm sure you'll just ignore that and yell some more.

If they didn't know that guy was completely unrelated, then it was a mistake that his house was listed on the warrant. Or are you saying that they knew this guy had nothing to do with the drug dealer, but just threw his house in anyway?

These were police who identified themselves. Under a system of law that allows Maye to shoot this cop because he got scareded, no criminal would ever answer the door when the police serve a warrant. They'd destroy some evidence, wait in their bedroom with a gun on the door until the police bust in, shoot the first cop they see, then claim they were taking a nap.

And once again anybody can say they're a fucking cop. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Hey Ben, I'm a cop, and I've got a warrant to search your house. Just give me your address and I'll come by later on.

MatthewF

12-15-2005, 03:42 PM

You know, after 2 pages of posts that are mostly personal attacks on me, you shouldn't ask that question.
Oh ok, so it's only not ok when I respond personally to you, but it is ok when you respond in this way to everyone? I can't help the fact that you're the only real dissenting voice in this thread.

Or you can ask that question of me... but then you also have to turn Scry's eye of justice on the other people on this thread.
Oh, I'll gladly admit to the fact that some people on Maye's side are being equally as presumptuous. But I also agree with some of their points while I generally agree with none of yours, and I can't exactly respond to everyone. And Scry's Eye of Justice? I kinda like that. Does it come as a package deal with Scry's Hand of Internet Bitchslapping?

I'm afraid I don't understand. You, as some dude on the internet, now believe you know better than the investigating officer than asked for the warrant(who is now dead) and the judge that signed the warrant? I, who am neither of those people, am asked to defend their decisions?
Right, I had forgotten that your "some internet dude" status makes you more right than me. My bad.

Hilarious that you started this post bitching about strawmen. What the fuck?
Right, and me theorizing on the circumstances of the situation is no different than you inventing an entirely different one. Oh, except it is.

3. Also, nice entirely fictional dramatic retelling.
Thanks, I'm rather proud of it.

Ben

12-15-2005, 03:50 PM

Ben

12-15-2005, 04:00 PM

Scry- No, but perhaps you shouldn't wonder at my abrasive tone if you'd note the context.

Right, I had forgotten that your "some internet dude" status makes you more right than me. My bad.

Sorry, chief, doesn't work like that. You're the one critiquing things you know nothing about. That river only goes one way. I'm not saying that it was brilliant investigation, I'm saying that you don't have the first fucking idea what you're talking about.

Euri

12-15-2005, 04:05 PM

How about we stop having night-time raids. Or, better yet, lets repeal our moronic drug laws.

extarbags

12-15-2005, 04:23 PM

extarbags- They believed it may have been related. They were unable to find any evidence it was. Maye had recently moved in.

Is every warrant that fails to turn up evidence a mistake? I don't get your complaint, the police can't just get warrants for guilty people.

Can they just get warrants for actual people? Like, people with names, that actually live in the house they want to search? As opposed to just "persons unknown," under the assumption that whoever lives next door to the suspect must also be in on it?

And once again anybody can say they're a fucking cop.

And obviously policework would be impossible if citizens were legally allowed to not believe the police. What's your remedy here?

What's my remedy? Oh I don't know, maybe going to someone's house during the day, knocking on the door, introducing yourself as a police officer, showing the person the warrant? Is that also "impractical, not too [sic] mention frighteningly paranoid?"

Not One Of Us

12-15-2005, 04:27 PM

And obviously policework would be impossible if citizens were legally allowed to not believe the police.
You frighten me, sir.

Ben

12-15-2005, 05:12 PM

Bren

12-15-2005, 05:29 PM

At some point one would hope your appalling ignorance as to the facts of the case would cause you to shut the fuck up.

Ben, you're the one who missed the fact that the cops raided the wrong house.

shift6

12-15-2005, 06:05 PM

How about we stop having night-time raids. Or, better yet, lets repeal our moronic drug laws.
Euri, that's just crazy talk! We made marijuana illegal to prevent brownies and blackies from taking jobs form honest white people during the depression. Why would we want to repeal them now? Are you a jihadist or something?!

:wink:

At some point one would hope your appalling ignorance as to the facts of the case would cause you to shut the fuck up.
Ben, you're the one who missed the fact that the cops raided the wrong house.
The house was listed on the warrant. So the cops who performed the raiding did not have the wrong house; at best, the detectives who applied for the warrant had the wrong house. IMHO this is an important difference. If the raiding cops raided a house not on the warrant at all, that would have been on them.

Not One Of Us

12-15-2005, 06:07 PM

Not One of Us- So if a cop stops you on the street you keep walking? Granting citizens the legal right to demand verification from a uniformed officer would make law enforcement impractical. Which is why you don't have that right.
Oh I have the right, I just don't have it protected.

So if I scare so so [sic] does everyone else.
Yes, but a good portion of that fear is because of my severe social anxiety.

Police are human. Judges are human. I am human. I prefer to live in 'the Land of the Free.' If absolute (or the nearest possible) freedom and liberty, within the boundaries of respecting everyone else's equal rights, necessitates the responsibility of constant awareness and reduced 'protection' from a police force and government that is granted much superior privileges, then I'd rather live in an anarchy than a police state.

I was hoping the 'Home of the Brave' was established so people could live free and on their own, but our ever growing nationalist-, err, "federal" government doesn't seem to want to allow that.

bago

12-15-2005, 06:08 PM

The "evidence" consisted solely of an informant only known to the dead man.

If you think that based only on the world of a single uncoroborated and unknown informant the police should bust into your house in the middle of the night and search for contraband, you love a police state.

