Scenario time!

[srothstein]

Given the stated problems with the scenario, I will attempt to answer from my point of view. I think you would be arrested and charged with capital murder. I think the DA would accept it and take it to a grand jury. I think the grand jury would indict you for the capital murder (actually three counts - one for each cop and one for killing more than one person at a time). And I think you would win the trial. It is obviously going to ruin you financially and wreck your life. But I honestly think a trial by a jury would result in a not guilty verdict. You would also win a big lawsuit against the city, but in Texas, I believe there is a $500,000 cap on city liability. The officers would probably qualify for immunity for making an honest mistake in the line of duty.

Incidentally, you cannot get it into federal court, I think, because for it to be a civil rights violation on use of force, the force needs to be intentionally used against you. A mistake of address rules this out. I am not sure how this will play out for an illegal search type case.

Incidentally, the difference between this case and the one mentioned from Virginia is the mistaken address. That case was a legal warrant served at the proper address. That would almost always result in a murder charge, even if the grounds for the warrant was a mistake. Only an outright lie that invalidates the warrant (a la the Atlanta case) would be the exception.

[seamusTX]

The problem I have with this scenario is trying to picture how you would still be alive after opening fire on a whole crew of police officers. My guess would be that in a night raid they are wearing all kinds of protection and probably using some sort of night vision gear. I don't picture it being a "leg" shot.

I tend to agree, but the guy in Virginia shot and killed a police officer, and he was not injured.

- Jim

[03Lightningrocks]

Remember, you are still standing on the stairs. Perhaps the officers didn't raise their rifles up far enough to get past your leg!

Now I feel like a danged movie director having to defend his plot lol.

[dannysdad]

The liberal media would jump all over the story and portray the cops as jack-booted thugs who can't do anything right. There's no way a DA would touch it.

[phddan]

I see this scenario like this.
It's pretty rare this type of thing takes place. Yes, it can and does happen, but it is very rare. Just like cop impersonators.
You should already have a mindset that owning, and using defensive handguns/longuns, brings about a certain level of risk. Be it at a convenience store, mall, subway, or in your own home, there is always a possibility of you getting mistaken for a bad guy with a gun. So the only thing to do is to try to minimize that risk.
Not being a criminal, and having nothing illegal in your home, usually means you do not expect the police to come barging through your door at o'dark thirty. Thus you are defending your life, home, and loved ones in good faith.
Life ain't fair. Life ain't easy. You have a lot of tough choices to make. Responding to deadly threats is what men have been doing since the beginning.
In your scenario, the cops have just caused you years of pain. But what is the alternative? If it is impersonators, what are they going to do to you and/or your loved ones.
Any one busting down your door armed at 3am is going to put you in a bad position. If it is done under the color of law, it is putting you in a very, very bad position.
But then again, it's more likely you will be in a horrible traffic accident, then going through this scenario.

Dan

[bdickens]

The liberal media would jump all over the story and portray the cops as jack-booted thugs who can't do anything right. There's no way a DA would touch it.

I think the liberal media would be in kind of a double-bind on this one. On one hand, you've got the jack-booted thugs and on the other hand, you've got the paranoid, gun-nut homeowner who was just waiting for an excuse to blast someone. But eventually, the paranoid, gun-nut angle would win out. After all, he shouldn't be allowed to have the handgun in the first place!

[seamusTX]

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but that is not what is happening in the case of Ryan Frederick. He has pretty widespread support (for whatever good it will do). A few newspapers have editorialized against him.

- Jim

[melkor41]

Remember, you are still standing on the stairs. Perhaps the officers didn't raise their rifles up far enough to get past your leg!

Now I feel like a danged movie director having to defend his plot lol.

You could pull out a second handgun and slide down the stair rail while shooting and chomping on a toothpick..... I would pay to see it, (in fact, i have already)

[WarHawk-AVG]

So why does the mistake of the police give them any superiority in their actions

They could have just as easily killed you dead and it was their mistake..it was self defense of an honest law abiding citizen that was raided and his 4th Amendment protections completely stomped on by the mistake of the police

Why should the homeowner be charged, it would have been the same if he gunned down a bunch of gang bangers kicking in his door right..the police were at fault..no the homeowner who defended his property by and unknown attacking force

[frankie_the_yankee]

This could be discussed endlessly. But the bottom line is that if a bunch of people storm into your house dressed up as and yelling "Police!", there is no great answer as to what to do, how to respond, etc. Such a situation is almost assured to end badly for everyone involved, no matter who does what. In the precious few seconds available, it would take superhuman powers of observation and comprehension to accurately figure out what was going on and respond in the "best" way.

So to me it's almost pointless to discuss what would happen if one shot at the intruders, whether one would be prosecuted or no billed, how likely one might be to get shot, etc.

For this scenario, my answer is to eliminate no knock warrants. That way, if a bunch of people smash their way into your house yelling "Police!", you would know they were home invaders because it would never be legal for real police to do that.

But this is why in general terms I find scenario discussions uninteresting. It's always possible to contrive a scenario to lead towards a certain result. It's like trying to "analyze" whether Ali could have beaten Marciano if they could have fought each other when both were in their primes.

Analyzing real world incidents, whether from news reports or other credible sources has a lot more going for it, IMO.

[heliguy972]

Would the castle doctrine not apply here somehow even though they were LEO's??

[agbullet2k1]

Would the castle doctrine not apply here somehow even though they were LEO's??

I'm sure that would be your primary defense, but never underestimate how a DA can twist a law to fit a conviction. The key words in there are "reasonable belief." He can try his best to prove to the jurors that they wouldn't have reasonably believed that, given 20/20 hindsight. There are two worlds, one where things always happen as they are supposed to, and ours.

[seamusTX]

PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

The prosecutor is going to make two assumptions: (1) that the actions of the police were not unlawful, and (2) that the homeowner knew or should have known that they were police.

Although the police had the wrong address, either based on a faulty warrant or by their own mistake (going to 121 Market Place instead of 121 Market Street, for example), their entry is not unlawful because they did not act "intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence."

It's not fair, but that's how it works sometimes.

- Jim

[03Lightningrocks]

Or they could just shoot you dead and plant some drugs on your property. Cased Closed...they got their man.