United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: No-knock police raid ends in blazing tragedy
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp ... -raid-ends-in-blazing-tragedy/
Published: Feb 11, 2015
Author: Leo Hohmann
Post Date: 2015-02-11 08:07:21 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 13109
Comments: 52
Gun owners and self-defense advocates are lauding a rare victory in which a Texas grand jury has refused to indict a homeowner for shooting and killing a police officer who entered his home unannounced in the middle of the night. The homeowner, Henry Magee, 28, said he thought the officers who broke through his door were robbers and he acted in self-defense to protect his pregnant girlfriend and two children. Police were acting on a tip from a criminal informant that led them to believe Magee had more than a dozen marijuana plants, all at least six feet tall, in his rural home in Burleson County. Officers included a line on the warrant that Magee also had “possible illegal guns” stolen from the local sheriff’s office. The local magistrate signed off on the warrant, with deadly consequences. Before the sun came up on Dec. 19, nine deputies broke down the door to Magee’s mobile home and set off a flash-bang grenade. Magee confronted them, firing away as they barged through the door. One of the deputies, Adam Sowders, fell dead.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-12) not displayed.
.
.
.
#13. To: GrandIsland (#6)
From the article : When the dust settled, they found two small marijuana plants less than six inches tall and four guns, all legally owned by Magee, three of which were locked in a safe. Looks to me that this guy's agenda was to defend his home and family from armed criminal thugs.
I wonder if the Sheriff's office even had any guns stolen.
If they had weapons missing, they must send a nationwide teletype within so many hours. It's always shameful to teletype every police department in th country to tell them you lost a gun(s) Would be something easily checked and stupid to lie about.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Well, not by this guy.
... who might be after his drugs and money. Perhaps if he wasn't in the illegal drug business he would be less worried about armed criminal thugs (or cops) coming after his stash.
" hit the place unannounced, with a no-knock, to recover the stolen guns.... more so than the pot. The pot, alone, would have been a daytime, knock on the door, cover all exits... meet, greet, search." Sounds like a very logical & reasonable plan. Except, the facts seem to not justify the no knock. Too bad you were not in charge of this raid. If so, there might be one less dead officer. " Did authorities find stolen guns? " No. Only four guns, all legally owned, three of which were locked up. One has to wonder how guns get stolen from the SO ?? And why was someone trying to hang that on this guy, who was obviously not John Dillinger Sounds like their CI lied. He / she apparently scammed the PD. Not very circumspect. I would imagine which ever officer used this CI, they will be having an "interesting" conversation with him / her. This is indeed a tragic event, that did not have to happen.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Since the lies told by their paid snitch ultimately resulted in the cop's death, I wonder if the DA will file charges against him. Which is what should happen.
I doubt it. CI info is always a "good faith" deal. If the department had the idea and proof that the CI intentionally gave them bad information, so an officer would be hurt or so the homeowner was inconvenienced, then I could see a charge. INTENT is the hardest thing to prove.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Can you cite the Texas law that provides for "no knock" warrants?
Mr. White's toilet is probably large enough to handle it. After all, it handles HIS sh*t.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Why? Are you saying a no-knock warrant was legally required in this incident?
I'll take that as a "no".
Mr. White's toilet is probably large enough to handle it. After all, it handles HIS sh*t. Lol, ok, that was pretty funny....8-)
You should take it as "Why are you asking?" Your question implies that a) they needed a no-knock warrant, b) they didn't have a no-knock warrant, and c) even if they did, a no-knock warrant is illegal in Texas. First of all, all three of those assumptions are incorrect. Second, it's a moot point. Although they needed a search warrant to enter the home, they didn't need a no-knock warrant because of exigent circumstances -- the stolen weapons. You're so busy setting up these irrelevant "no-knock" strawman arguments that you're missing the point. Why should I waste my time addressing them?
There were none.
You are one smart cookie! How did you know that? Oh, wait. You know that because you read that the cops didn't find any weapons after they searched his home. But neither you, nor the cops, could have possibly known that before the search, now could they?