This was standard procedure in the Salem witchhunts and the Spanish Inquisition.

shift6

12-15-2005, 06:17 PM

bago: good point, but that's a discussion about issuing warrants, not executing them (no pun intended). I don't think anyone here has so far agreed that the warrant was fine and based on good, solid evidence.

Ben

12-15-2005, 06:44 PM

Oh I have the right, I just don't have it protected.

That's nonsense. As was the rest of your post. I'm glad you can remember some of the national anthem, though, it's a cool song.

bago- You forget THE HOLOCUAST!!!!!! We don't know the specifics of the warrant. It was good enough to convince a judge.

Bren- Astounding. I guess this is the Big Lie in action. If you retards aren't going to concern yourselves with being, you know, 'not entirely fictional' neither am I.
Maye was trying to shoot the detonate button on his nuclear bomb(which he made out of heroin, child pornography, and dead kittens) and Jones threw himself in front of the bullet. Maye deserves 3 death sentences. Case closed.

Lizard_King

12-15-2005, 07:37 PM

So if I scare so so [sic] does everyone else.
Yes, but a good portion of that fear is because of my severe social anxiety.

Not only are you a Fascist, Ben, but it is also suggested that you are not Human, since you are not in his extensive list. But I would just like to note how much weaker your argument seems now that it is revealed before all that you did, in fact, make a typo. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. A TYPO.

You crazy national socialist, you.

I was hoping the 'Home of the Brave' was established so people could live free and on their own, but our ever growing nationalist-, err, "federal" government doesn't seem to want to allow that.
Oh, snap.

I was Hoping the House McCullough built Would be Spared this breed, but I guess the Chickens have come home to Roost.

The "evidence" consisted solely of an informant only known to the dead man.

If you think that based only on the world of a single uncoroborated and unknown informant the police should bust into your house in the middle of the night and search for contraband, you love a police state.
No one is debating the grounds of the warrant, largely because we don't really know what they are. But I'm sure the "uncorroborated" word of a single informant is good for plenty of warrants, and not necessarily in a police state. The only standard you need to meet is probable cause, which is not unreasonable at all. The problems arise when you shift over to the type of knockless entry used here, not so much from the grounds for issuing warrants per se.
I can understand where knockless warrants can be useful in very specific instances, but I would say that this was clearly not one of them.
This was standard procedure in the Salem witchhunts and the Spanish Inquisition.
Was that really necessary? I mean, come on.

EDIT:repeated quote

extarbags

12-15-2005, 07:49 PM

Not One of Us- So if a cop stops you on the street you keep walking? Granting citizens the legal right to demand verification from a uniformed officer would make law enforcement impractical. Which is why you don't have that right. So if I scare so so does everyone else.

extarbags- under the assumption that whoever lives next door to the suspect must also be in on it?

At some point one would hope your appalling ignorance as to the facts of the case would cause you to shut the fuck up.

Ok, Ben, I give up. Since you seem to know, please explain why the police wanted a warrant for a house next to the one they actually wanted to search, when they didn't even know who lived there, if they didn't

a) Make the mistake of not looking up who lived there first, rendering the search irrelevant.

and/or

b) Jump to the (false) conclusion that the other half of the duplex was also being used by their suspect.

Please, tell me what the facts of the case are. Because all I'm saying here is that they got the wrong guy, which I think is pretty obvious, and that they probably did it because they assumed it would be related, not just because they figured they'd stop in while they were in town.

Granting citizens the legal right to demand verification from a uniformed officer would make law enforcement impractical. Which is why you don't have that right.

Erm... last time I checked, we did have the right to see a badge and even take down a policeman's badge number, even at something as mundane as a traffic stop. I don't think that's impractical.

Lizard_King

12-15-2005, 08:00 PM

Ok, Ben, I give up. Since you seem to know, please explain why the police wanted a warrant for a house next to the one they actually wanted to search, when they didn't even know who lived there, if they didn't

a) Make the mistake of not looking up who lived there first, rendering the search irrelevant.
There is nothing that has been published that indicates what sort of information there was available on the non drug dealer half of the duplex. It's SOP to look at that kind of stuff, if only because it can strengthen a warrant a great deal. You have to wonder what sort of neighborhood we are talking about here.

b) Jump to the (false) conclusion that the other half of the duplex was also being used by their suspect.

Please, tell me what the facts of the case are. Because all I'm saying here is that they got the wrong guy, which I think is pretty obvious, and that they probably did it because they assumed it would be related, not just because they figured they'd stop in while they were in town.
None of this would be news if he hadn't drilled a cop. It is in fact a real possibility that if you live in a crappy neighborhood and share a house with a drug dealer, the cops might suspect you as well. The problem arises from the manner in which the search was conducted, and the consequences for what can reasonably be considered self defense.

Bren

12-15-2005, 08:25 PM

Bren- Astounding. I guess this is the Big Lie in action. If you retards aren't going to concern yourselves with being, you know, 'not entirely fictional' neither am I.

So, it wasn't the cops who had the wrong address, it was the other cops. I stand retarded. Idiot.

bago

12-15-2005, 08:27 PM

The only direct evidence in favor of a search warrant against Maye seems to be a confidential informant's tip to the investigating officer that a "large amount" of marijuana was being stored in Maye's apartment 24 hours before the raid. The officer also says he saw considerable traffic coming to and from the duplex at unusual hours.

Immediately after the raid, police first said they found no drugs in Maye's apartment. Days later, they say they found a small bag of "allegedly marijuana," and three pieces of a burnt cigar, also containing "allegedly marijuana."

