libertarianism: Sentenced to Death for Self-Defense

mark (

slithead) wrote in

libertarianism,
@ 2005-12-23 12:00:00

Sentenced to Death for Self-Defense
Link to the story.

Thoughts? I find it disturbing that Cory Maye is being punished at all, let alone being given the death penalty. If anyone's culpable for the officer's death it's the judge that signed the no-knock warrant, and the rest of the police department for executing it.

Customize

(Post a new comment)

	airstrip 2005-12-23 06:21 pm UTC (link)
	It's Mississippi. This verdict should be canned on appeal. Though really, this sort of thing makes a good argument for eliminating the SWAT system and its counterparts altogether from normal operations. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	Strike the root. montecristo 2005-12-23 06:28 pm UTC (link)
	Eliminate the Drug War entirely and ex-SWAT yo-yo's who invite untrained yokels along on their "ninja adventures" have to find honest jobs managing security at Walmart. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Strike the root.

airstrip
2005-12-23 06:34 pm UTC (link)

I agree, but that won't stop the SWAT team from being used for other things. The process itself is dangerous because of the lack of oversight.

At the same time, obvious alternatives like hiring out SWAT teams might not yield better results. I'm inclined to believe that most of the incompetence is rooted in the absolute education level of the area, something that wouldn't obviously change with a free market system of security.

However, I'm going to just put in my bid for city-states. Smaller government in scope and power for all.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Strike the root. montecristo 2005-12-23 06:41 pm UTC (link)
	You're right, but it is not the lack of oversight that is the problem. A raid is a military tactic. In a military exercise, you don't care if a designated enemy happens to be killed incidentally -- it's one less enemy. The raid is a tactic entirely incompatable with the pursuit of justice. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Strike the root. hhallahh 2005-12-23 06:45 pm UTC (link)
	You're seriously saying that the police don't really care if the target is killed during a raid? Come on. Is forcibly arresting people in general "incompatable with the pursuit of justice"? Should the police focus on writing strongly-worded letters to suspects encouraging their peaceful surrender? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Strike the root. slithead 2005-12-23 06:50 pm UTC (link)
	No. What the police should do is knock on a door or window, and allow the suspect time to see that they are in fact the police, and that they have a warrant (and to wake up and come to their senses if it's the middle of the night) before forcibly entering a home. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Not at all.

montecristo
2005-12-23 07:11 pm UTC (link)

I am saying that, in the process of prosecuting justice you certainly DO care that the "target" of your efforts not be killed indiscriminately.

The raid, as a tactic, is entirely suited for military operations, where there is no problem with cavalierly dispatching "targets" incidental to the main objective. It is entirely unsuited to civilian justice applications. As a corollary, any law which requires military tactics to enforce effectively, is implicitly bad law.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Not at all. remainbehind 2005-12-27 05:49 am UTC (link)
	Do snipers and sharphooters fall under this umbrella? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Not at all.

montecristo
2005-12-27 06:29 am UTC (link)

I don't know for sure. Ask Randy Weaver. One of those brave heroes shot his wife Vicky in the face when she was standing in the doorway of their cabin armed with nothing more than an infant. Earlier, yet another of those courageous centurions shot his fourteen year old son, in the back. Real American heroes there. Frankly, I don't have much respect for a justice system that promulgates the use of militarized cops. If it is necessary to go to war with the populace to enforce the law then clearly the law has been perverted out of all semblance of justice.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Strike the root.

cluebyfour
2005-12-23 07:27 pm UTC (link)

There is often little consequence to the police if they kill the target or even an innocent party during a raid. I recall the Ismael Mena case in Denver some years ago, where a cop lied on a search warrant which turned out to be for the wrong house, and SWAT killed a Mexican immigrant during the raid.

The punishment? The cop who prepared the fraudulent warrant pled guilty to a couple of misdemeanors (to avoid a felony perjury charge) and was suspended for a few months.

