Indeed it is interesting because it touches on some of our favorite discussions. Cory Maye was in his Mississippi home at night with his baby daughter when the police barged into the place. In a desperate attempt at self-defense, he shot and killed the first one through the door. He claims he thought they were home invaders, the police say they announced themselves clearly. Cory was convicted and sentenced to death. Later the sentence was changed to Life, and now a new trial is in the offing.
Wikipedia describes the ramifications of the case like this.
His case attracted little attention until late 2005, when Reason magazine senior editor and police misconduct researcher Radley Balko brought it to light on his blog "The Agitator." Maye's supporters say his conviction and sentence raise issues about the right to self-defense, police conduct in the War on Drugs, and racial and social inequities in Mississippi. They have also raised questions about whether he has received competent legal representation.
What's your opinion? Is this a case which the left and the right can agree upon? The lefty anti-capital-punishment and civil rights crowd and the righty stand-your-ground self-defense folks can come together at last on this one, don't you think?
The problem is that everyone who says they are police and kicks in your door aren't always police. This is especially true if you're in the drug trade.
ReplyDeleteSome details i'd like to know: Were the cops in uniform? Were they using marked cars? Did they knock before entering?
The dark of the night no knock warrants is what gets cops shot. Under MikeB's shared responsibility theory, any police official that asks for one and any judge that signs won should also face the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteThank you, AztecRed, for demonstrating your knowledge of drug dealing. Except people who rip off drug dealers don't say they are the cops unless they are the cops. Look up Rian Thal or this
ReplyDeletehttp://www.streetgangs.com/cops/police-in-philadelphia-staged-raids-to-rob-shops
That said:
I'm not sure where to begin with stories like this since there is a laundry list of complaints that can be raised. Beginning with ever notice how the "gun rights" crowd can scream about Ruby Ridge and Waco, yet forget about Mumia Abu Jamal and Cory Maye? Especially since Cory Maye is innocent, other than killing a cop. Or as the article points out "But Maye had just killed a cop. Worse, he had killed the well-liked, widely respected son of the town’s police chief."
Yeah, right.
Another problem with coming out against the war on drugs is that I am one of the many people who benefit from it. All those people who get busted for drugs, usually poor black ones. Ever notice the fancy coke dealers rarely get busted? There are definite double standards in the whole system. Did I forget to mention that Iran-Contra had a drug dealing aspect?
I disagree with the "war on Drugs" it is as idiotic as a "War on Terrorism", but the likelihood that it will end in the USA is slim to non-existent. First off, it is a by-product of the puritanism that runs through American life, which would probably still have prohibition if they could (there are some Dry areas in the US I am told). It effects "poor blacks" and "lowlifes" (kind of like the gun control issue), not good people.
It's a public health issue, like mental illness, something else which is dealt with through the criminal justice system:
http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/mentally_ill/
You have seen how hard it is to get a health care bill through congress for some reason. Abortion and gun control are used to derail that. Just think of the screaming if drug treatment were added in: never mind it is a part of the criminal justice budget.
There is an extremely long diatribe on this issue, but the short answer is that I agree with the Economist that legalisation makes much more sense: especially financially.
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14845095
On the other hand, we can legalise gambling, but not drugs. Too much money in the current state of drug regulation: both from the legal and illegal sides of the trade. As one drug dealer said in DC: "legalise drugs, that would bankrupt me."
(Yes, I am a part of the Criminal Justice System and have been for over 20 years.)
OH yeah, add in the cost of proper legal representation which is a right under the 6th Amendment. Let's raise the taxes to pay for that!
ReplyDeleteAlso, the cost of incarcerating criminals.
Again, who pays for that?
The problem is that everyone who says they are police and kicks in your door aren't always police.
ReplyDeleteYup. In college I remember a string of apartment robberies where guys were saying they were cops in order to gain entry, then holding the occupants at gunpoint and taking everything.
If someone is kicking in my door in the middle of the night I'm assuming they're there to do me harm, not that they're cops.
I remember at least one case like this where a plainclothes officer performed a no-knock warrant and was shot and killed by the homeowner.
(Yes, I am a part of the Criminal Justice System and have been for over 20 years.)
ReplyDeleteA truly scary thought....
"(Yes, I am a part of the Criminal Justice System and have been for over 20 years.)"
ReplyDelete"A truly scary thought...."
It does help to explain all of the repeat offenders that we see so much of these days.
The war on drugs is stupid, and should be ended. Pot should be under rules very similar to beer, heroin under the same rules as vodka, except in either case selling to minors would be more severely punished.
ReplyDeleteDynamic entry warrants are vastly overused, and in most cases too dangerous for what they accomplish. They should only be used for violent criminals when other methods are not practical. "preservation of evidence" is not sufficient reason for a dynamic entry.
If someone bursts through your door, how can you accurately verify whether they are cops or crooks fast enough to do any good? There is no good reason that shouldn't be considered in defense.
Why is it scary? I have a very good reputation amongst my colleagues. I could mention a certain lawyer who has a very good reputation amongst the "pro-gun" crowd who asks me for my opinion fairly frequently.
ReplyDeleteIt's only amongst gun cretins that you think I don't know my stuff.
But they don't know my qualifications.
If you weren't showing your ignorance, RuffRidr, that would be a superlative compliment to my expertise.
ReplyDeleteThen again, you might have figured out what I do for a living. So, thanks would be in order.
Of course, my being a part of the Criminal Justice System is not as scary as the idea that you have access to firearms.
"Beginning with ever notice how the "gun rights" crowd can scream about Ruby Ridge and Waco, yet forget about Mumia Abu Jamal and Cory Maye?"
ReplyDeleteOnly in your head.
You're "qualifications" notwithstanding, your bigotry, lack of logic, vile, violent, and unbelievably disgusting attacks against anyone you disagree with reflect poorly upon you.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you do "know your stuff" in the area of law you practice, but you are woefully ignorant on gun issues and firearms-based law.
Hell, you can't even be bothered to read VT statutes to see that they DO in fact have statewide preemption. Instead you insist upon quoting the FAQ from the State Dept. of Public safety website.
You'd think a lawyer would cite the relevant statutes. Then again those would disprove what you so consistently attempt to claim as correct.
I mean jesus, you can't even be bothered to read them when I cited them for you.
I'll trust the VA state Police and their AG's site far more than I trust you Mike W.
ReplyDeleteVA? VA is not VT.
ReplyDeleteIf you're too dumb to READ the VERMONT STATUTES then I'm not sure anyone can help you.
The fact is you made repeated claims about VT law that were dead wrong.
Your response when I showed you the actual written VT statutes?
"EEEWWW FACTS!! I DONT TRUST YOU MIKE W."
What a sad woman.