General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPoll question -- You're serving as a juror...
... in a criminal case where the defendant, a 60 year old female, has pleaded not guilty claiming justifiable self-defense for killing six police officers serving a search warrant outside her front door who were using a battering ram to force their way in after being refused entry. The accused does not deny opening up on the officers with an AR-15 assault rifle from an upstairs bedroom window, intentionally killing all six officers with head shots.
Defense counsel calls only one witness, his client, and asks only one question: "What happened?" The defendant replies, "I saw six police officers outside my front door trying to force their way into my home, I feared for my life, I took appropriate defensive action." And then the defense rests.
Given the out of control police state we're rapidly evolving into, how do you vote?
Note: Drink this in before you vote: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017119388
| 32 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited | |
| Guilty | |
28 (88%) |
|
| Not Guilty | |
4 (13%) |
|
| 1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bucky
(53,947 posts)Make that "breast-feeding pit bulls". Because freedom isn't free.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)Last edited Sun May 19, 2013, 08:45 PM - Edit history (1)
... responsible for this Judge Bucky Bean?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017119388
Bucky
(53,947 posts)I mean, duh, why would you want to punish dead police officers? Unless they're zombies. Which actually would make sense after they've been bitten by the pitbulls.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)the most satisfying way to kill a zombie, though not the only.
dr.strangelove
(4,851 posts)no zombies, but maybe they were vampires ...
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)clarice
(5,504 posts)
ismnotwasm
(41,967 posts)Having arrived in a used, but paid for SUV.
Bucky
(53,947 posts)by Bank bail-out bonus money, I'll just bet
ismnotwasm
(41,967 posts)That or food stamps.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)Swamp Lover
(431 posts)let yourself be arrested, and defend yourself with a lawyer in court. that's civilization.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)... turned loose on you while you sleep? Then what? Let him chew you up, then call your lawyer?
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)oldhippie
(3,249 posts)nt
H2O Man
(73,510 posts)to attempt to decide any legal case by merely considering one side's presentation.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)... it's not so painful really -- I do it every day, you can ask my wife.
H2O Man
(73,510 posts)I tend to think of legal issues as providing a much better opportunity for serious discussions.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)How do you think the O J Simpson jury would vote in this poll?
Don't you think the Police State we're evolving into is dangerous? Is it unreasonable to assume the police may at some point become widely viewed as more dangerous than most criminals, and that this might be reflected in jury decisions?
I didn't post this poll question as a joke.
H2O Man
(73,510 posts)in my original post on this thread, only one side of the case was presented.
There is a reason why every time a judge instructs a jury at the beginning of a trial, they tell jurors to wait until they hear all the evidence before reaching a decision.
This, too, is not a joke. I would like to assume that you would agree it is a valid instruction.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)... thinking back on how you blew your chance to participate in the poll -- I'm just gonna say, "Sorry H20 Man, but most of life's decisions are made with imperfect information, you should've voted, now you're just gonna have to live with it."
H2O Man
(73,510 posts)I suspect that day will never come, but if it does, I'll have to accept the heavy price of my utter failure here.
Perhaps rather than posting a painfully incomplete fantasy question, you might have opted to make use of a real-life court case with similar circumstances. The Dino Butler case comes to mind.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)... you know you want to. We can't grow if we don't step outside our comfort zone once in a while H20 Man.
This poll needs you, and more importantly, you need this poll.
H2O Man
(73,510 posts)for that. "You can't teach an old dog is a penny earned," you know (H2O Man v. USA DOJ et al; 128506 E.; Section 9).
rug
(82,333 posts)No evidence of justified entry has been presented. Therefore, the case fails.
If, for example, we were to pretend that this is real, or even potentially possible, your post falls upon its face.
The prosecution must present a case in any and every criminal trial. There is simply no possibility than the defense would start, and that their presentation would be the sum total of all evidence presented to the jury.
"Tis noble to hold to the presumption of innocence. Very noble, indeed. But a rational mind is also required, wouldn't you agree?
rug
(82,333 posts)the only thing you've heard is her evidence.
You can't convict on what you've heard.
