TexasCHLforum.com

speedsix wrote:

bronco78 wrote:Threads like this, stories like these, are part of the reason I have video with voice covering my home and car. And a Portable digital voice recorder with my when I’m riding. I may take a ride, I may sit in jail for weeks, but at my trial, it will NOT just be my words against their words.

Memories on both sides are fallible. Even if both sides are “telling the truth” timings and a fog of events under pressure can make what gets written down on reports, or “sworn” to in court months later have a much different appearance to a jury, then the reality of the moment.

...excellent ideas...can they be secured in such a way that they can't be "accidentally" erased???

"accidentally" erased Otherwise known as the "Costco Syndrome"

speedsix wrote:

bronco78 wrote:Threads like this, stories like these, are part of the reason I have video with voice covering my home and car. And a Portable digital voice recorder with my when I’m riding. I may take a ride, I may sit in jail for weeks, but at my trial, it will NOT just be my words against their words.

Memories on both sides are fallible. Even if both sides are “telling the truth” timings and a fog of events under pressure can make what gets written down on reports, or “sworn” to in court months later have a much different appearance to a jury, then the reality of the moment.

...excellent ideas...can they be secured in such a way that they can't be "accidentally" erased???

The one in the vehicles are in a secure box.. it would take a concerted effort to get to it at all, never mind have an accident.

the one on my person when riding?? well, that a no brainer.. The one in the house is protected as well.

Im not really guarding against "bad cops" as if you run in to one of those, and they were really bad, the car would catch on fire, house burned down, ect...What Im guarding against is the mistakes, the issues of timing and memories that are that, memories, not a factual time line of the event.,, and keeping everyone honest.. no embellishments, no out right untruths.. no “well if my partner said he did “”THAT”” then that is what must of happened,,, ya,, ya, that’s right, that is what happened”

speedsix wrote:...can they be secured in such a way that they can't be "accidentally" erased???

Digital recordings can be backed up automatically and securely. The cost goes up from Chevrolet to Cadillac, and it is possible to run into legal problems with subpoenas and discovery. Ask Richard Nixon how that worked out for him.

All this is known and googleable.

- Jim

Thomas wrote:The safest thing (but not me) - leave the house through the back, when encountering police, drop the gun and high-five the sky. If no police, get to safe spot and call 911.

What I would do - crouch around a corner and wait to see the whole suspect (whether after opening door with arm through the door, or after suspect completely goes through door), when seeing he/she looks like a police officer, yell, "Identify yourself, don't move." If supposed police officer aims gun at me or goes for gun, recoil back and run to back yard. If the person was not in uniform, shoot.

If it got to the point where I shot an un-uniformed police officer and I was convicted, I would feel worse for America than I would for myself.

Really, and what if it's a home invasion, burglary, robbery, and the perp's buddies are waiting outside the back door? What makes you think a guy running out the back door at night with a gun in his hand is going to get a chance to drop it if there are police back there? What makes you think all the police you might encounter are going to be in uniform? Anyone can wear a windbreaker that says "police." Why on earth wouldn't the police shoot you if you were crouching around a corner and yelled don't move at them? It seems to me that your "don't move" command creates a reasonable presumption that you're armed and prepared to shoot. Why would you assume police crashing through your door are going to have to "go for a gun?" It seems to me they'd have weapons at the ready and just about any movement by you in a dark house would get you shot.

I tell you, this is my greatest fear during a home invasion. Police bust in and I shoot one, now what. I worked for a short period at the Jail and I have absolutely no interest in going to one. So, go for the gusto or what? I do know that I have never heard of someone getting no-billed for shooting a police officer in Texas. Maybe others have? We need to get this no-knock warrant thing quashed when it deals with vegetable matter. I don't care if they flush the evidence, knock again tomorrow, then the next day, ad nauseaum, they will get the idea and leave or get caught. Individuals losing their lives due to mistakes should be unforgivable, especially over drugs. If I get knocked about as part of collateral damage, because of a kidnapped child or other person in danger is one thing, but over something that can keep until the following morning/afternoon or whatnot is very angersome.