Officer Ron Jones, the one who was killed, was also the sole officer who conducted the investigation that led to the raids.

Because of this, we'll never know the details of his investigation. Nor will we learn the identity of his confidential informant. Jones apparently kept no records of his investigation into Maye or Smith. According to DA Buddy McDonald, all record of the investigation "died with Officer Jones."

Nevertheless, judging by the information included in the warrant affidavits, it appears Jones made no effort to identify Maye, to make a controlled drug buy from Maye to corroborate the informant's story, or to do a criminal background check on Maye. In fact, there's no evidence that Jones knew the identify of the person occupying Maye's apartment.

Maye fired three times in rapid succession. After the third shot, the remaining members of the task force shouted "police!" and entered the apartment. At this point, Maye dropped his gun, put up his hands, and surrendered.

There is nothing that has been published that indicates what sort of information there was available on the non drug dealer half of the duplex.

Oh, except for the warrants:
Warrant (http://www.theagitator.com/maye.warrant.pdf)
Affadavit (http://www.theagitator.com/maye.affidavit.pdf)

An informant only known to the dead officer makes an allegation against persons unknown at a house. A warrant was issued. Maye contends that it was a no-knock raid, and drops his gun as soon as someone shouts "police!" -- AFTER 3 shots are fired. Police contend they knocked, but made a forced entry regardless.

Anonymous unverified secret tips leading a forced entry into a persons private home. How is that not like declaring someone a witch to have them hauled off?

Bren

12-15-2005, 08:30 PM

Officer Ron Jones, the one who was killed, was also the sole officer who conducted the investigation that led to the raids.

According to DA Buddy McDonald, all record of the investigation "died with Officer Jones."

This stinks to high hell.

Ben

12-15-2005, 08:54 PM

Bren, bago- Just to be clear, you are now insinuating a grand conspiracy by the law enforcement community to break into Maye's house. Sinister! They were probably after his TV.

Anonymous unverified secret tips leading a forced entry into a persons private home. How is that not like declaring someone a witch to have them hauled off?

Wait, what? Do I really need to draw a line between "American justice system, 1783-present" and "witchhunt"? Are you upset about the very concept of a search warrant?

extarbags- I assume the police aren't crazy and didn't have a secret hatred of Maye, and thus must have had some reason to search his house.

If the police had a good reason to search Maye's house, does that make it wrong that Maye shot Jones?

Lizard_King

12-15-2005, 09:21 PM

Oh, except for the warrants:
Warrant (http://www.theagitator.com/maye.warrant.pdf)
Affadavit (http://www.theagitator.com/maye.affidavit.pdf)
Which do not provide the onsite picture of why the officers made that call, or evidence beyond a guy who was asleep that the police tried to id themselves etc. What I'm going for here is not Maye's guilt as anything other than someone who made a mistake that should not be considered beyond manslaughter, and should not stand up as such. I also think that while the warrant grounds are certainly open to a great deal of controversy, it is hardly the open and shut illegal warrant you seem to be claiming. Rather, the problem is the choice of no knock procedures on the non drug dealer part of the house, which I don't think is any more a result of malice than Maye's shooting.

An informant only known to the dead officer makes an allegation against persons unknown at a house. A warrant was issued. Maye contends that it was a no-knock raid, and drops his gun as soon as someone shouts "police!" -- AFTER 3 shots are fired. Police contend they knocked, but made a forced entry regardless.

Anonymous unverified secret tips leading a forced entry into a persons private home. How is that not like declaring someone a witch to have them hauled off?
The witches got no due process. They were not pursuing Maye, he was obviously collateral to the target, whom no one has said was not guilty or not a target for a drug raid. That is a very big difference. Maye did, and it appears to have failed him for reasons that have yet to become clear. None of the suggestions offered so far for the jury's verdict have been very compelling. The only use for a witchhunt analogy is to unfortunately hyperbolize the case.

Jason McCullough

12-15-2005, 11:05 PM

Bago, don't be silly. No one is wearing a funny hat, so your slightly hyperbolic analogy is useless.

Lizard_King

12-16-2005, 02:39 AM

Bago, don't be silly. No one is wearing a funny hat, so your slightly hyperbolic analogy is useless.
HOLOCAUST. STOP DENYING THE HOLOCAUST.

Anders Hallin

12-16-2005, 02:50 AM

lolocaust

Houngan

12-16-2005, 04:52 AM

Um, does anyone else find it rather telling that both the warrant and affadavit only mention "yellow apts?" Could this maybe have something to do with the problem, along with the badly-scrawled "Apt. 1" in the upper corner of both?

However, I no longer care. The last item on the warrant is the one that scares me. It seems to be giving carte blanche to the officer to toss the residence for anything he can possibly find, which is unconstitutional AFAIK.

H.

extarbags

12-16-2005, 06:31 AM

extarbags- I assume the police aren't crazy and didn't have a secret hatred of Maye, and thus must have had some reason to search his house.

Interesting. I also assume the police aren't crazy and didn't have a secret hatred of Maye, and since they apparently didn't even know he lived there, I figured they made a mistake. Oh, sorry, I guess I forgot that police are automatically infallible. They must have had a reason! Probably it ties into sensitive national security issues, and that's why it's being kept secret.

Squirrel Killer

12-16-2005, 07:03 AM

The last item on the warrant is the one that scares me. It seems to be giving carte blanche to the officer to toss the residence for anything he can possibly find, which is unconstitutional AFAIK.
Given that it's boilerplate text, I'd guess it's been vetted enough so that it passes constitutional muster. I'd interpret it to mean not that they can toss the place looking for anything while they're executing a drug warrent, but that even though they only have a drug warrant, if they stumble on a murder scene, they're allowed to investigate that as well.

foogla

12-16-2005, 07:04 AM

I agree with Ben, Lizard_king and shift6, and you know how that makes me crazy.