During voir dire, when jurors are asked, "How would you vote right now, guilty, not guilty or I don't know", better than half usually raise their hands and say I don't know. Which is of course the wrong answer. If you don't know, you can't convict.
This is a golden opportunity to instruct on the presumption of innocence (a rule of evidence really), the burden of proof, reasonable doubt and the defendant's right to do nothing at trial.
A trial is not about weighing "both sides of the story". It's all about weighing the prosecution's case. Here, you've heard nothing of it. You must acquit, regardless of any surmise or speculation.
What you are describing is distinct from what you are trying to ascribe it to.
Defense attorneys can ask a judge to dismiss a case, due to lack of evidence. In fact, they can do so in a pre-trial motion, or in a motion to dismiss after the prosecution presents its case.
But it could never happen by way of the jury hearing the defense present its witness(es).
Our system of justice is flawed, and has very real problems. Yet adding fantasy situations that can never happen does not present any meaningful options for discussing them, or any of the other fantasy issues applied to the OP.
Also, it is true thaqt prosecutors have the burden of proving their case ..... one votes either "guilty" or "not guilty." But, as everty judge instructs every jury in a criminal case that goes to a jury trial, they should wait to hear all of the evidence before reaching a conclusion. To assume that only involves weighing the prosecutor's case would be to fail in one's solemn duty, for good defense attorneys frequently raise "reasonable doubt" (even where the accused may well be "guilty," but the prosecutor simply has proven it beyond a reasonable doubt) ..... and even a somewhat-talented defense attorney can do so with a client who is actually innocent of the charges.
It's probably better if we stick to what actually can happen in a criminal case.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)... if that is your real name, do me favor and go to the fridge, get yourself a couple Pale Ales and knock them back in the next 15 minutes or so. Then, as you feel the courage building inside you, get your ass back here and you VOTE DAMMIT!!!
H2O Man
(73,510 posts)I will meet you half-way: I do have two beers (brewed in Cooperstown, NY) in the kitchen. I will consume them, and continue to participate here.
However, two facts remain: (1) I drink beer at room-temperature; and (2) I am 3/4 Irish, and am at risk for becoming rigid while drinking.
Abbey Ale ("Dubbel Ale"
, quite dark at that. Never understood those who willingly chill a dark beer or ale. Not that I favor criminal prosecution for such an offensive offense. But cold doesn't do these justice.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)I knew you had it in ya.
H2O Man
(73,510 posts)channeling the spirit of Jim Morrison in Miami. I expect you to post a new OP about that trial's evidence, too.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Evidence is precluded or deemed inadmissible all the time at trial.
The verdict is based on what's left. There is nothing here on which to base a conviction.
The pattern jury instructions also routinely emphasize that the defense need not present any evidence.
I do know what actually happens in a criminal jury case. As we're not in a courtroom but simply in this thread, the vote is obvious.
H2O Man
(73,510 posts)made weaker by attempts to pretend it is in any sense reality-based.
There are, as I mentioned above, real life cases of a similar nature ..... though as they actually happened, and resulted in trials with real evidence presented in the curious manner that takes place in court ..... and which might be the source of a meaningful discussion of the two primary issues introduced in this OP/thread. I mentioned Butler's case, in which two AIM activists were found "not guilty" of the same crime that Leonard Peltier was wrongly convicted of. That case involved the right to defend one's self & property, as well as the abuses of how "evidence" -- both real and faked -- can be either introduced, or excluded, from being presented to a jury.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)The first paragraph clearly states that they were using the battering ram to gain entrance to the home in an attempt to serve a warrant after being refused entry by the homeowner.
So by that evidence the police were legally justified in their actions in gaining entry to the home via force to execute the warrant.
From the facts presented here the police were not acted unlawfully nor had they even entered the home at the time of the homeowner opening fire on them, thus nullifying her self defense case.
rug
(82,333 posts)The warrant exception to the Fourth Amendment is narrowly drafted. No evidence has been presented that the warrant was being executed at the right time, place and location specified in the warrant. it may have been but a juror cannot assume so. The evidence is lacking.