Cops are way too easily forgiven for actions which would land civilians in maximum security--or even on death row.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Strike the root. montecristo 2005-12-23 07:48 pm UTC (link)
	Precisely! It is from officials that people should demand a higher standard of accountability. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Strike the root. really_living 2005-12-23 08:25 pm UTC (link)
	Completely agree, and I couldn't have put it better myself. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	slithead 2005-12-23 06:40 pm UTC (link)
	Yep. The root problem is the War on Drugs. Investigating suspicions of drug possession isn't considered to be normal operations by the police because of the horrifying possibility of suspects destroying illegal drugs with the result of saving taxpayers the expense of prosecution and incarceration, due to lack of evidence. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	hhallahh 2005-12-23 06:48 pm UTC (link)
	If it weren't for the War of Drugs, these types of raids wouldn't exist? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Well...that's debatable but... montecristo 2005-12-23 07:00 pm UTC (link)
	Certainly there would be one hell of a lot less political "justification" for them. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Well...that's debatable but... smilerz 2005-12-23 07:23 pm UTC (link)
	That's patently false. No Knock raids are used to capture all sorts of criminals that may try to destroy evidence beyond just drug dealers. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Well...that's debatable but... montecristo 2005-12-23 07:47 pm UTC (link)
	I'm not saying that no other excuse (legitimate or otherwise is debatable) for the no-knock raid would ever be advanced. I'm saying that, absent the Drug War, a large chunk of the justification (if you can call it that) for them would be removed. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	slithead 2005-12-23 07:24 pm UTC (link)
	I could be wrong, but from what I've read they really didn't exist prior to the War on Drugs. Traditionally suspects would be given the chance to "come out with their hands up" before doors would be broken down. (Reply to this)(Parent)

montecristo
2005-12-23 06:25 pm UTC (link)

From commentary on the linked article:

You start appeasing citizens – they’ll be shooting cops all the time. This is the matter of principle, you shoot a cop – you die; and be more careful next time. The cops protect our freedom, without them we’d have no freedom.

Welcome to the mindspace of the "Good German" who values "order" above liberty. Frankly, I despise willing self-apointed boot-lickers worse than the jackboots themselves.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	airstrip 2005-12-23 06:35 pm UTC (link)
	I'm not sure that's it so much as some people don't understand that most social order requires bare minimums of watching and enforcement. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Very true! montecristo 2005-12-23 06:44 pm UTC (link)
	I think you've nailed it. People have been lead to believe that without totalitarian-like oversight everyone's neighbor or even themselves would revert to instant savagery. It's Thomas Hobbes taken to its ludicrously comic extreme -- and the idiots don't understand the joke. (Reply to this)(Parent)

suaiden
2005-12-23 06:27 pm UTC (link)

The whole question of warrants is really what is at issue. If you can accept that the warrant could be accepted for one, then the assailant is in fact guilty of murder. I don't.

I don't find it disturbing, however. The fact that the roomate is an "unknown occupant" is largely irrelevant. The fact that the officer was white and the occupant was black means even less to me.

Cops can break into apartments in America post- September 11. It's life. But I notice the article tries to make it look like a hate crime. I don't care. If he was an Arab, the list entry would be about whether or not he could be detained without cause, and of course, there is "cause".

(Reply to this)(Thread)

montecristo
2005-12-23 06:34 pm UTC (link)

There cannot be "cause" if the cops didn't even know he was there.

Face it: the "law enforcers" staged a dangerous operation of dubious Constitutional legitimacy with incomplete information, and untrained participants. Their little "exercise" fell afoul of the primary right of nature: self defense, and tragically, one of them died.

I say that justice demands that the shooter walk free.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	airstrip 2005-12-23 06:36 pm UTC (link)
	That's the least that justice would demand. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	suaiden 2005-12-23 06:38 pm UTC (link)
	Excuse my French but F@## that! what if he was a guest and shot him? What difference does it make? The warrant was for his roomate. I don't accept warrants as legitimate, but if you do, this is cut and dry. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Non sequitur.

montecristo
2005-12-23 06:54 pm UTC (link)

Well, I don't know about your guests, but if the cop had been a guest at my house, I would have known he was coming and he wouldn't have busted down my door without knocking (and possibly not even identifying himself).