(Paraphrased from The West Wing. I don't think I am or they are crazy.)

Houngan

12-16-2005, 07:08 AM

bago

12-16-2005, 08:27 AM

If you peruse the warrant, it is for persons unknown. They didn't even know the name of the person they were going after.

Somehow the unknown person waranted a possible no knock search. Due to the fact that he droppped his gun as soon as he heard the word police, it's apparent he had no idea this was a police raid.

You've got a white gung-ho cop whose daddy is police chief probably making up this informant to raid a couple of houses who gets shot because he doesn't announce himself properly. If this is your idea of how a police system should work, using deadly force and midnight raids based only on the accusation of an unverified informant, then I sudder in horror.

The paid snitch system will only lead to more accidents like this.

On confidential informants:

I have been a criminal lawyer in Canada for 7 years; my first year of
practice was involved with drug prosecutions, but I have been a defence lawyer since.

I wanted to make a couple points about the "informant", and the idea that information died with the officer. I am increasingly convinced that many an "informant" referred to in an affidavit to obtain a warrant is entirely fictitious - who will ever be the wiser?

Nevertheless, it should be the protocol of any police force to document their informants; this doesn't necessarily mean that their names are kept, but the handler-informant relationship is documented - why wasn't that done here? Moreover, aren't officers obliged to keep notes? Although the officer may have died, his activities in investigating and obtaining this warrant should have been noted in his notebook - this should include his observations of the traffic in and out of the residence. I have often found it fruitful to demand production of an officer's notebook, and contrast the observations of foot traffic into a suspected drug den with what was said in the officer's affidavit. This whole notion that critical information died with the officer makes no sense to me, assuming he was following standard police procedures with respect to notes and informants.

Another reason informants are usually documented is that they are *paid*. The only reason an informant would provide information without payment is if the cop has a squeeze on him - holding the prospect of arrest/prosecution over their head for their own criminal behaviour if they don't flip on someone else.

As for the reliability of an informant, you touch on an important issue: shouldn't the fact that little if anything was found at Maye's residence impeach the reliability of the informant? You would think so. However, the converse is likely true. In my experience, *any* drugs found during the execution of a warrant bootstrap the reliability of the informant for that warrant. This is so even if they are looking for coke and find pot. In other words, if an informant is described as having provided reliable information that led to 3 previous warrants where arrests were made, and on the basis of that statement a warrant is issued to look for 2 kg of cocaine - but in the search the cops only find a half a marijuana joint, the next time the cops use that informant in a warrant application he will be described as having been proven reliable 4 times in the past, with 4 warrants issued on the basis of his information, leading to arrests in all 4 instances. It is a total sham.

Nearly every botched drug raid I've looked into was initiated based on information collected by a confidential informant.

ElGuapo

12-16-2005, 09:49 AM

This was standard procedure in the Salem witchhunts and the Spanish Inquisition.

I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

------

Seriously, though, a cop busts in to the guy's house in the middle of the night. The cops gets shot. There is no way this was premeditated murder, punishable by death. Even if you argue against Maye and think that he knew they were cops and somehow was a drug dealer who just got rid of his stash, and wanted to kill cops all his life, he still killed someone who came into his house in the middle of the night. There is no way this deserves the death penalty.

I don't know who to believe, but I do believe this is a cler cut case of a biased decision and should be overturned on appeal. Is someone representing this guy? The ACLU?

Ben

12-16-2005, 11:20 AM

extarbags

12-16-2005, 11:31 AM

extarbags- I never said the cops were infallible. The investigating officer is dead, I can't really ask him to explain his actions. Regardless, could you answer this question:

If the police had a good reason to search Maye's house, does that make it wrong that Maye shot Jones?

Probably, yeah. It's like this: if the cops get a warrant to search his house, and by that I mean a warrant that says "Maye's house," not "this house that's just next to some house we want to search," and it's because he's a drug dealer, and he actually is a drug dealer, and the cops bust in and he shoots one of them, well hey, chances are that's him fighting back during their legitimate search.

But that's not exactly what happened here, is it? As I understand it (but feel free to accuse me of making this up!), Maye was just some dude who happened to have the misfortune of living next to a drug dealer. He had no reason to expect the police to come barging in, and did not know that the guy busting through his door with a gun was a police officer. Furthermore, the police didn't bother finding out who lived there beforehand, which is usually pretty god damned easy to do for the po-po.

I just don't know how you blame this guy for what happened. The bottom line, for me, is that he did absolutely nothing to cause the police to come barging into his house, and when he saw an aggressive intruder, he reacted in a way that basically anyone who keeps a gun for home defense would. That's really the key to this, and that's what would change if he really had been a drug dealer; there was no reason in the world for the police to come raid his house, and no reason for him to think they would.

MikeSofaer

12-16-2005, 11:33 AM

Wasn't the crack dealer his landlord? One could argue that he must have known.

extarbags

12-16-2005, 11:38 AM

Wasn't the crack dealer his landlord? One could argue that he must have known.

Where'd you get that? Also, even if true, renting from a criminal is not, afaik, a crime.

Ben

12-16-2005, 11:46 AM

extarbags- I'm sorry, that simply doesn't compute. Your argument is that Maye got scared and killed a cop thinking he was an intruder and that it's justifiable on those grounds. What Maye does to earn a living has jack shit to do with it. Had the police found drugs in Maye's house I don't see how that changes the criminal nature of Maye firing at Jones.