Furthermore, it is not shown whether the police were in uniform or that the refusal was made after they properly identified themselces.
The verdict must be based on what is shown not what is supposed.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)Now, you can pretend that the entirety of the prosecution case is the summary given in the OP; but it doesn't say that would be all the prosecution has to say, word for word, while it does explicitly give the entire defence presentation. But, in reality, any prosecution would tell you what the search warrant was for, for instance.
But we do at least know a search warrant was granted for some reason; therefore, there is some evidence of justified entry, and in practice, you'd know more.
Do you value property over life so much that, even if a person truly knew a search warrant was being improperly served, it's OK for them to deliberately kill all those trying to serve it? There is no mention of any threat to the person - just breaking the door down.
rug
(82,333 posts)All that a juror has to go by is what is actually presented.
No, I value life much higher than property. That's why I don't want six armed people barging into a house with a battering ram. (Not that innocent people are ever killed while executing a search warrant, valid or not.)
Returning to this hypothetical, you're right, there is no evidence. You must acquit.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)If they had the wrong address she would have told them that instead of refusing entry.
rug
(82,333 posts)All you have is evidence of six homicides, not six murders. There's no evidence at all of murder which is a very specific crime with very specific elements.
Next time I'm confronted in my living room by six armed people with a battering ram, I'll be sure to say "excuse me" while I go to get the electric bill to show them the address.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)And the defendant was upstairs ("The accused does not deny opening up on the officers with an AR-15 assault rifle from an upstairs bedroom window, intentionally killing all six officers with head shots" . I worry that you don't read evidence put in front of you.
rug
(82,333 posts)Now go read the rest of the reply.
Oh, don't forget to point out the body armor.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)that in a case where LE is forcibly entering a home in that manner, they will have body armor on. And it will be visible. The OP specified shots to the head.
rug
(82,333 posts)unless you're on the stand and cross-examined about the specific facts of a specific case.
Look, I can sit here and opine ad nauseam on this, as can you. In the end it sheds light only on our particular leanings and not a whit toward establishing a single fact. But if the arena is a criminal court of law, the presumption of innocence is on the defendant and the burden of establishing those facts is on "LE". Period.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)so a knock, or other means of starting communication with someone inside, happened.
The defence has not disputed that a search warrant existed, that entry was refused, and that the defendant deliberately shot 6 police officers, in possession of a search warrant. Why do you think that police officers, who have a search warrant, can be held to be a reasonable danger to life for breaking down a door? Your value of life has allowed 6 people doing a job, who have never made any threat to the defendant (who is upstairs, not behind the door), to be killed.
There is evidence. We have heard that entry to the house, after a search warrant was shown, was refused. That is evidence.
rug
(82,333 posts)Still, it has not been established that they were executing it at the right place. The evidence of a search warrant is not evidence that it was properly and lawfully executed.
And your presumption of my "value of life" is based on what? Do you want to hear my presumption of your value of police activities over that of citizens?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)when the only evidence that the defence gave is that the defendant feared for her life. No threat to her was mentioned. The door was being broken down. The existence of a search warrant is not reasonable evidence that there was a threat to her life. Nor is the breaking down of the door (we know someone refused entry, but there was a warrant; the defence has not attempted to say why entry was refused).
If you had voted 'other', I could see your point. But, as it is, your disregard for the lives of the officers is appalling. Even if we did know it was the wrong address, that would not give reason to believe her safety was in immediate danger that justifies killing them.
rug
(82,333 posts)The only "value" of a verdict is whether it is based on facts established and the law given.
I did presume that your proclivity was deference to authority but after that statement I see you're more likely to inject a personal moral view than to follow even the instructions given you by that authority, to which you otherwise seem eager to defer.
Evidence:
The woman feared for her life. Unrebutted.
Her door was broken down. Unrebutted
A search warrant was issued. Unrebutted.
The search warrant was executed when and where it was intended. Unestablished.
My "disregard for the lives of the officers". Unestablished. (Not to mention, irrelevant.)
Your projection. Established beyond a reasonable doubt.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)to them breaking down a door after entry, with a search warrant, was refused. The act of breaking down the door did not put the woman in danger - she was upstairs.