To: misterwhite they didn't need a no-knock warrant because of exigent circumstances -- the stolen weapons. There were none. Not to "muddy up the water"... but I can't concider the fact that "no illegal weapons were found" for a basis of whether the search warrant was valid. Many times the information that a warrant is based on is not 100% accurate, or accurate at all. It is possible the infotmation was accurate, but the alleged stolen gun(s) were removed from the residence prior to the no-knock. Who knows? It really comes down to this, LE must do everything in their power to ensure that the information they act on is not only in good faith but credible... and we must allow them that trust to complete the task... or we'll have a society that loses the majority of its freedoms and liberties from each other, as we victimize each other due to no law and order. The person that paid the dearest price for this raid... was LE. They traded human life for 5 marihuana plants. Not smart.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
They should always search your house first. They wont know until they search it. No knock of course. Guns blazing killing your pets just to make sure.
There were none. Stone, he did not read the article, or he would have known that none existed. The cops only "claimed" there were, which was a fallacy, because none existed at the targets home. MW reading comprehension - zilch. I would still like to have explained how weapons were stolen from the Police Dept, and why someone was trying to lay that crime on this innocent guy? No one just walks in to a Police Dept and "shop lifts" guns & walks out. If guns were stolen there, it had to be an "inside job", or they disappeared earlier, and were falsely listed on evidence log and never placed in a weapons/evidence locker, which would also indicate an inside job. I would like to see a list of the weapons that were supposedly "stolen" from the PD, and would like to see verification that they had been entered into NCIC. Were there ever actually guns "stolen" from the PD, or were they just a fabrication to justify someone's fantasy excuse to play "Rambo", or to cover up someone else s misdeeds? We will probably never know the truth. Something really stinks in this story!
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Nah. That would be illegal. What the cops should do is call first and ask if they have any stolen guns or illegal drugs. Then tell them they're coming over next week Tuesday to check.
Sadly, you are correct. You get the award for today's understatement.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
If a department and its officers never violate policies and procedures, then it's almost impossible to steal guns from inside a police station. It does happen however, as often times unsworn personnel are allowed in secured areas to clean or maintain building utilities... and have access keys and cards to most places in the building. Most guns are stolen by idiotic officer actions, however. Like an officer that leaves his gun and gunbelt in his unlocked car, overnight, parked in his driveway... and some thriving little neighborhood scumbag, looking for spare change and smokes... finds it while hitting unlocked cars. Either way, a stolen or missing department gun is a HUGE BLACK EYE to the department and a monumental amount of tax payer LIABILITY... and police will often times pull out all the stops to rectify a bad situation. In this case, they made it worse. Now the whole country knows they have missing guns... and a dead officer.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
"C".
I have never known of it to happen. I contend that in this case, either there never were any guns stolen from the PD, or they were stolen by cops themselves. Like you said " a stolen or missing department gun is a HUGE BLACK EYE to the department and a monumental amount of tax payer LIABILITY... and police will often times pull out all the stops to rectify a bad situation. " In this case, the PD needs to pull out all the stops and clarify this issue. Like I said before, something stinks in this story
Si vis pacem, para bellum
That's it??? "C"? No argument, cites, references, court cases, articles, quotes ... nothing? Just "C"? Pathetic. "Current U.S. Supreme Court case law [Richards v. Wisconsin (96-5955), 520 U.S. 385 (1997)] holds that before police may serve a warrant using a no-knock, surprise entry of a residence, they must either have a no-knock warrant approved by a magistrate or be able to articulate “exigent circumstances” at the scene that lead them to believe the safety of persons would be endangered (or risk of flight or imminent destruction of evidence) by their knocking and announcing." The next time you post something like "C" I will not respond. I expect a cogent argument. Once more and you join my short list of ignorant trolls not worthy of my time and effort.
Gotta love it when paulsen/white gets in a hissy fit after being put down.. -- By following the sequence of posts on 'no knock warrants', it is evident that in trying to defend such warrants in the case at hand, that poor paulsen has once again hoisted himself on his own pathetic/non-cogent argument, --- and now, realising he has met his match, is going to bozo his opponent. Whatta clown...
What the cops should do is call first and ask if they have any stolen guns or illegal drugs. Then tell them they're coming over next week Tuesday to check. To your first comment. Good for the goose ... To your second comment. They should have investigated and seen if there was any basis for the information. They probably just made that part up to sweeten to pot.
www.wcvb.com/news/local/b...teen-accused-of-stealing- highpowered-guns-from-fbi-truck/22876528
The reason for 'C'. I cant help but notice you cite a case in Wisconsin. Clever, NOT!
That was the origin of the case that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on.
Yeah. Those kidders!
before police may serve a warrant using a no-knock, surprise entry of a residence, they must either have a no-knock warrant approved by a magistrate If such warrants do not exist in Texas, then the poster you were arguing with was right.
And I said it was a moot point. A no-knock warrant was not required in this case since there were exigent circumstances. You're arguing over a point that is irrelevant.
Just like no one intentionally flies airliners into buildings. Sheesh!
If such warrants do not exist in Texas, then the poster you were arguing with was right. Poor whitey cares less about right and wrong. He puts his main effort into trying to prove he's the 'smartest guy in the room'.... And fails....
Not really. Am sure we will find out the exigent circumstances were a tall tale. Not that our government would ever lie to us to get around the constitution. Lol! BTW, you still a fan of Janet Reno?
Sexually or professionally?
Lol...
I would have liked for him to explain why case law should trump statute law (I don't think it should). Especially considering: Article. I. When I look at the powers and duties of the courts, I don't see the power to make a law. However, the Texas legislature HAS made statute law that defines how warrants are served. That doesn't include a "no knock" variety. That is a creation of magistrates but it will be treated as law until a sane jury puts a stop to it. Article III.
I would suggest, anyone with stones big enough to steal police guns from the police, might have a "shoot the police" agenda.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#14. To: misterwhite (#10)
"Magee also had “possible illegal guns” stolen from the local sheriff’s office."
#15. To: A K A Stone (#14)
I wonder if the Sheriff's office even had any guns stolen.
#16. To: A K A Stone (#14)
"I wonder if the Sheriff's office even had any guns stolen."
#17. To: Deckard (#13)
"Looks to me that this guy's agenda was to defend his home and family from armed criminal thugs ...."
#18. To: GrandIsland (#6)
#19. To: Stoner (#18)
Sounds like their CI lied. He / she apparently scammed the PD. Not very circumspect. I would imagine which ever officer used this CI, they will be having an "interesting" conversation with him / her.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#20. To: Deckard (#19)
Since the lies told by their paid snitch ultimately resulted in the cop's death, I wonder if the DA will file charges against him.
#21. To: GrandIsland (#6)
#22. To: misterwhite (#3)
#23. To: Dead Culture Watch (#4)
#24. To: Abcdefg (#22)
"Can you cite the Texas law that provides for "no knock" warrants?"
#25. To: misterwhite (#24)
#26. To: Stoner (#23)
#27. To: Abcdefg (#25)
"I'll take that as a "no".
#28. To: misterwhite (#27)
they didn't need a no-knock warrant because of exigent circumstances -- the stolen weapons.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#28)
"There were none."
#30. To: A K A Stone (#28)
#31. To: misterwhite (#29)
#32. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#28)
" they didn't need a no-knock warrant because of exigent circumstances -- the stolen weapons.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#31)
"They should always search your house first."
#34. To: GrandIsland (#30)
" They traded human life for 5 marihuana plants. Not smart. "
#35. To: Stoner (#32)
I would still like to have explained how weapons were stolen from the Police Dept
#36. To: misterwhite (#27)
#37. To: GrandIsland (#35)
" it's almost impossible to steal guns from inside a police station. It does happen however, "
#38. To: Abcdefg (#36)
(Edited)
"C".
#39. To: Abcdefg, misterwhite, Y'ALL (#38)
The next time you post something like "C" I will not respond. I expect a cogent argument. Once more and you join my short list of ignorant trolls not worthy of my time and effort.
#40. To: misterwhite (#33)
"They should always search your house first." Nah. That would be illegal.
#41. To: Stoner (#32)
No one just walks in to a Police Dept and "shop lifts" guns & walks out.
#42. To: misterwhite (#27)
Your question implies that a) they needed a no-knock warrant, b) they didn't have a no-knock warrant, and c) even if they did, a no-knock warrant is illegal in Texas.
#43. To: Dead Culture Watch (#42)
"I cant help but notice you cite a case in Wisconsin."
#44. To: A K A Stone (#40)
"They probably just made that part up to sweeten to pot."
#45. To: misterwhite (#43)
#46. To: Dead Culture Watch (#45)
"If such warrants do not exist in Texas, then the poster you were arguing with was right."
#47. To: GrandIsland (#35)
"No one just walks in to a Police Dept and "shop lifts" guns & walks out."
#48. To: Dead Culture Watch (#45)
#49. To: misterwhite (#46)
You're arguing over a point that is irrelevant.
#50. To: Dead Culture Watch (#49)
"BTW, you still a fan of Janet Reno?"
#51. To: misterwhite (#50)
#52. To: tpaine (#39)
(Edited)
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]