DEB wrote:I tell you, this is my greatest fear during a home invasion. Police bust in and I shoot one, now what. I worked for a short period at the Jail and I have absolutely no interest in going to one. So, go for the gusto or what? I do know that I have never heard of someone getting no-billed for shooting a police officer in Texas. Maybe others have? We need to get this no-knock warrant thing quashed when it deals with vegetable matter. I don't care if they flush the evidence, knock again tomorrow, then the next day, ad nauseaum, they will get the idea and leave or get caught. Individuals losing their lives due to mistakes should be unforgivable, especially over drugs. If I get knocked about as part of collateral damage, because of a kidnapped child or other person in danger is one thing, but over something that can keep until the following morning/afternoon or whatnot is very angersome.

I agree 100%. there is way too much risk of innocents losing their lives over no knock entry for something like drugs. Kidnappers, murder suspects, hostage situations; sure. But drugs? A completely skewed set of values and more tragedy waiting to happen.

VMI77 wrote:

Thomas wrote:The safest thing (but not me) - leave the house through the back, when encountering police, drop the gun and high-five the sky. If no police, get to safe spot and call 911.

What I would do - crouch around a corner and wait to see the whole suspect (whether after opening door with arm through the door, or after suspect completely goes through door), when seeing he/she looks like a police officer, yell, "Identify yourself, don't move." If supposed police officer aims gun at me or goes for gun, recoil back and run to back yard. If the person was not in uniform, shoot.

If it got to the point where I shot an un-uniformed police officer and I was convicted, I would feel worse for America than I would for myself.

Really, and what if it's a home invasion, burglary, robbery, and the perp's buddies are waiting outside the back door? What makes you think a guy running out the back door at night with a gun in his hand is going to get a chance to drop it if there are police back there? What makes you think all the police you might encounter are going to be in uniform? Anyone can wear a windbreaker that says "police." Why on earth wouldn't the police shoot you if you were crouching around a corner and yelled don't move at them? It seems to me that your "don't move" command creates a reasonable presumption that you're armed and prepared to shoot. Why would you assume police crashing through your door are going to have to "go for a gun?" It seems to me they'd have weapons at the ready and just about any movement by you in a dark house would get you shot.

Not to mention I have a wife and kids at home. If someone were to kick in my front door the last thing I would be trying to do is run. I would try to give the family a chance to escape out the back while I do my best to stop the immediate threat. Also there is a timing issue. By the time you turn around, run to the back door and attempt to open it, I’m sure the BG or (SWAT in this case) would have already be on your heels.

I agree this is a terrible situation all the way around. The ordinary law abiding citizen would be in a catch 22, because they are not expecting their home to be raided so more than likely my first thought would be an intruder. Now if I were a dope dealer and someone were trying to kick in my door, my first thought would probably be it’s the cops……


Jusster

txjim42 wrote:Out of curiosity, is there a reason to nab the BG in the home vs. grabbing him as he walks out the door in the morning bleary-eyed, tired and with a do-nut stuck in his face as he fumbles to pull the front door closed on his way to work? Or someplace else that where he doesn't have home-court advantage?

That's not sexy. That's not cool. That doesn't compensate for a JBT's inadequacies as a man.

wharvey wrote:

DEB wrote:I tell you, this is my greatest fear during a home invasion. Police bust in and I shoot one, now what. I worked for a short period at the Jail and I have absolutely no interest in going to one. So, go for the gusto or what? I do know that I have never heard of someone getting no-billed for shooting a police officer in Texas. Maybe others have? We need to get this no-knock warrant thing quashed when it deals with vegetable matter. I don't care if they flush the evidence, knock again tomorrow, then the next day, ad nauseaum, they will get the idea and leave or get caught. Individuals losing their lives due to mistakes should be unforgivable, especially over drugs. If I get knocked about as part of collateral damage, because of a kidnapped child or other person in danger is one thing, but over something that can keep until the following morning/afternoon or whatnot is very angersome.

I agree 100%. there is way too much risk of innocents losing their lives over no knock entry for something like drugs. Kidnappers, murder suspects, hostage situations; sure. But drugs? A completely skewed set of values and more tragedy waiting to happen.[/quote]

I agree. I was interviewed for Jury Duty a few years ago. The DA asked those of us in the jury pool to raise a hand if we were unwilling to sentence the defendant to life in prison for the possession with intent to distribute 4 GRAMS of cocaine. This was after telling us that "intent" could be determined by "repackaging" or "concealing" an illegal substance. So, if you've got 4 grams of cocaine and don't leave it sitting out on your car seat or your coffee table, you must intend to sell it. Selling it or not, possession with intent is a non-violent crime, and it is absurd that someone could be sentenced to more time in prison for this than for rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault, manslaughter, and murder.

According to the search warrant, the police raided Frederick's home after a confidential informant told them he saw evidence of marijuana growing in a garage behind the home. The warrant says the informant saw several marijuana plants, plus lights, irrigation equipment and other gardening supplies.

Why did they raid the house in the middle of the night if the drugs were in a detached garage? Something sounds hinkey to me.

VMI77 wrote:I was interviewed for Jury Duty a few years ago. The DA asked those of us in the jury pool to raise a hand if we were unwilling to sentence the defendant to life in prison for the possession with intent to distribute 4 GRAMS of cocaine. This was after telling us that "intent" could be determined by "repackaging" or "concealing" an illegal substance. So, if you've got 4 grams of cocaine and don't leave it sitting out on your car seat or your coffee table, you must intend to sell it. Selling it or not, possession with intent is a non-violent crime, and it is absurd that someone could be sentenced to more time in prison for this than for rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault, manslaughter, and murder.

I would have risked contempt to quickly say that hiding doesn't mean distribution and you're (the DA) crazy (okay, maybe not the "you're crazy" part). It would probably even get me kicked off the jury, but I actually want to serve on a jury. (I haven't yet because of college.)

Thomas wrote:It would probably even get me kicked off the jury, but I actually want to serve on a jury. (I haven't yet because of college.)

It's kind of a drag... I don't get off work until 2am, and I still had to be there at some ungodly hour in the morning. However, that's a price I will gladly pay for living here.

All the people in jail on non-violent drug charges is why there is no room for violent offenders. I guess you know that the US leads the world in percentage of population in, or have been in, prison. Every one says China is a Hugh viable of human rights but they are a distant second according to the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03016.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thomas wrote:

VMI77 wrote:I was interviewed for Jury Duty a few years ago. The DA asked those of us in the jury pool to raise a hand if we were unwilling to sentence the defendant to life in prison for the possession with intent to distribute 4 GRAMS of cocaine. This was after telling us that "intent" could be determined by "repackaging" or "concealing" an illegal substance. So, if you've got 4 grams of cocaine and don't leave it sitting out on your car seat or your coffee table, you must intend to sell it. Selling it or not, possession with intent is a non-violent crime, and it is absurd that someone could be sentenced to more time in prison for this than for rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault, manslaughter, and murder.

I would have risked contempt to quickly say that hiding doesn't mean distribution and you're (the DA) crazy (okay, maybe not the "you're crazy" part). It would probably even get me kicked off the jury, but I actually want to serve on a jury. (I haven't yet because of college.)

I did in fact challenge the DA after he read the definition of "intent to distribute" ---this was during the selection process. However, he didn't really try to defend it: his response to me was that he didn't write the law, he was just charged with enforcing it. He was actually pretty open to discussion and I felt he conducted the process fairly and reasonably. My real disappointment was with the prospective jurors. Apparently, out of over 100 of us, there were only about four of us who thought it was unreasonable to impose a life sentence for 4 grams of cocaine.

Something in the original story does not add up.

The police apparently claimed that the guy fired through his door and hit a police officer who was standing in the yard. Somehow I doubt that a .380 would be capable of this unless you pressed the gun up against a screen door or something. Also, simple balistics tests on the hole in the door should show where the officer was located when he was hit.