Unconvicted drug dealers have the same rights as other people. I mean, Maye probably was a drug dealer. He was unemployed and was paying his rent somehow, there was the unusual foot traffic, and some informant told the police there was weed there, etc. That's completely irrelevant to the case, though. The case is about what happened in that house at 11pm. Did Maye use unnecessary force in defending himself? That's all there is. I think his actions were reckless.

I just don't know how you blame this guy for what happened.

I blame this guy because he pulled the fucking trigger. Were his actions understandable? Absolutely. But it's understandable to rob a bank if you owe $10K to the mob and they are going to hurt your family. It's understandable to beat the shit out of your wife if you find her in bed with another man.

extarbags

12-16-2005, 11:56 AM

I mean, Maye probably was a drug dealer.

It's understandable to beat the shit out of your wife if you find her in bed with another man.

Ok, I think we're done here.

Ben

12-16-2005, 01:03 PM

extarbags- What a fucking surprise.

MikeSofaer

12-16-2005, 01:40 PM

Only this time I have the upper hand!

MatthewF

12-16-2005, 01:46 PM

Well, I think it was evident from page one that we were done. We all made up our minds days ago.

bago

12-16-2005, 02:19 PM

Ben: How do you reconcile the fact that he dropped the gun as soon as he heard the word police?

He had no intention to shoot police, only the motherfuckers busting down his door at midnight in a bad neighborhood.

If you had bothered to read the links I provided, you would have found out that his girlfriend and mother were supporting him, as he just moved and hadn't gotten a job yet.

No-knock raids have resulted in hundreds of innocent deaths in this country. I believe the phrase used to be "I'd rather ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned". Nowadays it's something like "I'd rather have 10 innocent men dead so that we can imprison the other 100"

Kind of scary, no?

Ben

12-16-2005, 02:34 PM

bago- Reconcile it with what? I do not believe Maye committed first degree murder. I also don't think he's suicidal. Surrendering to the police is not exculpatory.

bago

12-17-2005, 11:59 AM

He doesn't know they are police, he shoots. When they mention the fact that they are police he stops shooting. Seems to prove the point that he didn't intend to kill a police officer, which is what he's up the creek for. Did you read the warrant?

Ben

12-17-2005, 12:47 PM

bago- Did you read the thread?

bago

12-19-2005, 09:11 AM

Cop (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/13/MNG92G7DD523.DTL) shoots an unarmed man, gets off.

Maye shoots an unidentified intruder and gets Death Row.

It's a pattern:
No-Kock raid grenades (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/84342p-77145c.html) an old woman. She dies.
No-Knock raid on an old priest gives him a heart attack (http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/218/worsethannothing.shtml). He dies.
No-Knock raid winds up shooting an elementary student (http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/169/modesto.shtml). He Dies.
No-Knock raid on a millionaire's house results in the shooting of the home owner. He Dies. Police Chief responsible for killing him gets a portion of his assets (http://web.archive.org/web/20011024103901/www.savetrailsend.org/home.shtml).

New York Police Chief Ray Kelly conceded in testimony to the City Council shortly after the Spruill case that NYC cops were performing about 460 drug raids per month, the vast majority of which were no-knocks. Kelly also conceded that about 10% of those raids produced no evidence and no arrests. That is, they were executed in error. Which means that at least until 2003, about 46 New Yorkers per month, or about 1.5 per day, were being wrongly subjected to police violence. Kelly also conceded that his data was incomplete, so the numbers could be higher.

And that's just New York.

Here's a personal narrative of someone who was involved in one of these mistaken No-Knock raids who fortunately didn't die. He merely had his back broken.

Having been the victim, along with my 90 year old bedridden Mother, of a police home invasion, I don't ever believe one word that the police say about such incidents after the fact. In our case, they were at the wrong address, but it didn't stop them from attacking me by dragging me out of bed, stripping me, and then throwing me down and jumping on me breaking my back. My Mother became so afraid, she ended up in the hospital on a respirator and nearly died of her fright. When I finally got hold of the after action police report, it contained 22 outright lies and another 12 half-truths. We have filed a law suit, but it has now been 4 1/2 years and they, meaning the county and the law enforcement agency, have managed to delay court action so far so that we haven't even gotten to the deposition stage. Fortunately, we have another witness and lots and lots of pictures and xrays of my own bruised and battered body.

I don't know what the true facts of this case are, but I sure wouldn't take anything the law enforcement types say as truthful ... they are the biggest criminals out there and the ones we should all be most afraid of. Take it from one who knows first hand and is reminded by my constant back pain every day of what can happen to innocent, law abiding citizens at the hands of out of control, hormone enraged cops. Although I wish my attackers dead or at least in jail for life, I'm happy I didn't have a weapon as I would never have been able to use it and the state these cops were in that morning, I know they would have shot me and my Mother. They were on a rampage and wanted to take someone, anyone, down. They didn't want to ask questions or get any facts, they were out for blood the minute they forced their way in to my Mother's home where we were all sleeping.

Ben - Did you read the warrants? How he supported himself was not at issue. His name WASNT EVEN ON THE FUCKING WARRANT.

Ben

12-19-2005, 12:25 PM

bago- I have no idea what you're gibbering about now. Less paint chips, more weed. That isn't a pattern, I don't care to read anybody's breathless account of shit, and his name not being on the warrant is completely irrelevant to what punishment he should receive. I fucking said so already, learn to read. Please. This is the third consecutive post by you that shows no understanding at all of the argument.

bago

12-19-2005, 02:05 PM

I really don't know how I can make it simpler. I start the sentence of with "no knock", and end it with "they died". I use repitition because that's easy for people to understand, especially when describing a pattern.