A jury considers what a reasonable person would do (as long as a defence of mental incapacity hasn't been used, which it hasn't in this case - there's no claim of paranoia distorting her response). Is shooting 6 officers, from a place of safety, in the head (so she knew there is a good chance it would kill them) a reasonable response to breaking down a door after the refusal to obey a search warrant? No.
Given your argument, have you had any thoughts on the Zimmerman case? Your line of argument here - that if a defendant says "I feared for my life" then it's going to have to be accepted as true - seems to show you think he should be found not guilty.
rug
(82,333 posts)Your disregard for the scant facts here is leading you into great leaps.
The circumstances of the entry are not known.
Whether the warrant was shown is not known.
The house is not described so your assumption that she was in "a place of safety" is not stated.
What is reasonable is a hybrid subjective/objective test based upon all extant circumstances, which are not statwed.
Zimmerman has nothing to do with this scenario. Although if you want to inject extraneous cases, tell me your view of the Amadou Diallo case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo_shooting
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)"killing six police officers serving a search warrant outside her front door"
"from an upstairs bedroom window" - this is a place of safety, when the police are outside, breaking a door.
"after being refused entry" - I think this say the warrant was shown (not necessarily to the woman, but that does not mean it's reasonable to assume her life is in danger)
They were outside; she was upstairs. She was not in danger from them breaking down the door.
Zimmerman's defence is based on "I feared for my life"; it's very relevant here, since "I feared for my life" is the whole defence, and only Zimmerman can explain that fear, since there were no witnesses. The Diallo case is less relevant, since there was an action by the victim which some people might think could be interpreted as indicating immediate danger - reaching into clothing to remove something, after being challenged by police. I deplore the availability of guns in the USA, which allows police to say that an unknown movement could likely be reaching for a gun.
rug
(82,333 posts)You do, after all, state "there was an action by the victim which some people might think could be interpreted as indicating immediate danger - reaching into clothing to remove something, after being challenged by police." Are you one of those "some people".
I deplore the daily incidents of police brutality and the support it readily garners.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)to be "they could be taking out a gun", and that would be immediate danger. This then allows the police to use the 'reasonable person would fear' defence. That doesn't make the killing justified; but I think it makes the acquital justified, because reasonable doubt has been shown.
What do you think the verdict on Zimmerman should be, given what you know?
rug
(82,333 posts)If you've been reading any part of this subthread you'd know what my opinion would be, not guilty. There hasn't been any evidence presented in a court of law so that must be the verdict. Presumption of innocence and all, pesky concepts.
What you're really asking is my opinion based on the various news accounts.
Bucky
(53,947 posts)Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)... ALWAYS shoot the hostage, Bucky, as for removing them from the equation, I ain't no mathematicalaticianer.
Journeyman
(15,026 posts)a signal of danger rather than a plea for help.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)... the cops will always be when they come to serve a warrant at someone's residence suspected of growing a marijuana.
Hypothetical polls are good for your posteritatis -- at least that's what my doctor told me.
Autumn
(44,985 posts)
I don't tolerate that shit.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)How would you vote if she used corn flakes only occasionally when she fries chicken?
Autumn
(44,985 posts)No matter the situation, it's just wrong.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)...now how do you vote?
Autumn
(44,985 posts)Can you imagine the horror that chicken would feel if it knew it was going to be dipped in corn flakes? Unforgivable.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)... now let's just suppose, just suppose you understand, that she only did it one time, ONE TIME in all her 60 years, and that was because she'd lost her glasses, couldn't see, and inadvertently picked up the box of Corn Flakes instead of the pickled pigs feet batter (an accident).
Now how do you vote?
Autumn
(44,985 posts)and if she has just eaten a drumstick cooked in the pickled pigs feet batter (an accident) while laying in bed reading her Nook and being jolted out of bed and she wasn't wearing her glasses when she shot the cops in the head from her upstairs bedroom window then I would have to find her innocent by reason of insanity. Secretly, I would be impressed, no glasses and 6 head shots is pretty damn amazing. I would have missed and tore the hell out of the lawn.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)... and I like the way you think.
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)for someone who got away with killing representatives of the law. If you want to see me vote not guilty, then poll what would a juror do to the seventh police officer who emptied his gun into her when she tried to surrender.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)Just where was this woman's "protection from the law"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017119388
Should we need protection FROM the law -- I thought protection of the citizenry was part of their job description.
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)from each other is an essential part of the law. Believe it or not, it also protects police from nuts with guns. If someone kills 6 police officers then they have to take the consequences. If in anger, fear, grief, or whatever reason, one of those human police officers kills the killer, I would have a hard time finding the officer guilty of any crime.
You do need protection from the law if you intend to murder others. I expect the police to arrest criminals.
If the police acted in an illegal manner, her recourse is in the courts.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Not reasonable here. Let them execute the search warrant and complain about it to the courts.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)Would it have been reasonable here?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017119388
Executing the search warrant should not mean a K9 mauling of the homeowner as she sleeps -- I hope we can agree on that.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)accurate observation about your OP violates community standards.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)I would never let you be my Gortex salesperson.
Logical
(22,457 posts)kicking in your front door and yelling "police"? Nothing.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)if they feel that doing so would place an unreasonable risk on themselves.
What that translates into is the reality that police officers can, and do, enter residences unannounced. A good example of a case where that would be reasonable is if the resident is believed to be armed and dangerous...
Hence, in the OP, there is little or no justification in opening fire on the officers.
Logical
(22,457 posts)You have a right to defend your property. Some one who wakes up to an intruder kicking in their front door has a right to react.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)The assumption there is that you have no reasonable fear for your own safety given the circumstance.
If the home owner does not recognize the officer as an officer and shoots because he or she assumes the intruder is actually a threat, then I could see how that would be reasonable self-defense.
But once you recognize that those entering your home are police officers, you no longer have the law or, as far as I'm concerned, ethics on your side.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)At that point, I may not consider it murder but instead something along the lines of negligent homicide.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Two former Los Angeles Police Department officers, along with 13 others, have plead guilty to running a robbery ring, which used fake no-knock raids as a ruse to catch victims off guard. The defendants would then steal cash and drugs to sell on the street. This tactic led Radley Balko, editor of Reason Magazine, to complain "So not only can you not be sure the people banging down your door at night are the police, not only can you not be sure they’re the police even if they say they’re the police, you can’t even be sure it’s safe to let them in even if they are the police."
US Marine Jose Guerena was shot twenty-two times by a SWAT team planning to execute a search warrant. He retrieved a legally possessed rifle in response to sudden intruders, likely concerned for his family's safety, and the SWAT team opened fire on him before establishing any communication. The team later retracted its initial claims he had opened fire when it was established that Guerena had never fired and his safety was still on. The police refused to allow paramedics to access Guerena for more than hour, leaving Guerena to bleed to death, alone, in his own home. Members of the SWAT team subsequently hired legal defense and a large following of fellow Marines held a memorial service at his home with his widow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)No,
The real police do
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the facts of this case would be rather unambiguous in supporting a multiple convictions of murder.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)The two officers entered her house with a K-9 dog to serve a search warrant while Mrs. Youngblood was asleep in her bedroom upstairs.
From an article I read, it was explained that there are two different types of K-9 dogs:
The second is the straightforward bite-and-hold principle which trains the dog to bite first and hold until the suspect is subdued.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129728/She-felt-crunching-bones-Estranged-wife-sheriff-mauled-police-K-9-slept-bed.html#ixzz2Tn0t4T6d
The K-9 dog that was brought to Mrs. Youngblood's home was the type trained to bite first & hold -- to serve a search warrant!
Mrs. Youngblood did nothing to harm the officers, so her case can't be compared to the one you described.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)but I can't blame someone for being scared when a violent gang is bashing in their front door.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)She wouldn't have known if they had a valid warrant or not....best to surrender and let legal system figure it out.
Now, had she been asleep in LR, no way of knowing if police or gang members trying to force their way in to house, then that might well be a different story.
rug
(82,333 posts)The OP also doesn't state if they were uniformed or not.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)"I saw six police officers trying to force open my front door". Therefore, she knew before shooting them they were police officers.
A good rule of thumb: its a bad idea to shoot or pull a weapon on police. It always ends badly. If the police are committing a huge fuck-up, at least you have a chance in court, and with restitution, if you are still alive.
rug
(82,333 posts)It would be interesting to know exactly what they were doing. This may be a case where she was the one alive to say what happened. That is not always the case.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)You see a meaningful difference? Did you not take in some of the myriad Occupy videos documenting wanton and routine police brutality as the norm for breaking up these peaceful demonstrations? How is that different from a lawless gang?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I answered the poll, there simply isn't enough time or space to address every single hypothetical situation not addressed in the OP.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Otherwise, she's guilty.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)... before they use lethal force against a citizen? Do they not routinely employ lethal force in situations where there was no good reason for it -- particularly where minorities are concerned? Does this not serve as good reason for the woman to fear for her life?
What scenario can you imagine that would satisfy the "good reason for her fear" requirement?
Would you be afraid if cops showed up unannounced at your doorstep at 3:00 a.m. demanding entry to serve a search warrant? I'd be very nervous, and I'm not a criminal.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I would be shocked but not afraid. Especially not in capacity that would warrant me shooting them.
That isn't to say that everyone should react the same way. Especially if there was some situation where the homeowner had good reason to fear the officers. Maybe they know each other previously or something like that.
But what I'm trying to get at here is that we can't just assume the woman had good reason to open fire on 6 police officers. That makes no sense.
Just like it makes no sense to assume that an officer had good reason to open fire on an innocent individual because he or she had an apple in his or her hand that the officer thought was a grenade.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)I'd bet that they were at the wrong house to begin with. However, I'd start the trial from the assumption that the defendant was not guilty, and the prosecution would have to convince me that the defendant had committed a crime.
gopiscrap
(23,726 posts)are usually wrong and usually bullying people and the sad shit is that they get away with it all the time!!!
Nimajneb Nilknarf
(319 posts)It does not state whether the members of the local constabulary properly identified themselves and produced a proper warrant.
It also does not state whether the officers were attempting to serve a warrant at the correct location.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)... and welcome to DU 
Coolest username ever, btw.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)I heard about this idiot who mowed down six cops who were breaking in her home to conduct a legal search.
She was either hiding something, or was just another nut with a gun.
Or both.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)Stand her ground I say...of course it may depend.
Was this is Ocala? Was she black? Is she registered as a Democrat?
These are important factors in verdicts down here.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Given that comment, I voted Guilty just to piss on your campfire.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)... I've seen this before in past polls I've done -- I call it the "Fuck Mr Jeff and the Horse He Rode In On" Poll Effect -- I estimate it typically to be the deciding factor in how my fellow DUers cast their vote in anywhere from 0 to 25 percent of the total votes cast, depending on which DU cliks show up to participate.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"I call it the "Fuck Mr Jeff and the Horse He Rode In On" Poll Effect -- I estimate it typically to be the deciding factor..."
Your martyrdom is noted and given all due consideration. Additional points for the creativity of the cross, but minus points for the cross's weak structural foundation.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)murder, likely in the 2nd degree, but perhaps the first.
There is no element of self-defense present, as she wrongfully refused them entry upon service of the search warrant, causing the escalation, and then shot them, without being in immediate danger herself.
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)... prospective fellow jurors, about 17 percent, more than sufficient to hang a 12 person jury, don't see it that way Geek Tragedy.
How is it wrong to refuse entry to ANYONE you sincerely believe has come to your home to do you bodily harm?
Would the woman viciously mauled by a police K9 while she slept have been wrong to use deadly force against those officers as they forced their way in, who were also serving a warrant, if she feared for her life?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Period.
Moreover, there is no right to shoot people because they pose a hypothetical danger to you. The danger must be immediate.
Legally, what the woman did in your hypothetical is less plausibly self-defense than was George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin.
The people who voted not guilty essentially engaged in jury nullification, apparently under the theory that it should be legal to shoot police, who in this case did nothing illegal.