The warrant was NOT for his "roommate." READ IT AGAIN. The house was a duplex -- that means the residences are as technically separate as if they had an expanse of lawn between them. In any case, it is clear that the cops did not know that the house was a duplex and they certainly did not even know the of the existence of the guy they burst in on, OR it is to be hoped, of his eighteen month old daughter.

Warrants are one thing -- no-knock raids are entirely another, as I pointed out above. Nevertheless, even if you unconscionably espouse the rectitude of no-knock raids, you have to admit that the cops conducted that one entirely wrong. Even as a military exercise, the raiders did not do their homework first. Tragedy was to be expected. It certainly should surprise no one.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Non sequitur. suaiden 2005-12-23 07:25 pm UTC (link)
	Sorry, but I again disagree. We don't know floor plans. In some Florida duplexes, only a hallway separates the two apartments. However, it's not clear that this was a duplex. And again, if you accept that courts can issue warrants with knocks, you can accept that they can without-- it's not a non-sequiter. It's essential. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Non sequitur. montecristo 2005-12-23 07:35 pm UTC (link)
	The hypothetical legitimacy of a search warrant does NOT logically imply the legitimacy of a no-knock raid. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Non sequitur. suaiden 2005-12-23 10:29 pm UTC (link)
	READ MY LIPS: IF SEARCH WARRANTS ARE LEGAL, SO ARE NO-KNOCK RAIDS. Quite making victims where there aren't. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	braddogg 2005-12-23 06:31 pm UTC (link)
	He took a life, he should be hanged by the first twelve people you can find to agree it should happen. Forfeited his right to life. Plus, the victim was a cop, and goddammit, we need to protect those who protect and serve us! Executing this man will help prevent future people from acting to defend themselves. ::rolls his eyes:: fucking death penalty. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	Not quite... montecristo 2005-12-23 06:58 pm UTC (link)
	Perhaps it would be better to say that maybe he should be hanged if the first random sample of twelve people from the community who have heard the case in court unanimously agree that he has committed murder. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Not quite... braddogg 2005-12-23 06:59 pm UTC (link)
	You think a jury is a "random sample"? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Not quite... montecristo 2005-12-23 07:13 pm UTC (link)
	Ideally, or actually, factoring in the obvious abuses of voir dire? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Not quite...

braddogg
2005-12-23 07:26 pm UTC (link)

Yes, "is," not "should be." For example, my black friend convicted of rape by an all-white jury in a major urban city. Or, less personally, the story of The Hurricane, as told by Bob Dylan ("And the all-white jury agreed"). Not to mention anyone who believes in nullification is pretty much discarded. The young, the intelligent and opinionated, those with dreadlocks, tend to be disqualified.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Not quite... montecristo 2005-12-23 07:39 pm UTC (link)
	Agreed. The conditions you describe are abuses of voir dire. The only criteria for disqualification for the job of juror should be mental incompetence or direct affiliation with the accused or the court officers. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Not quite... braddogg 2005-12-23 07:42 pm UTC (link)
	::nods:: A good start, then, would be getting rid of peremptory challenges? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Not quite... montecristo 2005-12-23 07:53 pm UTC (link)
	Well, as much as I want to trust lawyers, despite the obvious temptation upon them to "win" the case at any cost... Yes, I think the system would not be unduly compromised by discontinuing the practice of preemptory challenges. (Reply to this)(Parent)

hhallahh
2005-12-23 06:40 pm UTC (link)

Eh, tough issue. There seem to be only a couple alternatives here:

1) "It's okay to kill people who break into your house.."
a) "... no matter what."
b) "... unless they're clearly police officers."
c) "... unless they say they're police officers."