This lame "Did you read my argument? No you must have misunderstood my argument!" tactic is one of confusion. You also go straight into the ad-hominem attacks. Then you proudly declare about how you're not going to read about relevant data, especially the warrant.

I think that speaks for itself.

Ben

12-19-2005, 02:42 PM

Are you saying that if the investigating officer had put Maye's name on the warrant he should be on death row?

You didn't misunderstand my argument, you don't seem to grok what everyone else is talking about here. Not "my", "the". Forget it.
If some person claiming I don't know what the true facts of this case are, but I sure wouldn't take anything the law enforcement types say as truthful ... they are the biggest criminals out there and the ones we should all be most afraid of. is 'relevant data' to you I don't think it's worth anyone's time to continue this discussion.

bago

12-19-2005, 03:28 PM

In sentences of 6 words or less.
Drug wars bad.
Anonymous informants are bad.
Anon tipsters getting warrants bad.
No name warrants are bad.
Swat Team for non-feloneous busts bad.
Busting down doors after midnight bad.
Breaching instead of knocking again bad.
No-Knock warrants bad.
All of the above cause needless death.
Needless death is bad.
All of the above are bad.

Which one of those six word or less sentences isn't bad?

If you think there is anything proper at all about this scenario then you are fundamentally broken:
One anonymous tipster can get the police to bust down your door after midnight, and if you have the temerity to use your second amendment rights to defend yourself and your baby from men in black busting down your door you get put on death row, if you don't get shot first.

What went right?

Ben

12-19-2005, 04:10 PM

bago- How is it possible that you can read various libertarian blogs but not anything I've said. "What went right?" Are you retarded?

Oh, and fun stuff... beyond that you're presenting Maye's defense as the objective truth, the Maye affair occured before midnight. So it's OK under your "after midnight= no more policework" dictate. Yay.

Bren

12-19-2005, 04:24 PM

http://snr.lv/images/photoalbum/18.jpg

Sharpe

12-24-2005, 09:34 AM

The trial transcripts (http://www.theagitator.com/archives/026056.php#026056) are now available. I've read or skimmed my way through the 528 pages. Disclaimer: I have no experience whatsoever in criminal law. I defer to the judgement of the more experienced. But based on my 10 years experience as a non-criminal trial attorney I do have some opinions.

Overall, I now understand how the prosecution obtained a guilty verdict and a death sentence, but I'm also now convinced that Cory Maye deserves a new trial, both for the murder charge and more strongly, for the penalty phase.

The prosecution prevailed because they outclassed the defense in every phase of the trial from preparation, through presentation, organization, communication with the jury, and on motions and objections. Maye's attorney had never tried a capital case and it shows. The prosecution focused very tightly on the issue of the police announcing their presence, and Maye himself came off as a poor and inconsistent witness. The jury clearly believed the police and thought Maye was a liar. The defense attempted to challenge the police testimony but did very little to dispute the factual testimony of the police regarding the announcement of their presence. Instead the defense focused on vague allegations that the police didn't follow procedure. She seemed to be under the impression that they didn't have a warrent for Maye's apartment (they did, although it did not have Maye's name on it, just an address). She kept implying that the police were at fault here, which IMO is a crucial strategic error, and likely angered the jury.

Overall, in terms of the main murder case, I believe the defense attorney was in my non-specialist opinion, ineffective as counsel. She didn't put on any expert testimony to challenge the coroner's reconstruction of the incident (and this testimony about the angle of the bullet was very bad for Maye's credibility). There was a fairly easy argument to be made to rebut the state's case on the ballistics (Maye said he shot upwards, based on the distance and height, probably at an angle of 25 degrees upwards, while the autopsy showed a trajectory of 20 degrees *downwards*. This is easily explained if Officer Jones was crouched forward at 45 degree, which is consistent with someone busting through a door in a "combat crouch" and moving in to serve a warrant. The defense vaguely brought up the crouching issue but failed miserably to follow up on it and presented no expert.) She didn't put on testimony from an investigator or neighbors to challenge the police version of events (its unclear if such evidence exists, but she didn't even try). Her entire defense was composed of only 2 witnesses: she called one of the police officers and questioned him a vague manner (not sure what she was trying to accomplish) about procedures and warrants; and she called Cory Maye.

Maye hurt himself badly as a witness: his appearance (based on descriptions of photos of tatoos) and his spoken words give the impression of someone who might be involved in the thug life. He failed miserably to explain where he got the gun ("a friend", whose name he could not recall, but he did recall buying bullets for the gun and other details). The gun had been reported stolen about 2 months prior to the shooting, which did not make Maye look good.

The defense attorney was just outclassed at every phase, only put on 2 witnesses (and only Mayes himself had anything relevant to say) did not put forward any corroborating evidence or testimony, did not rebut the state's expert, and at several points appeared to be both unprepared and disorganized. Numerous times in the transcripts she "begs the courts indulgence" which means she took a few minutes to flip papers etc, which is almost always a sign of unpreparedness or disorganization. She also complained of not being able to meet with Maye to prep him as a witness (the jail wouldn't let her). The judge "generously" granted her an extra half hour at lunch to prep Maye as a witness which is IMO totally inadequate for a capital murder case. It is unclear if the defense attorney was just inexperienced or if she was also underfunded. The lack of a rebuttal expert might be bad strategy or it might be poverty. The lack of preparation might be a sign of bad organization or it might be a sign of lacking adequate time and resources.

So based on all that I think Maye received inadequate counsel in the murder phase.

And the case was rushed. Super rushed. Express freight train to hell rushed. They did jury selection on Monday, and started the trial on Tuesday. They spent a half day on opening statements and motions then the state put on a capital murder case in 2 days. Then on Thursday, the defense put on her entire anemic case in only a half day. On Friday in the morning they did closing statements and then the Jury got the case in mid morning. The jury deliberated for about 90 minutes and came back guilty.

So a capital murder conviction in about 3 and a quarter court days, with less than 2 hours of deliberations. That's breathtakingly rushed for a capital case IMO.

So based on all of that I believe Maye deserves a new trial with competent experienced counsel, and an adequate budget to respond to the state's case and expert. That doesn't mean I think Maye is fully innocent: I do believe that there is enough factual dispute for a jury to go either way. But I don't believe this jury had the benefit of an adequate defense presentation to make a fair decision. They basically got a Grade A, nicely focused, well honed state presentation, and a bargain basement defense presentation. And the defense presentation IMO just did not adequately present all of the facts and law in defense. I don't care if one side has better lawyering than the other, but the defendant does IMO from a constitutional standpoint require a basic minimally adequate defense and Maye IMO did not get one.

And, the penalty phase was totally borked beyond belief. They finished the trial by lunchtime Friday and came back at 2:20pm Friday to do penalty phase. They did the entire penalty phase in a mere 2 hours and sent the case to the jury a little after 4pm. The jury came back with a death sentence by 6pm Friday. Right before the weekend. No urgency or concern about being rushed there, eh? What was the judge thinking? Also the defense attorney was woefully unprepared for penalty phase. The transcript would be funny if it were not tragic. At several points during the penalty phase, the defense attorney is asking the judge or opposing counsel what the rules and procedures of penalty phase are. What, she doesn't KNOW? And she doesn't ask for a continuance so she can properly prepare for *THE DEATH PHASE* of the case? Christ. Her entire penalty phase case was just the testimony of Maye's mother and grandmother and very little of substance was said. And her closing statement was very accusatory to the jury. It is clear that she is still mentally stunned and outraged by the guilty verdict in the murder case. She can't believe the jury found him guilty and she struggles to make a valid argument against the death penalty.

Oh, one more thing. For those of you of a more conservative/libertarian bent or those who focus on the right to self defense, read the prosecution cross-examination of Maye, and the closing statement by prosecutor McDonald. The state second-guesses and micro-manages Maye's decisions regarding self defense to a severe degree. I think if you are a self defense proponent you have to feel that the state vastly overreached here.

Bottom line: new trial, new counsel, more adequate time and funding to put on a defense. Then we'll have a better chance to determine if Maye truly deserves a death sentence. As is I feel the current verdict is based on an inadequate defense and a severe rush to judgement.

Lizard_King

12-24-2005, 10:57 AM

I'd say that's an exceptionally evenhanded summary of the case. It really says a lot about the jury that they did not viscerally react against such a narrow interpretation of legitimate self defense.

Jason McCullough

12-25-2005, 03:11 PM

Well, I guess "appallingly bad public defender" is better, sadly.

The thing I can't figure out is what inhuman monster of a DA decides to prosecute, much less prosecute for the death penalty.

VegasRobb

12-26-2005, 10:08 PM

Well, I guess "appallingly bad public defender" is better, sadly.

The thing I can't figure out is what inhuman monster of a DA decides to prosecute, much less prosecute for the death penalty.

One who wants to get reelected, have peace of mind when pulling into or out of their driveway, and doesn't want to cringe when they see the red blinking "messages" light on their work phone.

Thanks for the recap Sharpe. Much appreciated.

bago

12-27-2005, 04:39 AM

Some snippets:

The affidavit for Maye's apartment has the phrase "Apt. #2" handwritten across the top. And the affidavit for Smith's has "Apt. #1" written in the same spot, in apparently the same handwriting. Here's Cooper questioning Kruger about that handwriting:

Q: When were those numbers placed on there?

A: I do not know that.

Q: They were not designated as 1 and 2 when they were presented to you?

A: We talked about right and left, I believe, or east and west, but not apartment 1 and apartment 2. I asked him [Officer Jones] -- in trying to identify where he wanted to go, when I finally figured out where the place was, I asked him if that was the Tommie Speights duplex over there, and he said he didn't know. I knew she owned a duplex somewhere over in there, but I -- it was there in town.

Q: Okay. But my question to you, when those affidavits -- excuse me -- those search warrants were presented to you, they were not designated apartment 1 and apartment 2, were they?

A: No, they weren't. I've testified to that, I believe.

Q: No, I don't recall that, but it is your testimony now?

A: The apartment 1 and apartment 2 were not on the search warrant that I signed.

Also:

Police obtained a third warrant after the raid and death of Jones to go back to Maye's apartment to look for more drugs. It was here that they found the marijuana in his apartment. Total amount of marijuana found? Less than an ounce.

Flowers

12-27-2005, 08:43 AM

The thing I can't figure out is what inhuman monster of a DA decides to prosecute, much less prosecute for the death penalty.

Aside from the concerns about FOP, some DA's don't evaluate charging decisions based on prospect of victory at trial or personal moral standards. They stand in and stand up for the people, and some believe that the people deserve an accounting, which would be a trial, whenever there is probable cause to charge a person with wrongdoing.

Jason McCullough

12-27-2005, 10:29 AM

Right, and Santa Claus really does check to see if you're naughty or nice. :)

I just don't have much faith in expecting political candidates (which DAs are, basically) to act like even-handed professionals.

Flowers

12-27-2005, 11:15 AM

They aren't even handed professionals. They are public servants. That said, some DA's prefer to place the bar to charging higher than others.

Sharpe

12-29-2005, 02:16 PM

I want to revive this thread partly b/c I have a comment to make but also b/c I think this remains an important issue. Having skimmed and read more of the transcript, I really have to say this proceeding offends my sense of fair play and justice. It was badly rushed, the prosecution was extremely aggressive, especially in regard to construing self defense in an incredibly narrow fashion, and the defense was inadequate and unfocused. I still think there's a triable issue of fact about guilt but I'm firmly convinced this trial didn't give Mr. Maye a fair shake.

I'll point out one factual thing that the defense missed badly. There was a dispute at trial about the angle of the shot. Maye testified he was shooting from floor level, with his hands maybe a foot off the floor. The bullet struck Officer Jones, who was about 10 to 12 feet away, at 44 inches above the floor so the bullet rose about 30 inches in 10 to 12 feet. This implies a trajectory of 20 to 25 degrees upwards. The prosecution introduced coroner's testimony that the angle of the wound was 20 degrees downwards. They argue this contradicts Maye's testimony, and makes him a liar. They also argue this supports their theory that Maye was not hiding behind the bed but was standing up and firing from a standing position. As I pointed out, this 45 degree discrepancy is easily explained if Officer Jones was crouched forward at a 45 degree angle. The testimony is that officer Jones had just pushed through the broken-in back door (which was not fully open when he contacted it) so it seems likely that he was crouched forward in a combat crouch or leading with his shoulder football style. If not likely, certainly there is a reasonable doubt that he was crouched. The defense did not bring this up adequately IMO and so I feel this was a weakness.

However, I just read something that strengthens my concern even further. The testimony is that another bullet was found in a back wall of tha apartment, a few feet behind Officer Jones. That bullet was 57 inches above floor level, or about 13 inches *above* the point that Officer Jones was hit. Since this bullet impact was behind Jones that strongly implies an upward trajectory (if you assume all bullets fired had a common trajectory, which is consistent with the testimony that the shots where fired in a very very rapid and sudden fashion). This is something that could have been shown to the jury in a very simple diagram fashion. It is IMO very strong and very objective evidence in support of a prone position by Mr. Maye. The prosecution could argue that each bullet had a distinctly different trajectory but they would have to explain a lot of swift re-positioning by Mr Maye in a very short (1 or 2 seconds) span of time.

I guess Im an objective evidence kind of guy. All this he said she said is not very persuasive to me. But the strong mathematical evidence is that the bullets were on an upward trajectory, not downward. And defense failed miserably to comment on that.

Oh one more little thing: the defense only put on two witnesses: Cory Maye and Agent Graves, one of the officers. Graves had already testified for the prosecution. So in other words, other than Maye, the defense attorney did not put on *any* new witnesses. And she failed to call the officer, Officer Allday who actually kicked in the rear door prior to Officer Jones' fatal entry. There was no mention as to why he wasn't called. But from a defense perspective I would think you definitely want the guy who kicked in the door to testify, both as to whether he announced "police" and as to how much force he used and also so the jury could get a sense of whether a guy of that size and weight kicking in a door would create a sense of threat.

Eh, this case just bothers me. I'm a law and order kind of guy (for the record, I did not support clemency for Stanley Williams and I don't support clemency for this Craemer guy currently on death row), but this case just seems like the old school Southern Justice: quick, dirty, and shoddy.

Argh, one more thing: of the 8 officers involved in the drug search, there were two sets of brothers. (In other words 4 of the 8 had relatives with them on the team). Apropos of nothing, but an example of how small town this whole setup is.

Sharpe

01-29-2006, 02:36 PM

Courtesy of Radley Balko of The Agitator (http://www.theagitator.com/), a couple more things on this case.

First, by way of contrast, check out this Miami Case (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/13713521.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_local) in which a somewhat similiar claim of self defense caused a jury to find the defendant not guilty of shooting a police officer, after only 30 minutes of deliberation. What strikes me as interesting is that according to the story, the police officers in the Miami case made statements similiar to those made in the Maye case: that the defendant peeked out, saw police and shot anyway. In the Miami case, the jury must have thought that was not credible. In the Maye case, the jury seemed to accept that at face value. The point being, the Miami case seems to show that the police are willing to lie pretty easily on matters of this sort. (Based on the sparse info in the article the police version of events seems pretty ridiculous on its face.)

Next, on the issue of the bullet trajectory, Mr. Balko posts some new info: according to the autopsy report of Dr. Hayne, the bullet wound was a *reentry wound* (Ie a ricochet). That completely throws the whole "angle of entry" issue out the window. Also it seems to beg a question of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective defense. The prosecutor obtained testimony from Dr. Hayne that was quite authoritative: the angle of entry was 20 degrees downward. The prosecutor then relied on that to assert Cory Maye (who claimed he shot upward) was a liar. However, if the prosecutor had read the autopsy he would have known that the bullet was a ricochet so that his argument was meritless. I dont know what counts as prosecutorial misconduct but making an argument based on conclusion that the prosecutor knows to have no basis seems pretty bad to me. Also, the defense attorney must not have read the autopsy b/c she didn't question the doctor about the ricochet AT ALL. Given all the dispute about the whole angle of entry issue, you'd think the fact that the bullet was a ricochet would have had some relevance :0.

In any case, Maye is coming up next month for an appellate hearing as to whether he gets a new trial. I hope that the appellate judges show some good judgement and grant him one.