2) "The police should not have the ability to do this kind of search, period."

None of them are really acceptable to be. *shrug*

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	smilerz 2005-12-23 07:26 pm UTC (link)
	You are missing option d. d) "... have guns" (Reply to this)(Parent)

cluebyfour
2005-12-23 07:18 pm UTC (link)

Agreed. And where are all the Hollywood liberals who flocked to Tookie's side as he prepared to take the needle? Why aren't they hitching their wagons to Cory Maye's cause?

Maybe they have no problem with gangsters shotgunning innocent people in the face, but a black man with no prior criminal record defending himself against an unknown assailant (who just happened to be the police chief's son, and should not have been there as he wasn't a SWAT team member) deserves a death sentence. Wouldn't surprise me.

Or maybe he just needs to write a couple of children's books.

(Note that I am an opponent of the DP, but I am also an opponent of liberal hypocrisy.)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	Agreed! montecristo 2005-12-23 07:42 pm UTC (link)
	"Note that I am an opponent of the DP, but I am also an opponent of liberal hypocrisy." That's an excellent summation of my position as well. I also think it is brilliant to ask where "The Friends of Tookie" are on this one! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	trancendenz 2005-12-23 08:37 pm UTC (link)
	Wow, I actually liked/agreed with everything you said for once. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cluebyfour 2005-12-23 08:43 pm UTC (link)
	Please stand by as I reassemble the pieces of my exploded head. (Reply to this)(Parent)

cyclotron
2005-12-23 10:15 pm UTC (link)

just reading the summary, which is extremely biased...

1) I dont know what the laws are in Mississippi regarding guns and situations of self defense
2) I am not convinced race is an issue
3) I think the father being chief of police is an issue
4) the judge didnt make the judgement, the jury did
5) Seems like Cory Maye has the right to a civil case against the wrongful police invasion
6) I am not sure if we have enough info to determine if Maye faced a threat great enough to use a gun and kill. Depends on Mississippi's laws.
7) Because of the police mix up, if he does deserve to be charged with a crime, I think it should be for accidental death.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

stufff
2005-12-24 09:52 pm UTC (link)

Unidentified strangers burst into your house (you have comitted no crime to your knowledge, so you have no reason to expect this to happen) in the middle of the night with guns. You have an 18 month daughter in the house. How do you not have reason to use your gun to kill?

I agree that it is possible that Mississippi's laws may say that even in such a situation he did not have the right to use lethal force, but I would hope we can all agree that if the laws are such, it would be a great injustice.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cyclotron 2005-12-24 10:02 pm UTC (link)
	It just seems to me that A the uniforms and swat gear would be recognizable and B there is time to figure out who you are shooting before you get to the point of pulling the trigger. The human brain is capable of some nifty caluculations in a few seconds. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	deathjoy 2005-12-24 01:05 am UTC (link)
	I don't understand how anyone could think this man should be convicted of any crime. If he was unaware they were cops, what was he to think other than his home was being invaded? How is anyone in that situation suposed to coldly evaluate the level of threat? And even if he was a criminal, that doesn't negate his right to defend his life, family, and home. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	sabakifox 2005-12-24 01:53 am UTC (link)
	Agreed. I don't see what the relevance of his past criminal record (or its lack) is. When you put it as you did, the case seems so clear cut. How could the jury have agreed to kill him? The case must have been presented very differently to them... I guess... (Reply to this)(Parent)

lordshell
2005-12-24 04:49 am UTC (link)

Yet more "collateral damage" from our wondrous "War on Drugs".

I'm enough of a skeptic to want more details on the incident before I render a verdict, but c'mon! I've gotten up sometimes in the best of circumstances and it took me a while to figure out where the hell I was. I have no idea how I might act if somebody burst noisily into my apartment in the dead of night.

That, in and of itself, would give me pause.

Combined with the rest of the facts? I dunno . . . sounds mighty suspicious to me.

(Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

Advertisement

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs