NationStates Jolt Archive

At 11p.m on December 26, 2001 police in Prentiss, Mississippi raided the residence of Cory Maye, a 21-year-old father who was at home with his 18-month-old daughter Ta'Corriana.

The cops were looking for drugs and smashed through the back door. In the ensuing chaos, Maye hunkered down with his daughter in a bedroom and when the police broke down that door, he fired three bullets, one of which killed Officer Ron Jones. Maye testified in court that the police did not identify themselves until after they had entered his residence; indeed, he testified that they did not identify themselves until after he had fired his shots. Once they did, he said he put his weapon on the floor, slid it toward police, and surrendered.

LINK (http://www.reason.tv/video/show/403.html)

I felt like this was a really interesting video/article and I wanted to share it.

More bad press for us :(

Someone should really put a leash on those fuckers...

Every few months our police force shoots some poor black guy....and MS gets told we're a bunch racist pigs...its sad really...

Unfortunate.
For they policeman and the shooter.

Assuming it actually was a mistake.

Obligatory song link. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10qLYy6hiFQ)

Unfortunate.
For they policeman and the shooter.

Assuming it actually was a mistake.

Obligatory song link. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10qLYy6hiFQ)

This one is better. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrpEL-cEeZE)

I can't believe that the forensics investigator was proven wrong. They basically proved that he was just their to support the prosecution, he wasn't even certified. This is just the same White cops killing poor black people bullshit that has been going on in Mississippi for decades. The war on drugs is just its modern reincarnation.

This one is better. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrpEL-cEeZE)

even better (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiX7GTelTPM)

even better (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiX7GTelTPM)

But it won't beat this one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuOAY-S6OY)

I can't believe that the forensics investigator was proven wrong. They basically proved that he was just their to support the prosecution, he wasn't even certified. This is just the same White cops killing poor black people bullshit that has been going on in Mississippi for decades. The war on drugs is just its modern reincarnation.

This is why i hate it when thinks like this get out...

This sort of thing happens everywhere...but it gets double the coverage in our poor little state...:(

Ah jeez, not this shit again. I seem to remember a similar incident a while back in Minnesota. The only difference here seems to be that the innocent guy didn't miss.

When did no-knock warrants become standard procedure? And for drug enforcement of all things!

This one is better. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrpEL-cEeZE)
Meh.
even better (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiX7GTelTPM)
Mehh.
But it won't beat this one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuOAY-S6OY)
Meh-ser of the three evils.

Meh.

Mehh.

Meh-ser of the three evils.

Whatever.

At 11p.m on December 26, 2001 police in Prentiss, Mississippi raided the residence of Cory Maye, a 21-year-old father who was at home with his 18-month-old daughter Ta'Corriana.

The cops were looking for drugs and smashed through the back door. In the ensuing chaos, Maye hunkered down with his daughter in a bedroom and when the police broke down that door, he fired three bullets, one of which killed Officer Ron Jones. Maye testified in court that the police did not identify themselves until after they had entered his residence; indeed, he testified that they did not identify themselves until after he had fired his shots. Once they did, he said he put his weapon on the floor, slid it toward police, and surrendered.

LINK (http://www.reason.tv/video/show/403.html)

I felt like this was a really interesting video/article and I wanted to share it.

Oh crap. Prepare to meet the wrath of Al Sharpton and more protests on the busy streets of a major US metropolis near you.:eek:

When did no-knock warrants become standard procedure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000

:D


...Wait, no, I didn't mean it like that. The big, grinning smile is for the reference, not the ape we somehow elected, even though he didn't win the popular vote, or really the electoral vote, if you want to get technical...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000

Care to explain relevence to this thread or do you think we should take this elsewhere?

:D


...Wait, no, I didn't mean it like that. The big, grinning smile is for the reference, not the ape we somehow elected, even though he didn't win the popular vote, or really the electoral vote, if you want to get technical...

Technically, he did win the electoral vote as well. However, we should take this discussion to another thread

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000

Touch'e

Oh crap. Prepare to meet the wrath of Al Sharpton and more protests on the busy streets of a major US metropolis near you.:eek:

shit nigga i'm gon protest too.

shit nigga i'm gon protest too.

:p

Technically, he did win the electoral vote as well. However, we should take this discussion to another thread

If you want to get really technical, he probably shouldn't have, what with the whole Katherine Harris ordeal.

Not that I'm upset about it, I actually rather enjoy this turn of events. It's not too often we get such a rich fountain of comedy, one's which waters have run steadily for eight years.

A sad day. Like Indri, I rember something like that happening aswell.
In before gun control debate.
The way the war on drugs is fought needs to be changed. It is destroying what few civil rights people gained in the 60s.

There was an article in Reason a few months ago covering much the same thing. Police get the wrong house, bust down the door, and get shot up by the homeowner in self defense. It's the fault of No-knock warrants.

I totally sympathise with the actions of the citizen. If someone blows up my door in the middle of the night, grabbing my gun to defend myself is one of my first actions.

EDIT: I just read through the whole posted article. It infuriated me even more. Death for self defense? Despicable. I would march with Rev. Sharpton if I lived down there. This is a grievous miscarriage of justice. I'm so pissed I can't even type.

There was an article in Reason a few months ago covering much the same thing. Police get the wrong house, bust down the door, and get shot up by the homeowner in self defense. It's the fault of No-knock warrants.

I totally sympathise with the actions of the citizen. If someone blows up my door in the middle of the night, grabbing my gun to defend myself is one of my first actions.

My thoughts exactly.

I think the police here would be seriously fucked, as I've got a 12-gauge in my room, ready in a moment's notice. And these cops just have 9mm pistols. Not that it'd be a good thing, but hey... It's never a good idea to break someone's door down in the middle of the night for no damn reason. It could get a person killed. Literally.

EDIT: I just read through the whole posted article. It infuriated me even more. Death for self defense? Despicable. I would march with Rev. Sharpton if I lived down there. This is a grievous miscarriage of justice. I'm so pissed I can't even type.

It's Mississippi. What did you expect? Decency? Fair trial? Justice?

No, it's Mississippi, where brothers and sisters marry and have frankenchildren, cops get away with anything they damn well please, and several country clubs still only allow white people entry, and people are put to death for defending their lives.

But I do have one more bit of input... If it was a white man as the defendant, I guarantee you he wouldn't get such a harsh sentence. After all, this is Mississippi we're talking about.

My thoughts exactly.

I think the police here would be seriously fucked, as I've got a 12-gauge in my room, ready in a moment's notice. And these cops just have 9mm pistols. Not that it'd be a good thing, but hey... It's never a good idea to break someone's door down in the middle of the night for no damn reason. It could get a person killed. Literally.

Yes. Perhaps when the cops are confronted with an AR wielding homeowner with Level IV body armor, they might rethink these no knock warrants. Seriously, is it worth getting someone killed over a tiny drug bust?

There was an article in Reason a few months ago covering much the same thing. Police get the wrong house, bust down the door, and get shot up by the homeowner in self defense. It's the fault of No-knock warrants.

I totally sympathise with the actions of the citizen. If someone blows up my door in the middle of the night, grabbing my gun to defend myself is one of my first actions.

EDIT: I just read through the whole posted article. It infuriated me even more. Death for self defense? Despicable. I would march with Rev. Sharpton if I lived down there. This is a grievous miscarriage of justice. I'm so pissed I can't even type.


This.

It's Mississippi. What did you expect? Decency? Fair trial? Justice?

No, it's Mississippi, where brothers and sisters marry and have frankenchildren, cops get away with anything they damn well please, and several country clubs still only allow white people entry, and people are put to death for defending their lives.

But I do have one more bit of input... If it was a white man as the defendant, I guarantee you he wouldn't get such a harsh sentence. After all, this is Mississippi we're talking about.

Also this.

It's Mississippi. What did you expect? Decency? Fair trial? Justice?

No, it's Mississippi, where brothers and sisters marry and have frankenchildren, cops get away with anything they damn well please, and several country clubs still only allow white people entry, and people are put to death for defending their lives.

But I do have one more bit of input... If it was a white man as the defendant, I guarantee you he wouldn't get such a harsh sentence. After all, this is Mississippi we're talking about.

You my friend....can go Fuck Yourself!...

Care to explain relevence to this thread or do you think we should take this elsewhere?


The event took place in 2001. Bush came to power in 2000.

We have had an interesting 8 years, mainly characterised by the loss of sympathies overseas, the loss of public sympathies for our own governments in domestic politics, and - and this is the relevent part - the continued rape of the constitution.

So... "when did no-knock warrants become standard procedure"? The removal of constitutional protections began in earnest, about the same time they stopped Florida recounts.

The event took place in 2001. Bush came to power in 2000.

We have had an interesting 8 years, mainly characterised by the loss of sympathies overseas, the loss of public sympathies for our own governments in domestic politics, and - and this is the relevent part - the continued rape of the constitution.

So... "when did no-knock warrants become standard procedure"? The removal of constitutional protections began in earnest, about the same time they stopped Florida recounts.

And this.


Man, Im hardly having to talk at all.

Yes. Perhaps when the cops are confronted with an AR wielding homeowner with Level IV body armor, they might rethink these no knock warrants. Seriously, is it worth getting someone killed over a tiny drug bust?

Not really.

Though it might be nice to put one's expensive gear to use for once, and for a good cause.

Seriously, a lot of Mississippi and Louisiana cops tend to be... Pigs, for lack of a better term. And heed my warning when I tell you to not drive at night in either state, should you be unfortunate enough to wind up there. Not because of highwaymen or anything similar, but because of the cops. Those "good old boys" will do a number on you, and are rather infamous for it.

They love their batons.

You my friend....can go Fuck Yourself!...

Congratulations, you just furthered my point.

Did you ever stop and think that maybe, just maybe, your state has such a horrible reputation because it is a shithole? Just like Alabama and Louisiana... Very backward and full of dangers to the unwitting traveler, and even the witting life-long resident, so it would seem.

Congratulations, you just furthered my point.

Well, possibly, but i really didnt feel like pointing out that this happens all over the place...Far more often in say, New York, than in Mississippi...but, when it does, everyone goes nuts and our little spot in the world gets the proverbial shit dropped on us...


Im sorry, but, ive been up north, and its far more segregated and homogeneous than in my home, as well, it is far more racist, both ways...

But, anyone even thinks the word Black, and its Mississippi that gets shit on...

So, to sum it all up...You can go fuck yourself...

Im sorry, but, ive been up north, and its far more segregated and homogeneous than in my home, as well, it is far more racist, both ways...


HAH!

Well, possibly, but i really didnt feel like pointing out that this happens all over the place...Far more often in say, New York, than in Mississippi...but, when it does, everyone goes nuts and our little spot in the world gets the proverbial shit dropped on us...


Im sorry, but, ive been up north, and its far more segregated and homogeneous than in my home, as well, it is far more racist, both ways...

But, anyone even thinks the word Black, and its Mississippi that gets shit on...

So, to sum it all up...You can go fuck yourself...

1: Then why, oh why, do statistics show that police abuse per capita is far more prevalent in the Deep South states than anywhere else in the country? One would figure that there would be at least some cause for such infamy, and indeed there is.

2: Yeah, I've heard that one before, buddy. And it's not the least bit true. The white-to-minority ratio is much higher in the Northern states, sure, but that's meaningless when the average person down here, in my experience, will at one turn be all nice and chatty to a random black person, and then call him a "god-damn-fucking-******" the second he's out of earshot. I've never had that trouble with anybody from Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Kansas, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, Utah, or California, or any part of Canada, even Alberta (I grew up with a lot of people from these places, to boot). But I've had it often with people from Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida. Georgia, not so much, oddly enough.

3: Yeah, and for good reason, because they're victims of countless crimes like this.

4: I'm actually pretty tired from doing just that too many times today. But thanks for the reminder, eh?

I think that this guy deserves some jail time. Not for killing the cop, but for naming his kid "Ta'Corriana". What the hell did she do to him to deserve that? Now, I understand that maybe getting an accidental baby screwed his life up completely, but isn't that kind of cruel and unusual punishment?

HAH!

Thats what you think, but, its true...In New York they all have their own little section of town they live in, and they all hate the other groups from other parts of town...

Down here its not like that, i think its because we had to deal with segregation and Jim Crow and the rest, and we've moved beyond that, and learned to live with each other, for the most part, But, up there, they didnt have to go through any of that, so theyre still having the same issues and problems that we dont have to deal with as much...

But, when we do, its magnified ten fold...

And i really didnt wish to get into that particular debate, because, i knew id lose, people only know what theyre told in Textbooks, and, unfortunately, we're not looked upon very favorably in those books :(

It's also very worrying that there has been an increasing amount of these No knock warrants issued. Over 50,000 last year.

Mark my words. One day, the police will get the wrong house. The homeowner will have some serious firepower. He will defend himself. People will die. It's just so horrible because it's inevitable unless we change this. Damn you Kennedy!

I think that this guy deserves some jail time. Not for killing the cop, but for naming his kid "Ta'Corriana". What the hell did she do to him to deserve that? Now, I understand that maybe getting an accidental baby screwed his life up completely, but isn't that kind of cruel and unusual punishment?

Actually, when you say it, the name really doesn't sound so bad. It actuall has an interesting ring to it.

Now, "Dashanga'fon" would be a candidate for cruel and unusual punishment...

I think that this guy deserves some jail time. Not for killing the cop, but for naming his kid "Ta'Corriana". What the hell did she do to him to deserve that? Now, I understand that maybe getting an accidental baby screwed his life up completely, but isn't that kind of cruel and unusual punishment?

I'm sorry you have no respect for Black American culture.

Thats what you think, but, its true...In New York they all have their own little section of town they live in, and they all hate the other groups from other parts of town...

Down here its not like that, i think its because we had to deal with segregation and Jim Crow and the rest, and we've moved beyond that, and learned to live with each other, for the most part, But, up there, they didnt have to go through any of that, so theyre still having the same issues and problems that we dont have to deal with as much...

But, when we do, its magnified ten fold...

And i really didnt wish to get into that particular debate, because, i knew id lose, people only know what theyre told in Textbooks, and, unfortunately, we're not looked upon very favorably in those books :(

1: Oh dear sweet zombie Jesus, this is hilarious on so many levels. Are you really that daft, kiddo?

2: Didn't have to go through any of that, eh? Wow. Looks like that Mississippi schooling's done you some good, man.

3: People know from experience as well as what they're taught. And judging from both, I very much dislike the "Deep South" of the United States, and for good reason. Give me Boston any day, pal.

Thats what you think, but, its true...In New York they all have their own little section of town they live in, and they all hate the other groups from other parts of town...


Oh please. Ghettos only exist in the cities. And they exist in southern cities too.

Down here its not like that,

Yes it is.

i think its because we had to deal with segregation and Jim Crow and the rest, and we've moved beyond that, and learned to live with each other, for the most part, But, up there, they didnt have to go through any of that, so theyre still having the same issues and problems that we dont have to deal with as much...

No, we're not. Police abuse is much more rampent in the south. There are more wealthy minorites in the North then south. Shall I go on?

But, when we do, its magnified ten fold...

Which is often...

And i really didnt wish to get into that particular debate, because, i knew id lose, people only know what theyre told in Textbooks, and, unfortunately, we're not looked upon very favorably in those books :(

Jesus Christ. Youre right, textbooks are against you. Except, the reason so much information is either left out or flat out changed in History textbooks is because they want to be able to sell them in more conservative states. And where are most conservative states located? The south.

Jesus Christ. Youre right, textbooks are against you. Except, the reason so much information is either left out or flat out changed in History textbooks is because they want to be able to sell them in more conservative states. And where are most conservative states located? The south.

And even in the Southern states where the cirriculums are catered to morons, they still get horrid test scores... Go figure. Must be the inbreeding.

snip.

yeah...I dont intend to argue with you anymore, as previously stated, theres no convincing you, youve been indoctrinated...

And, no, the Northern States did not have to go through Jim Crow...

yeah...I dont intend to argue with you anymore, as previously stated, theres no convincing you, youve been indoctrinated...

And, no, the Northern States did not have to go through Jim Crow...

No, I've been educated, which you obviously haven't.

...And you're trying to say that going through Jim Crow actually makes the Deep South better than the regions that didn't have such horrible anti-minority stances?

Logic failure.

=
Mark my words. One day, the police will get the wrong house. The homeowner will have some serious firepower.

Like say... a registered arms dealer?

My question to you Skalvia is this...

Counter examples please?

As in can you show us a time (or two or three) where similar things happened up north.

I believe they have (I believe that CRT is correct) but I'm also curious. Plus it would help further your argument.

Counter examples please?

I do believe you've scared him off.

The first from my google search (http://www.democracynow.org/2005/7/1/nypd_arrest_181_black_men_in)

And its more recent...wouldnt see it on a Forum though, would you...

But, that was just to give an example for you...Im tired of trying to fight those fuckers and their Holier-Than-Thou attitude...

you know, We're not perfect, but nowhere else is either...so stop acting like this shit only happens in our state...cause it doesnt...

And, no, the Northern States did not have to go through Jim Crow...

I didnt realize that was a failing on our part...

The first from my google search (http://www.democracynow.org/2005/7/1/nypd_arrest_181_black_men_in)

And its more recent...wouldnt see it on a Forum though, would you...

But, that was just to give an example for you...Im tired of trying to fight those fuckers and their Holier-Than-Thou attitude...

you know, We're not perfect, but nowhere else is either...so stop acting like this shit only happens in our state...cause it doesnt...

It just happens more often and with worse results, like... Death for defending your property.

And that's the NYPD. The NYPD has long been known to be a rather seedy police force. Ever seen Serpico?

I didnt realize that was a failing on our part...

Not a failing, just a fact...Im just saying that because we DID go through it, we're not as segregated as most of the country is...

Yes we've still got racist fucktards, but so does everwhere else, I hate it when people try to say that we're worse than the rest of the country, when we're not...

Not a failing, just a fact...Im just saying that because we DID go through it, we're not as segregated as most of the country is...

Yes we've still got racist fucktards, but so does everwhere else, I hate it when people try to say that we're worse than the rest of the country, when we're not...

Having grown up in the South, I can say yes, we are.

Having grown up in the South, I can say yes, we are.

Same here, and I'm grateful to have grown up in a tourist town with people who were mostly from Northern states, and I speak with a very clear, Northern accent.

I don't think I could live with myself if I had the slimy residue of a southern accent. Ick.


Notice how I didn't capitalise "southern". Oh, I did it again. Yeah, I went there.

Having grown up in the South, I can say yes, we are.

Way to be a team player friend, lol :p

Well, i havent spent much time in Georgia, so i cant say anything for over there...

But, its not as bad in Mississippi, specifically Biloxi, as the media thinks it is...

Way to be a team player friend, lol :p

Well, i havent spent much time in Georgia, so i cant say anything for over there...

But, its not as bad in Mississippi, specifically Biloxi, as the media thinks it is...

"Thinks"? All media has at least some bias, sure, but you have to take into consideration that for any bias to exist, these events do have to actually occur... And they do. Which is why Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have such abysmal reputations.

And I'd almost bet you've got a confederate flag somewhere on your property, what with that whole "team player" bit.

"Thinks"? All media has at least some bias, sure, but you have to take into consideration that for any bias to exist, these events do have to actually occur...

...And they do. Which is why Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have such abysmal reputations.

Im not saying they dont occur...just that it gets more attention when it does...

And I'd almost bet you've got a confederate flag somewhere on your property, what with that whole "team player" bit.

and, no i dont, it was a joke friend...

Way to be a team player friend, lol :p

Well, i havent spent much time in Georgia, so i cant say anything for over there...

But, its not as bad in Mississippi, specifically Biloxi, as the media thinks it is...

Hah! Georgia is one of the more palatable southern states.


As an aside, Mississippi is currently the most racist state politically. In Mississippi more people then anywhere in the country cited "race" as why they couldnt vote for Obama.


EDIT: Look, I dont mean to give the wrong impression. Im sure your a great, upstanding, excellent police officer (I thought you said you were a cop earlier at least, if not replace 'police officer' with person). The fact of he matter his however is that most of your comrades in your state are...well vile human beings to put it bluntly.

Im not saying they dont occur...just that it gets more attention when it does...

Yeah, because it happens all the fucking time, and with really bad results, just like this instance.

There's a reason the tri-state area gets such a bad reputation: because it really is that fucking bad. Corruption is both unbelievable and blatant, and the racism is outlandish, fuck your definition of integration. People living with each other is not the same as people getting along and enjoying each other's company.

Fuck, I should know, even here in Houston the racism is horrible. When ONE black person moves into a white neighborhood, it's like the world is about to fucking end. And you know what really pisses me off? My fucking dad is just that fucking way.

Fucking filthy separatist racist shit.

As an aside, Mississippi is currently the most racist state politically. In Mississippi more people then anywhere in the country cited "race" as why they couldnt vote for Obama.

Not true, just the most racist with political Fanatics...

The Majority of the population, as in other states, doesnt vote in Primaries...

and the ones that do, are, as a general rule, Fanatics...which, unfortunately does translate to racist fuckhead down here...furthering the bad name we get...

We should castrate them, so they dont further pollute our gene pool...

Same here, and I'm grateful to have grown up in a tourist town with people who were mostly from Northern states, and I speak with a very clear, Northern accent.

I don't think I could live with myself if I had the slimy residue of a southern accent. Ick.


Notice how I didn't capitalise "southern". Oh, I did it again. Yeah, I went there.

I thank every deity ever imagined I don't have much of a southern accent. (I will occasionally say a word or two with such an accent, pause a moment, and then realize it. I have also used "y'all" before.) I can also claim that, at least, I wasn't born here, and was raised in a decent town, even if it was... different. (As in, my high school had a golf cart parking lot because it's a common form of transportation there.)

Oh, and we have HOPE scholarship here. Pure win.

/threadjack

Yeah, because it happens all the fucking time, and with really bad results, just like this instance.

There's a reason the tri-state area gets such a bad reputation: because it really is that fucking bad. Corruption is both unbelievable and blatant, and the racism is outlandish, fuck your definition of integration. People living with each other is not the same as people getting along and enjoying each other's company.

Fuck, I should know, even here in Houston the racism is horrible. When ONE black person moves into a white neighborhood, it's like the world is about to fucking end. And you know what really pisses me off? My fucking dad is just that fucking way.

Fucking filthy separatist racist shit.

You know what, thats true...Im just saying those people arent the majority of the population...

My Dad has a habit of being the same way...When they're generation dies off, the world will be a better place...

I thank every deity ever imagined I don't have much of a southern accent. (I will occasionally say a word or two with such an accent, pause a moment, and then realize it. I have also used "y'all" before.) I can also claim that, at least, I wasn't born here, and was raised in a decent town, even if it was... different. (As in, my high school had a golf cart parking lot because it's a common form of transportation there.)

Oh, and we have HOPE scholarship here. Pure win.

/threadjack

Heh, I never had that problem. It's always been "you guys", and my dad's always scolded me for "talking like a goddamn Yankee". Well, I am a Yankee, as that's how I grew up, so there. I'm very glad.

A school with a golf cart parking lot? Now that is different.

I use all the slang...but, i dont have an accent...the rest of my family does...

But, i have a very neutral accent, you wouldnt be able to place it to anywhere...

Idk, it just pisses me off that this is what people know about the place where i was born, and it makes me Intensely hate the people that cause it...

Heh, I never had that problem. It's always been "you guys", and my dad's always scolded me for "talking like a goddamn Yankee". Well, I am a Yankee, as that's how I grew up, so there. I'm very glad.

A school with a golf cart parking lot? Now that is different.



Im glad my fiance's family (shes from Missouri) never had this "we hate the north" crap going on, as theyre rather fond of me. I got off to a really good start with them though, so that might be why. When we went to visit, her dad and I stayed up late nearly every night drinking cheap beer, smoking, and talking guns and govnerment conspericy theories. It was pretty awesome.

I guess the point of my rant is, while the south is filled with scum-bags, a lot of them are still pretty cool blue collar guys.


All though her dad does say the KKK serves an important role in America. So, I guess you can be nice to me and still a racist asshat. We dont talk about race though, cause Id still kind of like them to like me, as we arent married yet:p

Heh, I never had that problem. It's always been "you guys", and my dad's always scolded me for "talking like a goddamn Yankee". Well, I am a Yankee, as that's how I grew up, so there. I'm very glad.

A school with a golf cart parking lot? Now that is different.

It was in Peachtree City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peachtree_City), which is actually semi well-known for its system of golf cart paths alongside most roads. Almost every where within city limits are reachable by golf cart. Also, children as young as 12 can drive accompanied by an adult, and as young as 15 with a learner's permit can drive solo.

Oh, and electric power = no gas. So for driving within city limits, they're quite popular.

Like say... a registered arms dealer?

I guess serious is quite subjective. The police, one day, will execute a warrant on the wrong home, and be countered with high velocity rounds. Ones capable of penetrating the thin body armor they use.

And, just for clarification, all FFL holders actually have to have a storefront. It's not a rule, per se, but the ATF has refused new applicants or renewals without evidence of an actual gun store.

It was in Peachtree City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peachtree_City), which is actually semi well-known for its system of golf cart paths alongside most roads. Almost every where within city limits are reachable by golf cart. Also, children as young as 12 can drive accompanied by an adult, and as young as 15 with a learner's permit can drive solo.

Oh, and electric power = no gas. So for driving within city limits, they're quite popular.

That's actually pretty nifty.

Interesting to see where this thread went.

Well I don't think people in Mississippi are more racist than in the North, there are just a lot more black people in Mississippi that there are up north. A lot more poor black people, some who are really stupid.

need I say more? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8)

Interesting to see where this thread went.

Well I don't think people in Mississippi are more racist than in the North, there are just a lot more black people in Mississippi that there are up north. A lot more poor black people, some who are really stupid.

need I say more? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8)

It might be a crackhead...


seriouse loolz

It might be a crackhead...


seriouse loolz

"This wards off spells, and this is a magic flute, pass down to me a thousand years ago from my grandfather, who is Irish."

:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

But it won't beat this one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuOAY-S6OY)

And no one thought of this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVBB2upbVys)

This happened in the same manner about 10 years ago in Tacoma just south of Seattle. Almost the exact same scenario however the person being raided was White and the cop he killed was Hispanic. The jury found the shooter guilty. Same shit different decade. The war on drugs has been failing for years.

I guess serious is quite subjective. The police, one day, will execute a warrant on the wrong home, and be countered with high velocity rounds. Ones capable of penetrating the thin body armor they use.

Which will then follow up to cops demanding for, and maybe getting, rifle proof body armor, which will lead to some level of escalation no doubt. Incendiary rounds perhaps, or explosive ones.

And no one thought of this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVBB2upbVys)

I think a guy repeatedly screaming "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!" is more fitting in this context, but even so, good stuff.

Which will then follow up to cops demanding for, and maybe getting, rifle proof body armor, which will lead to some level of escalation no doubt. Incendiary rounds perhaps, or explosive ones.

What if the cop announces his presence and walks in showing his badge?

*reads 4th amendment*

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

*sighs in disgust*

And no one thought of this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVBB2upbVys)

I just know one of you guys is trying to Rickroll me.
too frightened to click any of the links.

It's also very worrying that there has been an increasing amount of these No knock warrants issued. Over 50,000 last year.

Mark my words. One day, the police will get the wrong house. The homeowner will have some serious firepower. He will defend himself. People will die. It's just so horrible because it's inevitable unless we change this. Damn you Kennedy!

It's incidents like this which are truly a blight upon our society. And while many will condemn or shake their heads in disbelief, though do nothing, the day will come when greater numbers of people will cease to lay down for bad laws and the enforcers of those bad laws.

It is the duty of every person that lives to defend their own life, protect their own liberties, and preserve their own properties. - The root of man's morality

Lex malla, lex nulla

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (Frédéric Bastiat)

Which will then follow up to cops demanding for, and maybe getting, rifle proof body armor, which will lead to some level of escalation no doubt. Incendiary rounds perhaps, or explosive ones.

And a civilian would get explosive and/or incendiary rounds...how?

Besides, if those rounds existed in the intermediate calibers (which I'm not entirely sure they do), they wouldn't have much of an effect on heavy body armor. Penetrating armor relies on a good core of a solid metal. The miniscule amount of explosive carried on such an intermediate explosive round would not do much (probably) to Level IV armor.

Another problem with heavy body armor is that its...heavy. SWAT and the like have access to the Level IV stuff, but its really heavy. And they want to be fast to clear the house and detain anyone inside. They don't want to be slowed by needlessly heavy armor. On that note, law enforcement conducting these raids don't typically come up against intermediate rounds. The most they expect to counter handguns, and mabye the occasional illegal machine pistol. ARs and AK clones are not the weapon of choice for your average street gang.

Of course, this could be avoided if the police didn't use these idiotic no knock warrants. All these shootings, both of police officers and innicents defending their homes could have been avoided if the Police used standard knock and announce warrants.

What if the cop announces his presence and walks in showing his badge?


Then the issue will be moot, since there will no longer be any no-knock warrants.

Then the issue will be moot, since there will no longer be any no-knock warrants.

Definitely the ideal solution.

I still can't see how there could be any constitutional arguments for no knock warrants. Considering Scalia wrote the opinion, I can see that there doesn't need to be.

And a civilian would get explosive and/or incendiary rounds...how?

That would depend on the type of arms dealer as outlined above no?


Besides, if those rounds existed in the intermediate calibers (which I'm not entirely sure they do),

Phosphorus rounds in the rifle caliber have been used in WWI I believe, and unless I am much mistaken, there are treatises against certain infantry level munition types, like fragmentation, including explosive, which indicates that it must have existed at some point or another.


they wouldn't have much of an effect on heavy body armor. Penetrating armor relies on a good core of a solid metal. The miniscule amount of explosive carried on such an intermediate explosive round would not do much (probably) to Level IV armor.

Penetration of body armor is not necessarily needed to kill, or incapacitate the wearer. Explosive munitions may likely impart a higher kinetic force than their solid counterparts, while incendiary rounds, typically phosphorus work by burning through their targets.

Their effectiveness against heavy body armor however, has not been documented, so this is speculation.


Another problem with heavy body armor is that its...heavy. SWAT and the like have access to the Level IV stuff, but its really heavy. And they want to be fast to clear the house and detain anyone inside. They don't want to be slowed by needlessly heavy armor. On that note, law enforcement conducting these raids don't typically come up against intermediate rounds. The most they expect to counter handguns, and mabye the occasional illegal machine pistol. ARs and AK clones are not the weapon of choice for your average street gang.

Which will not be the case when they invade the wrong person's house no? One which, as you specified, utilizes high velocity munitions. From new type PDWs with armor penetration capability such as P90s to oh, an AK clone, these can certainly penetrate anything short of very heavy body armor.


Of course, this could be avoided if the police didn't use these idiotic no knock warrants. All these shootings, both of police officers and innicents defending their homes could have been avoided if the Police used standard knock and announce warrants.

Which is the entire point behind the hypothetical exercise of police raiding the wrong house without knocking no? Increased police casualties until they either gain heavier body armor, or until they learn to live without no knock warrants.

notice how the report didn't mention "no drugs found" .


that to me suggest there was drugs on the premise.


the police say we identified ourselves and one person says they didn't.

I would put my money on the police.

notice how the report didn't mention "no drugs found" .


that to me suggest there was drugs on the premise.


the police say we identified ourselves and one person says they didn't.

I would put my money on the police.

That is possible but there have been problems with no-knock warrants in other cases. Even if this case is different no-knock warrants should not be issued given the evidence unless someone can show credible evidence supporting them

Not a failing, just a fact...Im just saying that because we DID go through it, we're not as segregated as most of the country is...

Erm... Ummmm... Would you mind hooking me up with your drug dealer? Because after the past couple of weeks, a nice hallucinogen would make things ever so much easier.

There is so much fail in your statement above that I hardly know how to address it. As a suggestion, maybe you could take a look around some of you neighboring towns. Where do whites live? Where do blacks live? Then go talk to a few black people, see if they feel segregated. I think you'll learn a lot.

And no one thought of this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVBB2upbVys)
I can't believe no-one's posted this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsdu1wghrKQ) yet.
This is a dreadful live version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1afVYLa44MI) but fun to watch just for the two shaved mountain gorillas on 'roids acting as security.

I can't believe that the forensics investigator was proven wrong. They basically proved that he was just their to support the prosecution, he wasn't even certified. This is just the same White cops killing poor black people bullshit that has been going on in Mississippi for decades. The war on drugs is just its modern reincarnation.
LEOs don't shoot without a reason. The reason in this case is the misguided "War on Drugs". That "War" has wasted so many resources and ruined so many lives that we hardly even notice anymore. The worst part is that the "War" hasn't made any more difference in the whole scheme than Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign.

We need to regroup, end the "War", and start a new campaign of treatment. It costs less, doesn't ruin lives, and it has a better success rate. Let's start treating drugs more like alcohol and tobacco and less like rape and murder.

notice how the report didn't mention "no drugs found" .
that to me suggest there was drugs on the premise.
Notice how the report didn't mention, "No dancing hippopotami found".
that to me suggest there were dancing hippopotami on the premise.

Non-reporting something =/= that something was present.

Assuming there were drugs, were they the drugs the police were looking for? And how much of it was there? Was it equal to the amount of force deemed necessary by the police to raid the place? Considering they were apparently unaware there was a child in the flat more than indicates they knew jack-shit about the place they were raiding. Unless it's Mississippi police procedure to put young children in situations of extreme danger.

You search through any young person's flat and more often than not you'll find a small quantity of drugs, so finding any here doesn't mean much at all, unless it was a significant amount - and if it was then one would expect that to be reported which it, as you pointed out, wasn't.
It certainly doesn't mean the cops were right to act in the way they did - that is also assuming the police didn't 'find' drugs long after the shooting when they realised what a fucked-up situation they'd made for themselves.

LEOs don't shoot without a reason.

Uh, it was the resident who shot someone, in this case a cop (Law Enforcement Officer?)

"No-knock" is certainly relevant. So is "War on Drugs."

The reason in this case is the misguided "War on Drugs". That "War" has wasted so many resources and ruined so many lives that we hardly even notice anymore. The worst part is that the "War" hasn't made any more difference in the whole scheme than Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign.

We need to regroup, end the "War", and start a new campaign of treatment. It costs less, doesn't ruin lives, and it has a better success rate. Let's start treating drugs more like alcohol and tobacco and less like rape and murder.

Yay! The case against the "War on Drugs" stands up, on the basis of (a) it is failing, (b) it diverts resources from education and treatment, and (c) it criminalizes the victims of a vice.

Criminalizing drug possession is stupid and indefensible, even WITHOUT the strongest argument against it: invasion of civil liberties.

Erm... Ummmm... Would you mind hooking me up with your drug dealer? Because after the past couple of weeks, a nice hallucinogen would make things ever so much easier.

Antidepressants, baby!

Don't bother with that stone-age stuff. See you doctor.

Hell, see two doctors. More is better!

I hate people who grossly generalize in order to justify their prejudices. I hate racist southerners with their slimy accents and their segregation. The entire south is corrupt and racist and evil. I say kill 'em all. And I hate hypocrites. Kill all the hypocrites, too.

(Since the joke might not be entirely obvious, it's hypocritical to complain about prejudice and then display the kind of prejudice being used to broadbrush the south in this thread.)

notice how the report didn't mention "no drugs found" .


that to me suggest there was drugs on the premise.


the police say we identified ourselves and one person says they didn't.

I would put my money on the police.

Actually. If you click the link and read the original report they do mention that a small amount of dried marijuana dust(or something to that extent) most likely fairly old was indeed found on the premises. At most a mideamenor with a $50 fine. Hardly warranting breaking down the door of a person who wasn't even identified or MENTIONED in your search warrant.

Add to the fact that crappy police work is the real result of this. If Officer Ron Jones hadn't rushed the warrant and then hadn't rushed to execute the warrant instead of waiting to contact the narcotics force whose actually the people responsible for such raids.

And if said Officer wasn't the son of the police chief, I doubt this story would have played out in quite this way.

Add in the fact that the mother fuckers broke into his daughter's room and any parent would have hunkered down and executed their asses to. I know I would if I had a kid. But apparently protecting yourself and your child isn't a viable argument.

That would depend on the type of arms dealer as outlined above no?

Recall that explosive and incendiary ordinance would be covered under the NFA, and impossible for all but the most licensed to legally purchase.


Phosphorus rounds in the rifle caliber have been used in WWI I believe, and unless I am much mistaken, there are treatises against certain infantry level munition types, like fragmentation, including explosive, which indicates that it must have existed at some point or another.

TMK, the phosphorus on rounds were used as a tracer. And if these weapons were banned right after WWI, I don't think they would make the transition from big bullets to the small ones we use now.

Looking at it from another angle, there would be no market for explosive or incendiary rounds in the US. The military couldn't use them because of treaty obligations, and the civil market would be extremely small because of the NFA.

I donno, though. Something to look at.

Penetration of body armor is not necessarily needed to kill, or incapacitate the wearer. Explosive munitions may likely impart a higher kinetic force than their solid counterparts, while incendiary rounds, typically phosphorus work by burning through their targets.

All bullets are designed to kill. It's stupid to think that anything else is true.

Why would Explosive rounds (again, assuming they exist) impart more kinetic energy? Lets have a lesson in aerodynamics. You can only make a bullet shaped object go so fast, due to aerodynamic constraints. So, to increase penetrating power, manufacturers use a dense metal, such as lead or (for the military especially) tungsten or depleted uranium. Any small amount of explosive one could fit into a round would in all likelihood be less dense then lead or depleted uranium, thereby decreasing KE when fired out of the same gun with a similar charge.

And, again, phosphorus on bullets are used as tracers, and are not intended to be the primary damage causer.

Their effectiveness against heavy body armor however, has not been documented, so this is speculation.


It has, though. The Interceptor armor used by US troops in Iraq is level IV armor. In combat, it has proven very effective in stopping intermediate caliber rounds.

Which will not be the case when they invade the wrong person's house no? One which, as you specified, utilizes high velocity munitions. From new type PDWs with armor penetration capability such as P90s to oh, an AK clone, these can certainly penetrate anything short of very heavy body armor.

Actually, the 5.7x28 mm in the United States have less penetrating power then military variants. The Brady bunch put up a big hubbub over penetrating Level IIA armor, and FN pulled the round from the market.

Beyond that, no weapon chambered from an intermediate or small cartridge can reliably penetrate Level IV armor. Thats the whole point. Certainly AK clones are capable of penetrating armor, but not heavy armor reliably.


Which is the entire point behind the hypothetical exercise of police raiding the wrong house without knocking no? Increased police casualties until they either gain heavier body armor, or until they learn to live without no knock warrants.

I'm not sure if the police would use heavier armor, for reasons suggested in my previous post. They already have it available for use, and they don't seem to use it often. Its heavy, its cumbersome, and its very uncomfortable. A much more logical result of such an encounter would be a restriction on no knock warrants to those situations where there is a real chance of catching someone with something "big". Honestly, is there a reason to execute a no knock warrant on someone that has a field of Marijuana plants? It's not like he can destroy all evidence of them in the couple seconds between the police announcing themselves and the door blowing up.

Recall that explosive and incendiary ordinance would be covered under the NFA, and impossible for all but the most licensed to legally purchase.


TMK, the phosphorus on rounds were used as a tracer. And if these weapons were banned right after WWI, I don't think they would make the transition from big bullets to the small ones we use now.

Looking at it from another angle, there would be no market for explosive or incendiary rounds in the US. The military couldn't use them because of treaty obligations, and the civil market would be extremely small because of the NFA....

Actually, incendiary ammunition isn't covered under the NFA (incendiary devices like bombs or grenades are, though). They're expensive compared to regular ammo. .223 caliber (used in the M16/AR15, Ruger Mini 14, M700, etc) rounds go for $40-$60 for 20 rounds, as does .308 (M14, AR10, M700, G3, etc), 7.62x39mm (AK47, SKS, etc), and many other common calibers.

Anyone notice how it's been 7 pages so far and the usual suspects who dance and sing about someone shooting and killing a fleeing burglar from a neighbor's house as "Self-Defense" are awfully quiet and missing from this thread? Why aren't they supporting this legitimate case of self-defense?

I guess it's not self-defense if the cops are threatening you without announcing themselves huh?

The silence is deafening and telling.

Anyone notice how it's been 7 pages so far and the usual suspects who dance and sing about someone shooting and killing a fleeing burglar from a neighbor's house as "Self-Defense" are awfully quiet and missing from this thread? Why aren't they supporting this legitimate case of self-defense?

I guess it's not self-defense if the cops are threatening you without announcing themselves huh?

The silence is deafening and telling.

I don't believe it's self defense if the police had a legal and legitimate reason for being in the house (in this case, they had a warrant). Not that I particularly like no-knock warrants.

I guess the major point of contention (in this thread) is whether the police identified themselves before or after the shooting started. Since I wasn't there, and didn't witness the trial, I can't say whether or not Cory Maye should have known that it was the police in the house.

ETA: Is anyone SURE that this was a no-knock warrant?

I don't believe it's self defense if the police had a legal and legitimate reason for being in the house (in this case, they had a warrant). Not that I particularly like no-knock warrants.

I guess the major point of contention (in this thread) is whether the police identified themselves before or after the shooting started. Since I wasn't there, and didn't witness the trial, I can't say whether or not Cory Maye should have known that it was the police in the house.

ETA: Is anyone SURE that this was a no-knock warrant?

Not even counting this case, I think that no-knock warrants are dangerous and issued far too often. Dangerous for the police as well as the suspects.

Personally I think that if used at all, they should be used in cases where the public is at considerable risk and other attempts to provide evidence via normal arrest warrants have proven unsuccessful. I find it hard to believe this Cory Maye guy had ever been investigated by police before this incident. Issuing a no-knock against a man without even a prior arrest sounds pretty irresponsible to the police issuing it. It's probably the greatest risks police take too.

I don't believe it's self defense if the police had a legal and legitimate reason for being in the house (in this case, they had a warrant). Not that I particularly like no-knock warrants.

I guess the major point of contention (in this thread) is whether the police identified themselves before or after the shooting started. Since I wasn't there, and didn't witness the trial, I can't say whether or not Cory Maye should have known that it was the police in the house.

ETA: Is anyone SURE that this was a no-knock warrant?

In my mind, whether or not something is legitimately a case of self-defense depends on whether or not they reasonably and truly thought they were in danger. A warrant may have existed but this guy certainly didn't see it, so I don't see how it figures into whether or not he was acting in self-defense.

And, to tell you the truth, I don't really think that whether or not the police identified themselves makes much of a difference, either. Even if we assume that the person whose house was being raided would have necessarily heard them in all the confusion, it isn't as if criminals are physically incapable of yelling the word, "Police!"

I would say that, if this guy truly thought that criminals were breaking into his house to possibly harm him or his daughter, his actions were in self-defense and defense of his child - whether the person turned out to be a police officer or not.

notice how the report didn't mention "no drugs found" .


that to me suggest there was drugs on the premise.


the police say we identified ourselves and one person says they didn't.

I would put my money on the police.

Well, if the homeowner was out to kill cops, then why did he stop firing and surrender his weapon?

And the report says that they found drugs in the apartment next door, but not in Maye's. They probably just wanted to raid both sides of the duplex so they could seize the whole property and sell it rather than having to condemn one side.

I don't believe it's self defense if the police had a legal and legitimate reason for being in the house (in this case, they had a warrant). Not that I particularly like no-knock warrants.

I guess the major point of contention (in this thread) is whether the police identified themselves before or after the shooting started. Since I wasn't there, and didn't witness the trial, I can't say whether or not Cory Maye should have known that it was the police in the house.

ETA: Is anyone SURE that this was a no-knock warrant?

I don't know all the facts of the case. However, here's what I have, a man who we do not have any reason to believe has committed any crime, especially not one which would encourage him to endanger his daughter and get in a gun battle while holding her IN HER ROOM. We know that his first response was to arm himself and go to ensure his daughter was protected. Not to flee. Then he gets into a gun battle where he suddenly stops and places his weapon on the ground and allows them to take him into custody. Suddenly he becomes cooperative AFTER he becomes a copkiller.

How does that make any sense? Why does a guy who fears the police when he's innocent, trust them to safely take him into custody after he's just shot one of them? Serious, that doesn't make any sense.

Now change that story. A man wakes up and finds intruders in his home. He goes to his daughter's room, armed. He finds the best position he can, doing his best to shield his child from harm, and quietly hopes that he and his daughter are not confronted. The men try to enter the room and he shoots one of them. "Police," they shout and realization sets in. He's just killed a cop. He sadly places the gun upon the ground and gives himself up, accepting that his life has just been ruined.

Which of those sounds even remotely likely? It's not the first one, for certain.

This happened in the same manner about 10 years ago in Tacoma just south of Seattle. Almost the exact same scenario however the person being raided was White and the cop he killed was Hispanic. The jury found the shooter guilty. Same shit different decade. The war on drugs has been failing for years.

Something similar happened in Atlanta not too terribly long ago. The police raided a home owned by an elderly woman. She shot a couple of officers (although she didn't kill any) before they killed her. Turned out that there was pretty much nothing to back up their raid. She was just an old lady who lived in a bad neighborhood and planned to take out anyone who tried to rob her.

Something similar happened in Atlanta not too terribly long ago. The police raided a home owned by an elderly woman. She shot a couple of officers (although she didn't kill any) before they killed her. Turned out that there was pretty much nothing to back up their raid. She was just an old lady who lived in a bad neighborhood and planned to take out anyone who tried to rob her.

Wikipedia has an article on her. It turns out that she didn't actually shoot anyone. The wounds on the police officers were caused by friendly fire.

lulz

Something similar happened in Atlanta not too terribly long ago. The police raided a home owned by an elderly woman. She shot a couple of officers (although she didn't kill any) before they killed her. Turned out that there was pretty much nothing to back up their raid. She was just an old lady who lived in a bad neighborhood and planned to take out anyone who tried to rob her.
And one of those cops is on trial. Two others pleaded to manslaughter.

Something similar happened in Atlanta not too terribly long ago. The police raided a home owned by an elderly woman. She shot a couple of officers (although she didn't kill any) before they killed her. Turned out that there was pretty much nothing to back up their raid. She was just an old lady who lived in a bad neighborhood and planned to take out anyone who tried to rob her.

Yeah, when I heard that , I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

Not even counting this case, I think that no-knock warrants are dangerous and issued far too often. Dangerous for the police as well as the suspects.

Personally I think that if used at all, they should be used in cases where the public is at considerable risk and other attempts to provide evidence via normal arrest warrants have proven unsuccessful. I find it hard to believe this Cory Maye guy had ever been investigated by police before this incident. Issuing a no-knock against a man without even a prior arrest sounds pretty irresponsible to the police issuing it. It's probably the greatest risks police take too.

the warrant just said persons unknown.

And one of those cops is on trial. Two others pleaded to manslaughter.

Indeed. IIRC, they straight-up faked evidence and attempted a cover-up.

Indeed. IIRC, they straight-up faked evidence and attempted a cover-up.
They tried to bribe some informant to lie for them. He wouldn't do it and that's when the whole thing started to unravel.

I don't know all the facts of the case. However, here's what I have, a man who we do not have any reason to believe has committed any crime, especially not one which would encourage him to endanger his daughter and get in a gun battle while holding her IN HER ROOM. We know that his first response was to arm himself and go to ensure his daughter was protected. Not to flee. Then he gets into a gun battle where he suddenly stops and places his weapon on the ground and allows them to take him into custody. Suddenly he becomes cooperative AFTER he becomes a copkiller.

How does that make any sense? Why does a guy who fears the police when he's innocent, trust them to safely take him into custody after he's just shot one of them? Serious, that doesn't make any sense.

Now change that story. A man wakes up and finds intruders in his home. He goes to his daughter's room, armed. He finds the best position he can, doing his best to shield his child from harm, and quietly hopes that he and his daughter are not confronted. The men try to enter the room and he shoots one of them. "Police," they shout and realization sets in. He's just killed a cop. He sadly places the gun upon the ground and gives himself up, accepting that his life has just been ruined.

Which of those sounds even remotely likely? It's not the first one, for certain.

It is possible that the police identified themselves, but he didn't hear them. By his own admission, he was asleep when the police started kicking in his door.

It is possible that the police identified themselves, but he didn't hear them. By his own admission, he was asleep when the police started kicking in his door.

So he's going to get life in prison because he took a nap in his own home? The police had no reason to even enter this man's premises. Not a damn reason aside from an informant saying there was weed in both places.

My only question is did they arrest the drug dealer before trying to take this guy? Because if they did, then that only makes me believe his story more.

Erm... Ummmm... Would you mind hooking me up with your drug dealer? Because after the past couple of weeks, a nice hallucinogen would make things ever so much easier.

There is so much fail in your statement above that I hardly know how to address it. As a suggestion, maybe you could take a look around some of you neighboring towns. Where do whites live? Where do blacks live? Then go talk to a few black people, see if they feel segregated. I think you'll learn a lot.

Yeah...i would, but hed stop selling to me...

I just wanted to point out, that we dont live in separate neighborhoods...my best friends black..Lives right down the street, less than a mile away...

Ghettos dont exist in South Mississippi...Which is why i dont understand why the reputation persists...No..i take that back, i understand why...I just dont think its fair....

My generation doesnt do those kinds of things...my father's and grandfather's did, Yet, our whole state gets blamed...And we get dragged along...

So he's going to get life in prison because he took a nap in his own home? The police had no reason to even enter this man's premises. Not a damn reason aside from an informant saying there was weed in both places.

My only question is did they arrest the drug dealer before trying to take this guy? Because if they did, then that only makes me believe his story more.

No, he got life in prison because he killed a cop. Also, they absolutely had a reason to enter his side of the duplex. They had a warrant, and information that illegal drugs were on the premises.

I think the warrant was served at both sides of the duplex at the same time (according to one of the articles I'd read).

No, he got life in prison because he killed a cop.

...as far as we can tell, in what he honestly believed to be self-defense...

Also, they absolutely had a reason to enter his side of the duplex. They had a warrant, and information that illegal drugs were on the premises.

(a) No one has ever gotten a warrant with false or misleading information?
(b) Is information that drugs might be on the premises really a good reason to knock down a person's door without warning and expect them to just know you're a cop?
(c) If they were going to get information about what was and was not in the place, wouldn't finding out that there was a small child there be pertinent?

I think the warrant was served at both sides of the duplex at the same time (according to one of the articles I'd read).

If by "served", you mean "the door was kicked in and armed officers ran in," maybe. Frankly, I don't think a warrant has been served unless it has actually been shown to someone.

Assuming it actually was a mistake.
Do you realize how many times the cops fuck up the bullshit cowboy "bust in the door" drug busts? They are lucky more of them arn't shot.

Not even counting this case, I think that no-knock warrants are dangerous and issued far too often. Dangerous for the police as well as the suspects.

Personally I think that if used at all, they should be used in cases where the public is at considerable risk and other attempts to provide evidence via normal arrest warrants have proven unsuccessful. I find it hard to believe this Cory Maye guy had ever been investigated by police before this incident. Issuing a no-knock against a man without even a prior arrest sounds pretty irresponsible to the police issuing it. It's probably the greatest risks police take too.
"No knock" warrants should only be issued when the police know, not "reasonably assume," some one is armed and dangerous on the premises. Every time a "no knock" warrant is "served," the chance some one is going to get fucking shot for no reason approaches 100%.

No, he got life in prison because he killed a cop. Also, they absolutely had a reason to enter his side of the duplex. They had a warrant, and information that illegal drugs were on the premises.

They had a warrant that was granted because there was a man who happend to be drug dealer living in the duplex. Did the officers get any information on the man whose home they were about to invade? Most of the officers admitted they didn't even know the name of the man.. was it Mayes? Yeah. His name was not included in the warrant. They had a tip. False tips come in all the time. If the police had actually done their job and, you know, investigated the information. Or passed the case onto the Narcotics department like it should have been done and instead rushed the warrant and its execution this could have been avoided.


I think the warrant was served at both sides of the duplex at the same time (according to one of the articles I'd read).

What article is this? Can you provide a link? The reason I inquire as to if they executed the warrant on the drug dealer first then it's all the more likely they rushed in into the next duplex without identifying themselves on the heels of the bust.

...as far as we can tell, in what he honestly believed to be self-defense...



(a) No one has ever gotten a warrant with false or misleading information?
(b) Is information that drugs might be on the premises really a good reason to knock down a person's door without warning and expect them to just know you're a cop?
(c) If they were going to get information about what was and was not in the place, wouldn't finding out that there was a small child there be pertinent?


We agree on something. I agree completly


If by "served", you mean "the door was kicked in and armed officers ran in," maybe. Frankly, I don't think a warrant has been served unless it has actually been shown to someone.

I believe this as well. If I recall anything but an arrest warrant can't be executed without serving it to someone.

*Sigh*

Behold. The stupidity that is the American judicial system.

Allthough I'm unsure of whether this should be worthy of life in prison or not - I'm not taking the word of either side as fact - it should be noted that he fucked up furiously when it came to his own defence in court.

Recall that explosive and incendiary ordinance would be covered under the NFA, and impossible for all but the most licensed to legally purchase.


Only explosive rounds are covered under the treatise and thus, illegal. Incendiary, normally phosphorus, doubles as a tracer, and is allowed.


TMK, the phosphorus on rounds were used as a tracer. And if these weapons were banned right after WWI, I don't think they would make the transition from big bullets to the small ones we use now.

They were used in the rifle caliber if I remember correctly. Some of which are still used today.


Looking at it from another angle, there would be no market for explosive or incendiary rounds in the US. The military couldn't use them because of treaty obligations, and the civil market would be extremely small because of the NFA.


Explosive, not legally. Incendiary, on the other hand, is legal.


All bullets are designed to kill. It's stupid to think that anything else is true.


Where did I say they weren't? I am saying that penetration of body armor isn't necessary to kill. The kinetic impact of bullets can lead to severe bruising and breaking of bones even if they don't get through.


Why would Explosive rounds (again, assuming they exist) impart more kinetic energy? Lets have a lesson in aerodynamics. You can only make a bullet shaped object go so fast, due to aerodynamic constraints. So, to increase penetrating power, manufacturers use a dense metal, such as lead or (for the military especially) tungsten or depleted uranium. Any small amount of explosive one could fit into a round would in all likelihood be less dense then lead or depleted uranium, thereby decreasing KE when fired out of the same gun with a similar charge.

Gas expansion resulting from the explosive round of course. Not to mention thermal energy. Less focused than say, a dense penetrator round perhaps, but potentially greater. Furthermore, there is a possibility of making the round more complex by adding a penetrator cap, allowing the explosive round to detonate inside the body armor, or the subject. It would be quite traumatic, and gruesome, which I imagine is the reason why such munition types were banned by treatise.


And, again, phosphorus on bullets are used as tracers, and are not intended to be the primary damage causer.

Perhaps. Although as I understand it, phosphorus rounds have been used in the early days to defeat armor. Also, keep in mind that incendiary munitions are used with great effect to defeat tank armor. Granted, this is on the anti-armor level, but the principle should remain the same, even if reduced in scale.


It has, though. The Interceptor armor used by US troops in Iraq is level IV armor. In combat, it has proven very effective in stopping intermediate caliber rounds.

And what of intermediate caliber rounds that had more exotic compositions other than say, copper jacketed lead?


Actually, the 5.7x28 mm in the United States have less penetrating power then military variants. The Brady bunch put up a big hubbub over penetrating Level IIA armor, and FN pulled the round from the market.

Beyond that, no weapon chambered from an intermediate or small cartridge can reliably penetrate Level IV armor. Thats the whole point. Certainly AK clones are capable of penetrating armor, but not heavy armor reliably.


And this contradicts what I have said, how?


I'm not sure if the police would use heavier armor, for reasons suggested in my previous post. They already have it available for use, and they don't seem to use it often. Its heavy, its cumbersome, and its very uncomfortable. A much more logical result of such an encounter would be a restriction on no knock warrants to those situations where there is a real chance of catching someone with something "big". Honestly, is there a reason to execute a no knock warrant on someone that has a field of Marijuana plants? It's not like he can destroy all evidence of them in the couple seconds between the police announcing themselves and the door blowing up.

I think you misunderstand me. The police will not have reason to use heavier armor, or cut back on demands for no knock warrants, until they begin encountering more instances of lethal self defense wherein no knock warrants were used but not in conjunction with heavy body armor.

Should the police lose legal cases where no knock warrants resulted in police fatalities, they may cut back on demands for it. Should police win legal cases, they would demand heavier armor to accompany such warrants.

I don't believe it's self defense if the police had a legal and legitimate reason for being in the house (in this case, they had a warrant).

<edit; I apear to be wrong. I could have SWORN I saw it mentioned that they got the wrong house>.

"No knock" warrants should only be issued when the police know, not "reasonably assume," some one is armed and dangerous on the premises.

IIRC in that situation they don't NEED a warrant. Something about "clear and present danger" or something.

Fox New's Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184992,00.html).

Late that night, Maye said he awoke to a furious pounding on his front door. According to his court testimony, he became frightened for his safety, and for the safety of his daughter. He ran back to the bedroom, where his daughter was asleep on the bed. He retrieved the gun he had for home protection, loaded it, chambered a round, and lay down on the floor next to her, hoping the noises and/or intruders outside would subside.

They didn't. Soon enough, Maye says, the door to Maye's bedroom flew open, and a figure entered from the outside. Scared, Maye fired his gun three times.

The figure was police officer Ron Jones, and one of Maye's bullets struck Jones in the abdomen, killing him. Worse for Maye, Jones also happened to be the son of the town's police chief.

Wiki's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye) article on the event.

Maye testified he was asleep on a chair in the living room when he heard a crash, prompting him to run to his daughter's bedroom and ready a .380-caliber pistol that he kept boxed and unclipped on top of a tall headboard.

from Reason Magazine (http://www.reason.com/news/show/36869.html)
Later, in court, Maye would testify that he awoke to a violent pounding at his front door, as if someone was trying to kick it down. Frightened, he ran to his bedroom, where Tacorriana was sleeping. He retrieved the handgun he kept in a stand by the bed, loaded it, and chambered a bullet. He got down on the floor next to the bed, where he held the gun and waited in the dark next to his little girl, hoping the noises outside would subside.

They didn’t. They got worse. The commotion moved from the front of his home to the back, closer to Maye, and just outside the door to the room where he and his daughter were lying.

“Thought someone was trying to break in on me and my child,” Maye testified.

“And how were you feeling?” an attorney asked.

“Frightened,” Maye said. “Very frightened.”

One loud, last crash finally flung the rear door wide open, nearly separating it from its hinges. Seconds later, someone kicked open the bedroom door. A figure rushed up the steep, three-step entrance to the house and entered the room. Maye fired into the darkness, squeezing the trigger three times.

my question... If Cory Maye had time to go to his daughter's bedroom, get the gun there (in HER Bedroom?) load it and wait while the police (or in Maye's case, whomever) is pounding on the door... why didn't HE call the Police to report a group of people trying to get into his home?

Fox New's Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184992,00.html).



Wiki's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye) article on the event.



from Reason Magazine (http://www.reason.com/news/show/36869.html)


my question... If Cory Maye had time to go to his daughter's bedroom, get the gun there (in HER Bedroom?) load it and wait while the police (or in Maye's case, whomever) is pounding on the door... why didn't HE call the Police to report a group of people trying to get into his home?

He could have easily assumed that he had less time to get to her room than he actually had.

He could have easily assumed that he had less time to get to her room than he actually had.

in 2000-2001? with the popularty of Cell Phones and cordless phones? why wasn't the daughter on the line?

and remember, he testified that he was "waiting, hoping they would just go away."

well, I dunno about you, but I would be waiting, hoping and dialing 911.

in 2000-2001? with the popularty of Cell Phones and cordless phones? why wasn't the daughter on the line?

How old was she?

and remember, he testified that he was "waiting, hoping they would just go away."

Yeah, but I don't find it hard to believe that he could be constantly assuming that they would arrive within the minute if they did keep going. And just because he hoped they'd go away doesn't mean he expected it.

well, I dunno about you, but I would be waiting, hoping and dialing 911.

I'm not sure what I would have done to be honest. Especially knowing that the police aren't obligated to defend me, that would sway me away from wasting valuable reaction time calling.

in 2000-2001? with the popularty of Cell Phones and cordless phones? why wasn't the daughter on the line?

Isn't she 18 months old?

<edit: Yup, just double checked the OP. You expect an 18 month old to call the police? Also if you check the quote again the gun was not in the kids room, the kid was sleeping in HIS room.>

<Re-edit: According to the Reason magazine quote anyway, it appears they don't agree.>

Thats what you think, but, its true...In New York they all have their own little section of town they live in, and they all hate the other groups from other parts of town...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Must be why I live in a mixed neighborhood, and my neighbors say hi to me regardless of the relative levels of pigmentation in our skin -- and I've been in this new place all of fifteen days.

How old was she? oops, read that as 18 years, not months. but still, is it not unreasonable for kids that age to have cell phones? :p

Yeah, but I don't find it hard to believe that he could be constantly assuming that they would arrive within the minute if they did keep going. And just because he hoped they'd go away doesn't mean he expected it. take his scenario. if they were hoods who wanted to do him and his daughter harm, the 911 call could weigh in that he defended himself. because it turned out to be cops, the 911 call would show that he didn't know who they were and reacted out of self defense, supporting his version of what happened.

I'm not sure what I would have done to be honest. Especially knowing that the police aren't obligated to defend me, that would sway me away from wasting valuable reaction time calling.*shrugs* I would still call.

Isn't she 18 months old?

<edit: Yup, just double checked the OP. You expect an 18 month old to call the police? Also if you check the quote again the gun was not in the kids room, the kid was sleeping in HIS room.>

<Re-edit: According to the Reason magazine quote anyway, it appears they don't agree.>

yeah, that was a misreading on my part on her age. :p

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Must be why I live in a mixed neighborhood, and my neighbors say hi to me regardless of the relative levels of pigmentation in our skin -- and I've been in this new place all of fifteen days.

Well, i was generalizing, so i guess im no better than others...

But, see, the difference is, you can say that, and everyone accepts it as fact...

I say that, and im called an Uneducated Moron....

So you can see why it would bother me, lol....

my question... If Cory Maye had time to go to his daughter's bedroom, get the gun there (in HER Bedroom?) load it and wait while the police (or in Maye's case, whomever) is pounding on the door... why didn't HE call the Police to report a group of people trying to get into his home?

running from the lounge to a bedroom in a small apartment doesn't take that long to do. And, according to your links, he loaded the gun while hiding in his bedroom with his daughter. Meanwhile - simultaneously - someone is breaking the door down with some sort of sledgehammer or that big battering ram type object the police use. There's not much time to think at all there. We're talking about a few seconds here - well less than a minute. Certainly no time to consider all one's options while in a extremely stressful and dangerous situation. And especially not enough time to consider making a call there at all. If he had, and the people outside had been crims not police he (and his daughter) would prob have been shot by them once they broke in. Given the two options - calling 911 or getting your gun and protecting your daughter while someone is violently trying to break in - which would you choose?
Considering there were drugdealers in the same duplex as him, presumably he thought the people breaking in were crims who had got the wrong address. He was probably hoping they'd realise their mistake when they broke in and would then go away.


At any rate, what's your point? Because he didn't call the cops, he deserves to be on deathrow? How do you think calling 911 would have changed anything?

my question... If Cory Maye had time to go to his daughter's bedroom, get the gun there (in HER Bedroom?) load it and wait while the police (or in Maye's case, whomever) is pounding on the door... why didn't HE call the Police to report a group of people trying to get into his home?

Ingrained crisis reaction possibly. If your house was on fire, would you get to safety and call 911 or would you do it the other way around?

my question... If Cory Maye had time to go to his daughter's bedroom, get the gun there (in HER Bedroom?)

That seems like a good plan and good priorities to me. Providing the gun doesn't fall into the hands of the kid (pretty unlikely she'd load it, but even so) it makes sense to keep it in the room he intends to retreat to and defend.

That it was a good plan is evidenced by the fact that it worked beautifully against the first 'intruder.' He might even have taken out two intruders if he hadn't surrendered.

load it and wait while the police (or in Maye's case, whomever) is pounding on the door... why didn't HE call the Police to report a group of people trying to get into his home?

Details needed there. You'd think a cordless phone or cell phone would be ready to hand. Perhaps he just didn't think of it.

Details needed there. You'd think a cordless phone or cell phone would be ready to hand. Perhaps he just didn't think of it.

Depends on his financial situation as well, I've been through periods where I had no cell or landline because all my money was going for food and rent. (I hear you all asking, "well how did he afford a GUN then?" Well, just because someone's too broke to afford a phone today doesn't mean they were short on money a year or two ago . . .)

my question... If Cory Maye had time to go to his daughter's bedroom, get the gun there (in HER Bedroom?) load it and wait while the police (or in Maye's case, whomever) is pounding on the door... why didn't HE call the Police to report a group of people trying to get into his home?
Clearly he didn't want to become a victim.

Read about 911 response times. Even in big cities, response times are on the order of four or five minutes. I'd expect worse in rural areas. And then there's the whole question about whether racial disparities exist in 911 responses.

Is that really quick enough when someone is trying to break down your front door? Once he does, he's not likely to ask to borrow a cup of flour, or hand you a beer.

This guy did exactly the right thing -- up to the point where he killed a white LEO in Mississippi.

Depends on his financial situation as well, I've been through periods where I had no cell or landline because all my money was going for food and rent. (I hear you all asking, "well how did he afford a GUN then?" Well, just because someone's too broke to afford a phone today doesn't mean they were short on money a year or two ago . . .)

Seeing as how this guy was in possession of a stolen gun, we don't know if he could afford a phone or not...

Clearly the only way to ensure the safety of Law Enforcement Officers in a situation like this is if they are allowed to call in an airstrike before executing the warrant.

running from the lounge to a bedroom in a small apartment doesn't take that long to do. And, according to your links, he loaded the gun while hiding in his bedroom with his daughter. Meanwhile - simultaneously - someone is breaking the door down with some sort of sledgehammer or that big battering ram type object the police use. There's not much time to think at all there. We're talking about a few seconds here - well less than a minute. Certainly no time to consider all one's options while in a extremely stressful and dangerous situation. And especially not enough time to consider making a call there at all. If he had, and the people outside had been crims not police he (and his daughter) would prob have been shot by them once they broke in. Given the two options - calling 911 or getting your gun and protecting your daughter while someone is violently trying to break in - which would you choose?
Considering there were drugdealers in the same duplex as him, presumably he thought the people breaking in were crims who had got the wrong address. He was probably hoping they'd realise their mistake when they broke in and would then go away. yet how many 911 calls are made while the person calling was being attacked? how many trials did you hear about where the 911 recorded call was used as evidence?

He testified that he waited, not that the doors burst in just after he finished loading the gun.

At any rate, what's your point? Because he didn't call the cops, he deserves to be on deathrow? How do you think calling 911 would have changed anything?Did I say That? please show me where I said he deserved to be on deathrow or even given life.

The point is simple. what did the jury hear during the testimony? What did his attorney present and what did the officers present?

Ingrained crisis reaction possibly. If your house was on fire, would you get to safety and call 911 or would you do it the other way around? so are you saying he should've gotten out? or are you agreeing with me that once his daughter was secure, and gun loaded, instead of waiting, he could've dialed 911 and yelled into the phone for help?

That seems like a good plan and good priorities to me. Providing the gun doesn't fall into the hands of the kid (pretty unlikely she'd load it, but even so) it makes sense to keep it in the room he intends to retreat to and defend. agreed, and I never said he shouldn't have gone to his daughter to secure her safety. nor did I say he was wrong to arm himself.

That it was a good plan is evidenced by the fact that it worked beautifully against the first 'intruder.' He might even have taken out two intruders if he hadn't surrendered. and with the phone connected to 911, you will have voice evidence (if the intruders... assuming they were not cops... spoke, the police on their way, and a recording of what was happening...)

Details needed there. You'd think a cordless phone or cell phone would be ready to hand. Perhaps he just didn't think of it. could be.

Clearly he didn't want to become a victim. with people pounding on his door, chances are he knew he would become a victim, one way or another.

Ever notice that next door, when the police arrived, the door opened and they surrendered (according to the reason magazine article I gave.)

also notice that the officer killed never drew his gun.

Read about 911 response times. Even in big cities, response times are on the order of four or five minutes. I'd expect worse in rural areas. And then there's the whole question about whether racial disparities exist in 911 responses. ok, so four or five minutes. yet with the phone connected to 911 you would have the following recorded.
"my name is Cory Mayes, i live at (address) and there are some people trying to break into my home, I have my 18 month daughter with me [doors crash open gunshots ring out.]"

And all that time, you will have in the background, the banging and with AV technology being what it is today, could possibly tell if the officers did ID themselves or not. guess what that would then be. Recorded evidence of what happened.

Is that really quick enough when someone is trying to break down your front door? Once he does, he's not likely to ask to borrow a cup of flour, or hand you a beer. ah, but after the first couple shots that mayes fired. recall what happened next. the officers stopped outside the door (as would any other intruder) and told him "we're police, you shot a police officer". granted any other intruder would also stop and unless those intruders were hell bent in getting Mayes, they wouldn't rush into a room where they know an armed man is waiting for them. He could've hold them off for what... four or five minutes?

how long did you say it would take for police to arrive?

add to that had he called 911, the 911 operator will be calling saying shots fired. add to that neighbors would be saying someone shooting in their neighborhood. I think that would speed the police up... don't you?

This guy did exactly the right thing -- up to the point where he killed a white LEO in Mississippi. and I never said he did anything wrong. There were many things he could've done and all would be 'right'. from turning on the outside lights, to calling 911, to arming himself or anything. I just asked why he didn't call 911?

We know that the officers pounding on the door woke him up. now it could be that the officers did ID themselves but Mayes didn't hear them. now instead of shouting, turning on any lights, or doing anything to let those outside that there is someone awake inside, he ran to his daughters room and armed himself.

considering officers on a raid would be wearing vests that say "POLICE" on it, and he didn't know they were officers untill they said 'you shot an officer' I think we can posit that the lights were kept off.

so from the Officer's point of view, the house was empty. thus they broke down the door and the first person in got shot.

now, knowing there is an armed man inside (and we can assume the baby would be crying by now) instead of shooting back, they informed (again in the officer's POV) that they were police.

It was a fluke that the officer shot was hit below the vest and it turned out fatal. but consider the police's POV, you have a house that appeared empty, no response to their knock (which doesn't make sense that everyone's blaming the 'no knock' warrant) it was at night so officers would pound on the door to wake up the occupants, the house remained dark when they broke down the door, and someone inside shot the first person to walk in... I could see that they could've presented it to the jury as he was hiding from the police and was laying in wait.

especially when the first arrest was occuring if not occured before they started pounding the door.

or are you agreeing with me that once his daughter was secure, and gun loaded, instead of waiting, he could've dialed 911 and yelled into the phone for help?

Since you're assuming there was a phone in his toddlers room, you can obviously tell me where it was. Where was this phone? Interestingly enough, I have several neices and nephews under 3. None of them have phones in their room.

As far as me personally, I often leave my phone on a charger, and I usually plug it in wherever I happen to be. I don't usually plan to find it during a breakin and it's taken me half an hour to find my phone in the morning on rare occasion and usually takes a bit of thinking on the best day.

You are making a lot of assumptions, armchair quarteback.

Since you're assuming there was a phone in his toddlers room, you can obviously tell me where it was. Where was this phone? Interestingly enough, I have several neices and nephews under 3. None of them have phones in their room. unknown. which is why I said 'could be' to nobel hobos.

As far as me personally, I often leave my phone on a charger, and I usually plug it in wherever I happen to be. I don't usually plan to find it during a breakin and it's taken me half an hour to find my phone in the morning on rare occasion and usually takes a bit of thinking on the best day.

You are making a lot of assumptions, armchair quarteback.so's everyone else on this thread. assuming that the officers were in the wrong, assuming everyone has the same cell phone habits as you, assuming that there is no phone in the kids room, assuming that Maye's version is the God Given truth...

with all the quarterbacks here, it's no wonder this place is a ball! :D

so are you saying he should've gotten out? or are you agreeing with me that once his daughter was secure, and gun loaded, instead of waiting, he could've dialed 911 and yelled into the phone for help?


Fight/flight reflex. You can't exactly ignore it. Based on the description, it seemed that the fight reflex kicked in.

The fire example was meant to highlight priorities. In this situation, although I cannot say for certainty without knowing whether the person had a working phone in reach or not, it seemed his priority was securing his immediate safety.

How long he waited, we also do not know, since there is no exact time frame from the moment the door was being banged on and when it was broken down. But do remember, the constant banging on the door would have attributed to stress. Once the mind is locked into a course of action in high stress situations, it is very difficult to switch tracks without a period of less stress to adapt.

To summarize, there isn't enough information to make a complete judgment on, but even so, I think it would be unfair to the defendant to cast guilt, especially intentional murder, on him on the basis alone of a panic reaction.


ok, so four or five minutes. yet with the phone connected to 911 you would have the following recorded.
"my name is Cory Mayes, i live at (address) and there are some people trying to break into my home, I have my 18 month daughter with me [doors crash open gunshots ring out.]"

Not mine to answer, but I must say this is a very unfair expectation. Namely, dividing your attention while there are potentially hostile, unidentified assailants intruding into your home without increasing your vulnerability.

There might be a record, the police might be able get an idea of what happened, but it would do you little good if you are dead because you weren't paying attention now would it?

And letting the police know that shots are being fired won't change the laws of physics. They still have to get there, and they can't exactly fly. You cannot expect police to magically materialize next to you just because shots have been fired.

We know that the officers pounding on the door woke him up. now it could be that the officers did ID themselves but Mayes didn't hear them. now instead of shouting, turning on any lights, or doing anything to let those outside that there is someone awake inside, he ran to his daughters room and armed himself.

Only an idiot would do any of those things. He has an advantage of being awake and alert when intruders are breaking in. He doesn't know how many there are or if they are armed. I certainly wouldn't want them to know I was awake or to make it easier for them to see me. As it was, he positioned himself so safely that even an armed police officer who was executing a warrant wasn't prepared for his defense of his home. This man did an excellent job of protecting his home and positioning himself and his daughter in a way that would keep them unharmed. The only mistake he made was not realizing that even though he was an innocent man, the intruders might be unidentified police officers.


considering officers on a raid would be wearing vests that say "POLICE" on it, and he didn't know they were officers untill they said 'you shot an officer' I think we can posit that the lights were kept off.

Which demonstrates the man inside the house was intelligent. And the cops weren't. The big "POLICE" notices on their vests are for their safety and to identify them. They went into a dark establishment and didn't make it easy for someone to identify them, which is the purpose. Police procedures are designed to protect everyone involved. Protecting themselves and the people they arrest is their burden. It sucks. It's unfair. But it's their job. They are required to try and prevent bloodshed. These police made some rather glaring mistakes even if we believe their version of the story, which, frankly, is utterly unbelievable the way it's told in any of the articles.


so from the Officer's point of view, the house was empty. thus they broke down the door and the first person in got shot.

Which means the officer's made a mistake. A - they should never assume the house in empty. B - if they were silly enough to assume the house WAS empty, then there would be reason to rush the situation. No one to get away or destroy evidence, so they'd have had plenty of time to secure the premises while continuing to regularly announce themselves.


now, knowing there is an armed man inside (and we can assume the baby would be crying by now) instead of shooting back, they informed (again in the officer's POV) that they were police.

As is their duty.


It was a fluke that the officer shot was hit below the vest and it turned out fatal. but consider the police's POV, you have a house that appeared empty, no response to their knock (which doesn't make sense that everyone's blaming the 'no knock' warrant) it was at night so officers would pound on the door to wake up the occupants, the house remained dark when they broke down the door, and someone inside shot the first person to walk in... I could see that they could've presented it to the jury as he was hiding from the police and was laying in wait.

But it doesn't make any sense. Why was an innocent man, and we now know he was innocent at the time, being laying in wait to kill a police officer with a baby in his arms? Why? No one has explained any reasonable reason why he would fire if he knew they were police. The cops aren't telling a story that makes any sense. As soon as the door was open they should have been shouting that they were the police. Clearly when they DID shout they were the police, the man inside laid down his weapon.


especially when the first arrest was occuring if not occured before they started pounding the door.

The last part doesn't offer anything relevant? What does the first arrest have to do with anything? We're not talking about what the officers thought at the time. The assumption of innocence goes to the man on trial. What reason would he have to believe they were officers?

He didn't get life in prison, and originally death row, for mishandling a weapon or accidentally killing someone. This man was charged and convicted for intentionally killing a police officer. Nothing you've offered speaks to any mistake the man made, other than those built on the ridiculous assumption that in such a situation the guy would get up and turn on the lights and search for a phone, rather than his daughter and his gun.

unknown. which is why I said 'could be' to nobel hobos.

so's everyone else on this thread. assuming that the officers were in the wrong, assuming everyone has the same cell phone habits as you, assuming that there is no phone in the kids room, assuming that Maye's version is the God Given truth...

I don't care what "everyone else" is doing. The man gets the presumption of innocence. I'm sorry if you don't like that. That means it's entirely fair to assume the officers where in the wrong but not the other way around.

As far as cell phone habits, I'm not assuming. I know he didn't use the phone. I don't know why. The only way to treat that as evidence is to make an assumption about him. I'm not willing to do that. Thus, I'm ignoring that he didn't call 911. That's why I didn't mention it. You did. I'm also assuming he had an elephant to smack on the ass and knock all the officers down without harming them. You can tell by how I never mentioned them as evidence. Apparently, just ignoring something is an assumption. I mean, that is the opposite of what assumption means, but don't let English stop you.

And I'm not assuming Maye's version is the God-given truth. The officers' version doesn't make any sense. I have yet to hear a reason why an innocent man became a cop-killer. Why did an innocent man whose first instinct was to protect his daughter instead choose to endanger her? Because if he didn't CHOOSE to endanger her, then the conviction is wrong.

with all the quarterbacks here, it's no wonder this place is a ball! :D

Uh-huh. I'm not telling him what he should have done. I looking at what he did. It appears to me that IF he was trying to protect himself and his daughter from what appeared to be immenent harm, he was far more effective than you were at it. How do I know? Because he managed to stop a team of police officers.

You can stop with the fallacies whenever you like. They just make your argument even weaker. There is a choice between treating the Maye's version as the God-given truth and convincting him of murder. It's called benefit of the doubt and it's granted to accused.

Since you're assuming there was a phone in his toddlers room, you can obviously tell me where it was. Where was this phone? Interestingly enough, I have several neices and nephews under 3. None of them have phones in their room.

As far as me personally, I often leave my phone on a charger, and I usually plug it in wherever I happen to be. I don't usually plan to find it during a breakin and it's taken me half an hour to find my phone in the morning on rare occasion and usually takes a bit of thinking on the best day.

You are making a lot of assumptions, armchair quarteback.

Makes sense. It has to be said, if I heard someone busting into my house, I'd go to protect my babies first... and the only way I'd be able to call anyone is if I basically ran across the phone on the way. It wouldn't be my priority.

And if they turned out to be cops, and they hadn't revealed themselves, then I guess I'd be in the same crappy situation as our protagonist in this case.

Makes sense. It has to be said, if I heard someone busting into my house, I'd go to protect my babies first... and the only way I'd be able to call anyone is if I basically ran across the phone on the way. It wouldn't be my priority.

And if they turned out to be cops, and they hadn't revealed themselves, then I guess I'd be in the same crappy situation as our protagonist in this case.

I don't carry a gun, so they likely wouldn't be dead, but given my training, they'd be injured, and I'd be lucky not to have been shot. I would certainly position myself to defend my children at any cost. I can't imagine it even occurring to me that it might be officers.

Only an idiot would do any of those things. Yep, so I'm an idiot when someone pounded on my door late one night last month. I turned on the light and shouted though the door what they wanted. Turned out they were looking for their friend and had the wrong apartment.

He has an advantage of being awake and alert when intruders are breaking in. He doesn't know how many there are or if they are armed. so he arms himself, secures his daughter and instead of calling 911 and the police, he waits in the dark for them to come in.

I certainly wouldn't want them to know I was awake or to make it easier for them to see me. As it was, he positioned himself so safely that even an armed police officer who was executing a warrant wasn't prepared for his defense of his home. and thus his defense of Self Defense didn't fly with the jury.
This man did an excellent job of protecting his home and positioning himself and his daughter in a way that would keep them unharmed. The only mistake he made was not realizing that even though he was an innocent man, the intruders might be unidentified police officers. yep.


Which demonstrates the man inside the house was intelligent. never questioned his intelligence.
And the cops weren't.assumption on your part Mr Quarterback.
The big "POLICE" notices on their vests are for their safety and to identify them. gee, and it must be written in a language that only cops can read if no one else can see them and say "oh, the police". They went into a dark establishment and didn't make it easy for someone to identify them, which is the purpose. WRONG! you are again assuming that. Mayes made no noise, turned on no lights, and in your words, made no indication that the house was occupied. so perhaps your ASSUMPTION that the police went into a dark establishment on the PURPOSE to make it difficult to identify them is wrong. that they just thought that the home was unoccupied, or that if the home was occupied, the person inside was getting rid of the evidence. sometimes people do that.
Police procedures are designed to protect everyone involved. Protecting themselves and the people they arrest is their burden. It sucks. It's unfair. But it's their job. They are required to try and prevent bloodshed. These police made some rather glaring mistakes even if we believe their version of the story, which, frankly, is utterly unbelievable the way it's told in any of the articles. yep. which is why it went to court. I really want to know what both the defense and prosecuters said.

Which means the officer's made a mistake. A - they should never assume the house in empty. B - if they were silly enough to assume the house WAS empty, then there would be reason to rush the situation. No one to get away or destroy evidence, so they'd have had plenty of time to secure the premises while continuing to regularly announce themselves. except three possiblities.
1) they probably heard the crying of an 18 month old baby. (just realized this. the pounding probably woke the baby up since there was a door leading from the outside directly into the room where the child was.)
2) they went in with guns NOT drawn else May's first shot would've been met with return fire.
3) they rushed in because they thought the occupant was destroying evidence.
But it doesn't make any sense. Why was an innocent man, and we now know he was innocent at the time, being laying in wait to kill a police officer with a baby in his arms? Why? No one has explained any reasonable reason why he would fire if he knew they were police. The cops aren't telling a story that makes any sense. As soon as the door was open they should have been shouting that they were the police. Clearly when they DID shout they were the police, the man inside laid down his weapon. It could be that the officers did id themselves but he didn't hear. that has always been the possiblity.

The last part doesn't offer anything relevant? What does the first arrest have to do with anything? the door opened and they surrendered. the home was a duplex, thus both homes shared a common wall. it wasn't next door as in on another property.
if you ever seen a raid, (and it sounds like they went to that home first) it's not quiet nor is it subtle.

We're not talking about what the officers thought at the time. so we base our assumptions and speculations on one side of the events?
The assumption of innocence goes to the man on trial. What reason would he have to believe they were officers?hence my question about calling 911. that would back up his story about not knowing they were officers, since he is basically calling the police on the police.
the 911 recording would show that from the call to the shots, whether or not the officers did ID themselves in a manner that he would've heard.

He didn't get life in prison, and originally death row, for mishandling a weapon or accidentally killing someone. This man was charged and convicted for intentionally killing a police officer. Nothing you've offered speaks to any mistake the man made, other than those built on the ridiculous assumption that in such a situation the guy would get up and turn on the lights and search for a phone, rather than his daughter and his gun. assumpton on your part. where did I say he should've turned on the lights and get the phone INSTEAD of his daughter and gun?

I don't care what "everyone else" is doing. The man gets the presumption of innocence. I'm sorry if you don't like that. That means it's entirely fair to assume the officers where in the wrong but not the other way around.yet if you accuse me of making assumptions, you are then showing your bias to me if you don't also aknowledge that others are making assumptions as well.
Why does the officers have to be guilty because we must presume the defendant innocent?
the Officers are not the ones on trial. why not Presume that the Defense Attorney threw the case because a well liked son of the police chief was killed?
presumption of innocence is for everyone because in a trial, it's the FACTS that have to be focused on.
everyone is focusing on one side of the story and thus ASSUMING the other side is guilty.

so either drop the accusations of assumptions or admit you're also accusing everyone else on this thread or biased against me. your call Mr Quarterback.

As far as cell phone habits, I'm not assuming. I know he didn't use the phone. I don't know why. The only way to treat that as evidence is to make an assumption about him. I'm not willing to do that. Thus, I'm ignoring that he didn't call 911. That's why I didn't mention it. You did. I'm also assuming he had an elephant to smack on the ass and knock all the officers down without harming them. You can tell by how I never mentioned them as evidence. Apparently, just ignoring something is an assumption. I mean, that is the opposite of what assumption means, but don't let English stop you. yet you just assumed the cops are guilty with no evidence to support it except Maye's word, you assumed turning on the lights is the wrong move, you made as much, if not more assumptions than me.

I questioned, and speculated. you Assumed.

And I'm not assuming Maye's version is the God-given truth. The officers' version doesn't make any sense. I have yet to hear a reason why an innocent man became a cop-killer. Why did an innocent man whose first instinct was to protect his daughter instead choose to endanger her? Because if he didn't CHOOSE to endanger her, then the conviction is wrong. the officer's version? you have the court transcripts? please post them.

after all, the officers won't tell their verson to the media because they know trial by media is not proper procedure (something you missed while detailing police procedure) so where is the officer's account that makes no sense to you?

Uh-huh. I'm not telling him what he should have done. I looking at what he did. It appears to me that IF he was trying to protect himself and his daughter from what appeared to be immenent harm, he was far more effective than you were at it. How do I know? Because he managed to stop a team of police officers. "More effective than I was at it?" so killing a cop by shooting them in the dark is more effective than the speculation of what might happen had he turned on the lights or even shouted a "WHAT!"?

and you are making assumption on the actions of the officers.

and you say you don't make assumptions?

You can stop with the fallacies whenever you like. They just make your argument even weaker. There is a choice between treating the Maye's version as the God-given truth and convincting him of murder. It's called benefit of the doubt and it's granted to accused.but you just said you didn't take maye's version as the God Given truth? thus in your mind, the officers also HAVE to be perceived as innocent.

the REAL Choices are
1) To listen to all of the evidence and make the informed decision of guilty and not-guilty
2) listen to one side of the story and make the Decision of Guilty and Not-Guilty.

the Jury found him guilty and they heard ALL of the Evidence.
which choices are we making here?

think about that before you start accusing people who are asking questions that they are making assumptions.

Ok. Let's put this forward. Junii, Jocabia. We know some facts based on the stories told. Ok so let's see if we can agree on a plausible scenario.


Cory Mayes was allegedly sleeping when he was awoken by a loud pounding from outside his house. It is possible that he was sleeping in front of the TV and that it drowned out them announcing their presence. This is an assumption and has no validation but is a possibilitiy. Following his waking, he became paniced and feared for the safety of his child and ran to where she was sleeping to protect her. He armed himself to defend himself against what he claims he believed to be an intruder. Now it's possible, since he woke from sleep that he was still half asleep as he went to check on his daughter, acting on paternal instinct and in the moments it took him to get to his daughter he never thought to grab a phone.

Now. After hunkering down to protect his daughter, it might have occured to him to call the cops, but there might not have been a phone present in the room. And running out to find one while someone was pounding at your door and trying to break in seems like a bad idea to me.

Now in most cases, when an officer identifies themselves they only do it and the onset so it's quite probable that they only identified themselves while Mayes was asleep and thus he didn't hear them. The resultant death of the Ron Jones led to the announcement that Mayes just shot an officer.... now you would think if they had identified themselves at the onset then they wouldn't have any reason to identify themselves AGAIN after a cop was shot unless they really believed the man wasn't aware that he had just shot an officer.

And generally when a man surrenders after the police identified themselves a second time, it's even more probable that he simply didn't know they were police.

Now. Is that an acceptable scenario?

Ok. Let's put this forward. Junii, Jocabia. We know some facts based on the stories told. Ok so let's see if we can agree on a plausible scenario.


Cory Mayes was allegedly sleeping when he was awoken by a loud pounding from outside his house. It is possible that he was sleeping in front of the TV and that it drowned out them announcing their presence. This is an assumption and has no validation but is a possibilitiy. Following his waking, he became paniced and feared for the safety of his child and ran to where she was sleeping to protect her. He armed himself to defend himself against what he claims he believed to be an intruder. Now it's possible, since he woke from sleep that he was still half asleep as he went to check on his daughter, acting on paternal instinct and in the moments it took him to get to his daughter he never thought to grab a phone.

Now. After hunkering down to protect his daughter, it might have occured to him to call the cops, but there might not have been a phone present in the room. And running out to find one while someone was pounding at your door and trying to break in seems like a bad idea to me.

Now in most cases, when an officer identifies themselves they only do it and the onset so it's quite probable that they only identified themselves while Mayes was asleep and thus he didn't hear them. The resultant death of the Ron Jones led to the announcement that Mayes just shot an officer.... now you would think if they had identified themselves at the onset then they wouldn't have any reason to identify themselves AGAIN after a cop was shot unless they really believed the man wasn't aware that he had just shot an officer.

And generally when a man surrenders after the police identified themselves a second time, it's even more probable that he simply didn't know they were police.

Now. Is that an acceptable scenario?
I am not denying what happened, I was questioning, speculating and wondering. quite different than assuming.

read post 121
my question... If Cory Maye had time to go to his daughter's bedroom, get the gun there (in HER Bedroom?) load it and wait while the police (or in Maye's case, whomever) is pounding on the door... why didn't HE call the Police to report a group of people trying to get into his home?
people answered with their speculations and I replied. I made no assumption as to the thoughts of mays nor the police. just speculated what might have been.
No where did I say Maye's actions that he took was wrong. Something I said when others accused me of saying Maye's actions were wrong. (check out my reply to Nobel and Myrmindonisia in Post 137.)
agreed, and I never said he shouldn't have gone to his daughter to secure her safety. nor did I say he was wrong to arm himself.

and I never said he did anything wrong. There were many things he could've done and all would be 'right'. from turning on the outside lights, to calling 911, to arming himself or anything. I just asked why he didn't call 911?

not assumptions but speculating and questioning. and I never said any of my speculations were 'god given truth'

then read Jocabia's post 138,
Since you're assuming there was a phone in his toddlers room, you can obviously tell me where it was. Where was this phone? Interestingly enough, I have several neices and nephews under 3. None of them have phones in their room.
...
You are making a lot of assumptions, armchair quarteback.
I never assumed anything. I did misread the child's age and joked about a phone in her room.
oops, read that as 18 years, not months. but still, is it not unreasonable for kids that age to have cell phones? :p
and replied to that in 139
unknown. which is why I said 'could be' to nobel hobos.

yet I'm the one accused of making assumptions when others in this thread assume the fault is the police and the 'no knock warrants'.

And generally when a man surrenders after the police identified themselves a second time, it's even more probable that he simply didn't know they were police.

This is the thing that really gets me about the whole story.

Let's assume he knew they were cops and that he intentionally shot them on that basis. Why the hell would he stop after just one - with bullets still in his gun?

If he knew he had just shot a police officer on purpose, he would know that it was game over - he was going down. Why wouldn't he just keep shooting? It's not like they could do any more to him than the death penalty, right?

But what really happened? They identified themselves as police officers and told him that he had just shot an officer. He surrendered his - still loaded - weapon and cooperated with them. The only actionable drugs on the premises were worth ~ a $50 fine.

Yeah, I'm gonna jump to believing that he just wanted to kill cops.

Snip


I didn't say you were assuming. I was simply offering a compromise of opinions. You posed a question and I addressed that in my own scenario. I was simply attempting to creat a scenario that you two can agree on. It's a speculative scenario. Notice I use the qualifier possible quite often. If my scenario holds trues then Mayes should not be serving life in prison. Or at most should have been charged with Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide at most.

If the police did identify themselves then one does have to question why Mayes surrendered AFTER shooting an officer. It doesn't make sense. That he would wait, shoot an officer, and then surrender. Does it?

Yep, so I'm an idiot when someone pounded on my door late one night last month. I turned on the light and shouted though the door what they wanted. Turned out they were looking for their friend and had the wrong apartment.

No, you're clearly unable to tell the difference between different situations. I sincerely doubt someone knocking on your door and it being the wrong apartment is equivalent to the execution of a warrant where the door was knocked down. They may have sounded different. But, hey, don't stop making assumptions now. Be consistent.



so he arms himself, secures his daughter and instead of calling 911 and the police, he waits in the dark for them to come in.

Again, where was the phone. You clearly know. The phone was clearly in his toddler's room. Which wall? Please, you must have information we don't.


and thus his defense of Self Defense didn't fly with the jury.

Yes, shockingly when a black man kills a police officer the jury doesn't always give the presumption of innocence. Mississippi certainly has no history anyone could point that might support a case where an obviously innocent man was put in prison.


yep.

You do an excellent job of avoiding reasoned arguments. If that's on purpose, you're quite successful.


never questioned his intelligence.
assumption on your part Mr Quarterback.

Like I said, excellent job of avoiding arguments. I know the purpose of the markings on police officers. I know that they are required, not kind of, sort of, but REQUIRED to ensure that people involved are not put in danger by them not identifying themselves. It's the reason for the giant white "POLICE" that you noted earlier.


gee, and it must be written in a language that only cops can read if no one else can see them and say "oh, the police". WRONG! you are again assuming that. Mayes made no noise, turned on no lights, and in your words, made no indication that the house was occupied. so perhaps your ASSUMPTION that the police went into a dark establishment on the PURPOSE to make it difficult to identify them is wrong. that they just thought that the home was unoccupied, or that if the home was occupied, the person inside was getting rid of the evidence. sometimes people do that.

According to you it was dark. If they entered a dark home in a way that did not make it obvious they were officers, then they were in error. They endangered themselves and the occupants of the home. The occupants of the home were an innocent man and his baby. If they assumed it was unoccupied, they made a mistake. They aren't supposed to make that assumption. They are REQUIRED to ensure it's clear to anyone they might encounter that they are officers. The burden is on them. It sucks, but it's part of the job.

yep. which is why it went to court. I really want to know what both the defense and prosecuters said.

Like, I said, you're excellent at avoiding addressing arguments. So far, your entire argument rests on giving the officers the presumption of innocence, which violates the laws of our country, an attempt to paint this as either/or when there are more options, and an appeal to authority. Since we're discussing the case and whether the decision was right, saying "well, he lost so it must be right" isn't an argument. It's the opposite of one. Do it again, I'll accept your concession that you cannot make a reasoned argument. I'm not up for wasting my time.


except three possiblities.
1) they probably heard the crying of an 18 month old baby. (just realized this. the pounding probably woke the baby up since there was a door leading from the outside directly into the room where the child was.)

Actually, it appears the room was position so he could see the entrance, not that it was going into the child's room. It may have been, but it's not necessary with the details of the story.

2) they went in with guns NOT drawn else May's first shot would've been met with return fire.

If they entered the home with guns not drawn then these cops were woefully incompetent. There is no scenario where it would necessary to knock down a door but not draw your weapon, unless you were trying to save an innocent person, which we obviously have no indication of. The officer who entered was shot and killed. No other officer entered. That doesn't tell us anything about whether the weapon was pulled. You seriously are the king of making wild assumptions.


3) they rushed in because they thought the occupant was destroying evidence.

You claimed they thought it was unoccupied. You really want to have this both ways, huh? Your story now has the police woefully incompetent, and the man a complete lunatic. Yes, that's much more believable than the scenario we started with.


It could be that the officers did id themselves but he didn't hear. that has always been the possiblity.

In which case, he wouldn't be guilty of a crime. If he was unaware they were officers, it was self-defense. Again, you've avoided the point. Offer a reasonable explanation for how this man could be guilty.


the door opened and they surrendered. the home was a duplex, thus both homes shared a common wall. it wasn't next door as in on another property.
if you ever seen a raid, (and it sounds like they went to that home first) it's not quiet nor is it subtle.

My house shares a common wall on both sides. I've NEVER heard my neighbors unless they were outside. The walls are firewalls. I am not in a particularly affluent neighborhood and in Chicago, it's very common. We have a little bit of a history of fires.

But, hey, he MUST have heard it right? I mean, nothing about the story suggests that he did, but don't stop making assumptions now.


so we base our assumptions and speculations on one side of the events?

You're not familiar with presumption of innocence, are you? See, what happens is we ASSUME the person is innocent, unless they can be demonstrated to be guilty. Not the other way around. You can't make up wild unsupported scenarios for why they're guilty. In order for them to be guilty, the burden is on the state to show them guilty with direct evidence, not wild speculation. I know we don't have all the information, but nothing about this story makes any sense. And, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to assume the court got it right, particularly when we KNOW for sure it got the sentencing wrong. I can't see any scenario where the death penalty OR life in prison would be justified. As of yet, no one has offered one.


hence my question about calling 911. that would back up his story about not knowing they were officers, since he is basically calling the police on the police.

And your question is irrelevant, since it requires us to make rather bizarre assumptions.


the 911 recording would show that from the call to the shots, whether or not the officers did ID themselves in a manner that he would've heard.

We don't have a 911 recording. You keep bringing this up, but you might as well wish he'd recorded the event on video for all the relevance it has.


assumpton on your part. where did I sayhe should've turned on the lights and get the phone INSTEAD of his daughter and gun?

You said he should have gone to the door and turned on the lights. You told us what you did when someone knocked on your door. Are you honestly NOW going to claim he should have gotten his daughter and then brought her CLOSER to the commotion?


yet if you accuse me of making assumptions, you are then showing your bias to me if you don't also aknowledge that others are making assumptions as well.

What others? I'm talking to you. I accept that you're losing an argument and you want to drag others in, but the fact is that this is YOUR argument to defend. I give a crap what others are doing.


Why does the officers have to be guilty because we must presume the defendant innocent?

Again, you're presenting a fallacy. They don't. Sometimes people simply make mistakes. Mayes mistakenly killed an officer. The officers mistakenly entered the wrong home in a way that allowed one of them to be killed. It's not either/or. The officers mistakenly didn't identify themselves. In this case, officers being in the wrong makes this man innocent.


the Officers are not the ones on trial. why not Presume that the Defense Attorney threw the case because a well liked son of the police chief was killed?

You're right. The officers are not the ones on trial. That's why they don't get the presumption of innocence here.


presumption of innocence is for everyone because in a trial, it's the FACTS that have to be focused on.

Um, okay, I'm going to stop here. I hate to be rude, but if you think that the officers get the presumption of innocence (and here, you're saying that means they can't have made a mistake) to the extent that the reasonable possibility of their error causing the death of the officer cannot be presented, then you're simply not capable of having this argument. Go read about presumption of innocence and return. Frankly, it's a required understanding for this discussion. It doesn't go to everyone. It goes to everyone on trial. As you pointed out, that's only Mayes.

Meanwhile, before you offer up another fallacy, it doesn't mean you can presume the guilt of the officers. It does, however, mean that the reasonable possibility of their wrongdoing, intentional or otherwise, can be presented.


everyone is focusing on one side of the story and thus ASSUMING the other side is guilty.

No. Everyone is focusing on giving the initial presumption of innocence to the accused. It's not the same thing. The officers don't have to be guilty of a crime for this man to be innocent.


so either drop the accusations of assumptions or admit you're also accusing everyone else on this thread or biased against me. your call Mr Quarterback.

Again, I fear you don't actually understand. I'm not inclined to continue if you don't understand presumption of innocence.


yet you just assumed the cops are guilty with no evidence to support it except Maye's word, you assumed turning on the lights is the wrong move, you made as much, if not more assumptions than me.

No, I didn't. What crime did I accuse them of? Again, unless they are on trial they don't need the presumption of innocence.


I questioned, and speculated. you Assumed.

Heh. Well, we have our own jury here, and I'm quite comfortable letting them decide. Your assumptions are obvious. Your silly claims about 911 are relatively obvious and absolutely laughable. Your silly assumptions about going to the door and turning on the light is laughable. Your understanding of the presumption of innocence is laughable. Your attempts to flip this on its head and claim we have to defend the rights of the officers is laughable. Your "questions" and "speculation" are not supported by evidence. They are simply wild assumptions.


the officer's version? you have the court transcripts? please post them.

I've clearly stated what information I have and where it's from. I've clearly admitted that I'm going on that information and the possibility that more exists. However, based on the information we have, the officer's version makes no sense. If you have more information that makes it make sense, please offer it. Currently, it's absurd.



after all, the officers won't tell their verson to the media because they know trial by media is not proper procedure (something you missed while detailing police procedure) so where is the officer's account that makes no sense to you?

Again, I've been clear. If you have additional information, please present it. Until then, I have to go with the information we have. Do I also have to explain how debate works?



"More effective than I was at it?" so killing a cop by shooting them in the dark is more effective than the speculation of what might happen had he turned on the lights or even shouted a "WHAT!"?

It's not speculation. He had the ability to see the door. Of this there is no doubt. He had enough light to move safely about the home. If this was a typical street, and we have no reason to assume it wasn't, there were lights outside. The man entering the home would have been silohuetted and easy to target. I'm not willing to assume this street, it's streetlights, and this home was atypical, but I'm willing to accept evidence that he couldn't safely target intruders. Present some. Currently, we know he DID target the intruders effectively. So much so that he killed one.



and you are making assumption on the actions of the officers.

I'm only going by the information I have. What am I assuming about the actions of the officers. We've analyzed several scenarios and in none of them does Mayes appear guilty. Of the scenarios I've discussed I've chosen the one that makes the most sense. I'm not assuming it's true. It just makes the most sense. What doesn't make sense is a scenario where he has a phone in a 18-month-old's room. Regardless, what you don't get, speculating reasonable scenarios is permitted in the presumption of innocence. We're not talking about who was wrong. We're talking about whether or not this man was GUILTY. Since that's the argument, it's perfectly reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt. In fact, it's required.



and you say you don't make assumptions?

So far every "assumption" you've claimed I've made has been a misunderstanding. If you don't know what that word means, please stop using it. You're embarrassing yourself.


but you just said you didn't take maye's version as the God Given truth? thus in your mind, the officers also HAVE to be perceived as innocent.[/QUOTE]

Actually, no, they don't. They aren't on trial, as you pointed out. If we were talking about their trial, they would get the presumption. Sometimes under the presumption of innocence, no one can be found guilty. Meanwhile, we aren't talking about whether or not the officers are guilty of a crime, but whether or not they made mistakes. We ARE talking about whether Mayes is guilty of a crime. I have yet to see a scenario where it makes sense that he committed a crime.



the REAL Choices are
1) To listen to all of the evidence and make the informed decision of guilty and not-guilty
2) listen to one side of the story and make the Decision of Guilty and Not-Guilty.

We don't have all the evidence, son. We have information and we make judgements based on it all the time. Given the evidence I have, there is no way to see this man as guilty. Now, if you have something that explains his guilt, provide it. No, I will not except wild speculations that don't even explain his guilt and further muddy the waters.


the Jury found him guilty and they heard ALL of the Evidence.

Again, appeal to authority. Juries are not infallible. Neither are judges. In fact, we know for a fact, they failed to sentence properly.


which choices are we making here?
think about that before you start accusing people who are asking questions that they are making assumptions.

Wow, I stand corrected. You clarified you were not making assumptions, by making more assumptions. Not only did you do so, but you showed how you are either unwilling or unable to give the man the presumption of innocence. Beyond that, you continually engaged in logical fallacies. Dump a generous helping of poor rhetoric, and I'm going to go with, "Nii, you probably want to rethink your post." It's not logic. It's not reason. It's not supported by evidence. It's not analyzing my post. And it makes several leaps that would be difficult for Superman.

I'm not assuming the officers or the courts are guilty. What I am saying is that I've found nothing that makes this man look even remotely guilty. You've only succeeded to demonstrate how difficult it is to challenge that statement. Thanks for showing excellently how strong my point is.

This is the thing that really gets me about the whole story.

Let's assume he knew they were cops and that he intentionally shot them on that basis. Why the hell would he stop after just one - with bullets still in his gun?

If he knew he had just shot a police officer on purpose, he would know that it was game over - he was going down. Why wouldn't he just keep shooting? It's not like they could do any more to him than the death penalty, right?

But what really happened? They identified themselves as police officers and told him that he had just shot an officer. He surrendered his - still loaded - weapon and cooperated with them. The only actionable drugs on the premises were worth ~ a $50 fine.

Yeah, I'm gonna jump to believing that he just wanted to kill cops.

There you go. The problem with this story is that it requires me to believe that Cory Mayes, a man with no criminal history or no reason to wish to kill cops, just killed a cop. Because absent that, absent the idea that he knew they were officers, he was defending his home. I've not seen any other alternative. No one has given any reason why he suddenly becomes a copkiller and then suddenly stops being one after he ACTUALLY has a reason to continue.

Hell, after killing the first cop it would have been downright terrifying to surrender my weapon. In all honesty, and I love cops, with all that adrenaline and the fact that a cop just got gunned down, I would expect to survive when I laid down my gun. I HOPE I would still lay it down in this situation because I certainly wouldn't want more bloodshed, but I would entirely expect to die after I dropped my weapon, or at the very least be extremely injured. Cops are human beings. He had no reason to fear them until he shot one and then he had EVERY reason to fear them.

oops, read that as 18 years, not months. but still, is it not unreasonable for kids that age to have cell phones? :p

take his scenario. if they were hoods who wanted to do him and his daughter harm, the 911 call could weigh in that he defended himself. because it turned out to be cops, the 911 call would show that he didn't know who they were and reacted out of self defense, supporting his version of what happened.

*shrugs* I would still call.
yes people have broke into your house And are now rampaging through it And ur gonna call 911 telling the guys in your house exactly where u are. Personally I think I woulda acted exactly the way this guy did. Hunker down, stay as quiet as possible and hope to hell whoever is in your house is just robbing it.

Just a quick question for you guys:

Many of you keep saying that if half a dozen (or more) fully armed men with full body armor barged into your home, you would shoot first and ask questions later. Now, what you have to ask yourself is, who did you piss off that the mob (or someone) would send half a dozen armed men with full body armor into your home to hurt you or kill?

If half a dozen people in full body armor burst into your house, I would say that 99.9999% of the time it's going to be the police, identified or not. SWAT penetration teams move in a very unique way compared to common thugs - it should be obvious to anyone that they are not thugs, even at a moment's glance.

Just a quick question for you guys:

Many of you keep saying that if half a dozen (or more) fully armed men with full body armor barged into your home, you would shoot first and ask questions later. Now, what you have to ask yourself is, who did you piss off that the mob (or someone) would send half a dozen armed men with full body armor into your home to hurt you or kill?

If half a dozen people in full body armor burst into your house, I would say that 99.9999% of the time it's going to be the police, identified or not. SWAT penetration teams move in a very unique way compared to common thugs - it should be obvious to anyone that they are not thugs, even at a moment's glance.

This man had no way to tell how many men there were or if they had armor on. All he saw was someone penetrate the door and he fired. We don't have indication that he should have seen anything that would indicate to him they were cops.

Just a quick question for you guys:

Many of you keep saying that if half a dozen (or more) fully armed men with full body armor barged into your home, you would shoot first and ask questions later. Now, what you have to ask yourself is, who did you piss off that the mob (or someone) would send half a dozen armed men with full body armor into your home to hurt you or kill?

If half a dozen people in full body armor burst into your house, I would say that 99.9999% of the time it's going to be the police, identified or not. SWAT penetration teams move in a very unique way compared to common thugs - it should be obvious to anyone that they are not thugs, even at a moment's glance.
how do you know that half a dozen heavily armed/armored men are outside your house when you are inside your house? the report clearly states that the guy shot the first officer to try to get through the door . . .. but wait he can see through walls right? so he knew there were a bunch of heavily armed guys out there right? O lastly about POLICE on the chests of the officers. He could easily have shot long before noticing that. If someone is breaking down my door I'm not gonna try to read their shirt as they come through it.

how do you know that half a dozen heavily armed/armored men are outside your house when you are inside your house? the report clearly states that the guy shot the first officer to try to get through the door . . .. but wait he can see through walls right? so he knew there were a bunch of heavily armed guys out there right? O lastly about POLICE on the chests of the officers. He could easily have shot long before noticing that. If someone is breaking down my door I'm not gonna try to read their shirt as they come through it.

Calm yourself - I just finished reading the article. Now, again, I point this out (leaving the testimony of the police that they did identify themselves, assuming for the sake of argument that they did not/it was not heard):

He did not open fire until they broke down the bedroom door (second door to break down), which means they were already in the home. They were moving about in a very controlled and precise manner (as SWAT teams do). Even if he did not hear them announce themselves as police, he would hear their movement and hear them announce rooms clear. It should be obvious that they are a controlled unit, and not a bunch of thugs.

Now, perhaps he exercised poor judgment in a stressful situation. I understand that, and in that case the punishment does not fit the crime, but I don't buy that he is entirely inculpable.

Calm yourself - I just finished reading the article. Now, again, I point this out (leaving the testimony of the police that they did identify themselves, assuming for the sake of argument that they did not/it was not heard):

He did not open fire until they broke down the bedroom door (second door to break down), which means they were already in the home. They were moving about in a very controlled and precise manner (as SWAT teams do). Even if he did not hear them announce themselves as police, he would hear their movement and hear them announce rooms clear. It should be obvious that they are a controlled unit, and not a bunch of thugs.

Now, perhaps he exercised poor judgment in a stressful situation. I understand that, and in that case the punishment does not fit the crime, but I don't buy that he is entirely inculpable.

um and you can tell the difference between thugs moving through your house breaking down doors and swat doing the same thing if the only door they've broken down is your front one?? second these aren't swat they are regular police officers so their movements are probably very similar to those of a bunch of thugs who have broken and entered into more than one house. Seriously? Also the fact that they were in the guys house doesn't change the fact that he couldn't see them.

He did not open fire until they broke down the bedroom door (second door to break down), which means they were already in the home. They were moving about in a very controlled and precise manner (as SWAT teams do). Even if he did not hear them announce themselves as police, he would hear their movement and hear them announce rooms clear. It should be obvious that they are a controlled unit, and not a bunch of thugs.

This wasn't a SWAT team. It was a thrown together group of officers doing the job of the usual narcotics team because they didn't want to wait for a proper team.

And even if it had been a trained SWAT team, he may or may not have heard them announcing anything, particularly since, as you point out, the bedroom door was the second broken down.

I definitely don't think he would hear "organized movement". How would you even tell the difference?

um and you can tell the difference between thugs moving through your house breaking down doors and swat doing the same thing? second these aren't swat they are regular police officers so their movements are probably very similar to those of a bunch of thugs who have broken and entered into more than one house. Seriously? Also the fact that they were in the guys house doesn't change the fact that he couldn't see them.

Yes. There are generally not more than 2-3 thugs at any given time, and they have a tendency to:

A) Open doors
B) Break glass, reach in and open doors
C) Pick locks

I put pick locks last because by "thug" I assume you mean people who aren't good at robbery, so they might not be able to pick locks.

As to your second point:

Regular police are not supposed to conduct a home invasion - they are not trained for it. They should call SWAT. If they conducted it themselves (in a no-knock no-identify kind of way) that would be very unusual and would only add to the ensuing confusion. However, I don't see in the article where it said they were regular police or SWAT - the article doesn't specify.

Just a quick question for you guys:

Many of you keep saying that if half a dozen (or more) fully armed men with full body armor barged into your home, you would shoot first and ask questions later. Now, what you have to ask yourself is, who did you piss off that the mob (or someone) would send half a dozen armed men with full body armor into your home to hurt you or kill?

If half a dozen people in full body armor burst into your house, I would say that 99.9999% of the time it's going to be the police, identified or not. SWAT penetration teams move in a very unique way compared to common thugs - it should be obvious to anyone that they are not thugs, even at a moment's glance.

Not really. In a darkened room, with only a moment of sight before firiing at your attacker you're not going to know who it is. And he only heard the pounding at the door and saw ONE man who he promptly shot. Not an army.

This wasn't a SWAT team. It was a thrown together group of officers doing the job of the usual narcotics team because they didn't want to wait for a proper team.

And even if it had been a trained SWAT team, he may or may not have heard them announcing anything, particularly since, as you point out, the bedroom door was the second broken down.

I definitely don't think he would hear "organized movement". How would you even tell the difference?

It's very obvious. Only half the team (or less) moves at any one time, and you hear them moving in groups.

Yes. There are generally not more than 2-3 thugs at any given time, and they have a tendency to:

A) Open doors
B) Break glass, reach in and open doors
C) Pick locks

I put pick locks last because by "thug" I assume you mean people who aren't good at robbery, so they might not be able to pick locks.

As to your second point:

Regular police are not supposed to conduct a home invasion - they are not trained for it. They should call SWAT. If they conducted it themselves (in a no-knock no-identify kind of way) that would be very unusual and would only add to the ensuing confusion. However, I don't see in the article where it said they were regular police or SWAT - the article doesn't specify.

regular police. for one thing hand guns only for another light body armor lastly Shit tactics. Second you said thugs not me. third this isn't a big house were talking about (as far as I could tell) and from what I've read they only broke open two doors so how exactly could they have been moving "in groups" when they broke one door then moved to the second.

regular police. for one thing hand guns only for another light body armor

That's highly irregular.

yep and it led to an officers death . . . .that got blamed on the guy who was defending himself

Regular police are not supposed to conduct a home invasion - they are not trained for it. They should call SWAT. If they conducted it themselves (in a no-knock no-identify kind of way) that would be very unusual and would only add to the ensuing confusion. However, I don't see in the article where it said they were regular police or SWAT - the article doesn't specify.

It was in the original article:

Jones usually referred drug tips to the Pearl River Narcotics Task Force, a multi-jurisdictional SWAT team that specializes in serving drug warrants. But for reasons that are still unclear—perhaps because the team wasn’t readily available over the holidays and he wanted to act quickly—Jones put together his own team, enlisting one member of the task force and one volunteer officer along with local police from Prentiss and nearby towns.

It's very obvious. Only half the team (or less) moves at any one time, and you hear them moving in groups.

Most of us non-police, non-criminals don't really have the aural training to even determine how many people there are moving by sound, much less how they're moving.

If I heard one immediately followed by the other, I could probably tell you that something was different. That'd be about it.

If I was scared and trying to protect my child, I probably couldn't tell you anything more than that someone who wasn't supposed to be there was moving around in my house.

It was in the original article:

Jones usually referred drug tips to the Pearl River Narcotics Task Force, a multi-jurisdictional SWAT team that specializes in serving drug warrants. But for reasons that are still unclear—perhaps because the team wasn’t readily available over the holidays and he wanted to act quickly—Jones put together his own team, enlisting one member of the task force and one volunteer officer along with local police from Prentiss and nearby towns.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/facepalm2ic7copyrl2.jpg

It's all about training. You wouldn't put me undercover, and you wouldn't put an undercover cop on SWAT. That's just the way it is.

Most of us non-police, non-criminals don't really have the aural training to even determine how many people there are moving by sound, much less how they're moving.

If I heard one immediately followed by the other, I could probably tell you that something was different. That'd be about it.

If I was scared and trying to protect my child, I probably couldn't tell you anything more than that someone who wasn't supposed to be there was moving around in my house.

Trust me, even if you don't, you can tell organization from chaos, just by sound.

It was in the original article:

Jones usually referred drug tips to the Pearl River Narcotics Task Force, a multi-jurisdictional SWAT team that specializes in serving drug warrants. But for reasons that are still unclear—perhaps because the team wasn’t readily available over the holidays and he wanted to act quickly—Jones put together his own team, enlisting one member of the task force and one volunteer officer along with local police from Prentiss and nearby towns.

One actual member and a bunch of regular cops a SWAT team does not make. Picture the training sequence from Robin Hood: Men in Tights, except with an unfunny outcome.

Time for some corrections.

The prosecuters said both warrants where executed at the same time.

There were two doors. I'm not sure where I got the idea of one door, but the door Jones entered was the door to the bedroom, not the outside door. Some of the stories seem to be a little convoluted.

Also, it appears the defender for Maye had never tried a capital case before. He allowed for the case to be moved to majoritively white area from an area where he'd likely have had a more sympathetic jury.

He has since been replaced by a man named Bob Evans. It appears Evans was let go as a result of agreeing to represent Mayes. That doesn't sound like an effort to achieve justice. It sounds more like a witch hunt.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184992,00.html

Was he guilty? I can't find any telling that makes him appear guilty. There simply is no explanation for him firing on these officers as a person who had nothing to hide. That he was unnamed on the warrent is of concern. That police would enter his home like this with no definitive trail for how it happened is of concern. Instead of investigating how they go there, they were trying a man that, by all indications, was leading a life within the bounds of the law (other than casual use of weed).

Five years after the incident, Smith, the person who was the reason for the warrent, who surrendered and WAS found with a lot of drugs, had not been charged. This case was so important as to put everyone in danger, it resulted in the death of a cop and a man in prison for life, and, yet, the man who was supposed to have been arrested wasn't charged. Is that strange to anyone else?

The same jury sentenced him to death as found him guilty, so we already know there was a problem with the jury.

Jones was not SWAT.

Jones was the son of the Chief of Police and loved.

Mayes has no criminal history. No reason to fear the cops and much less reason to kill one before surrendering willingly upon identification. Both sides agree they identified the person he shot as a cop and he surrendered.

It appears that after the arrest he was kept from his family for a week. This is concerning.

He was tried for the KNOWING, INTENTIONAL killing of a police officer. The question isn't whether he should have acted differently, but if Mayes, with no criminal history, knowingly killed a cop for no known reason.

Prentiss has a TON of crime. There was reason for Mayes to be frightened. Don't think this was a small town with no real problems. It also has very real racial distrust. This is significant given the trial was moved to a nearly all white town.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36869.html

This article is overwhelming, though I admit I've only started researching it.

Trust me, even if you don't, you can tell organization from chaos, just by sound.

Did you even read this case? According to both tellings Jones, who is NOT SWAT ran up the stairs and burst into the room. You're just making crap up.

Did you even read this case? According to both tellings Jones, who is NOT SWAT ran up the stairs and burst into the room. You're just making crap up.

I retracted that several posts ago, but, I was just assuring him that, faced with a real SWAT team, the sound is unmistakable.

EDIT: On a related note, real SWAT doesn't actually kick down doors anymore. We either use a small explosive on the lock, or a battering ram. The small explosive is preferred because the door will fly open and there will be no member of the team standing in the doorway to get shot.

Also, it appears the defender for Maye had never tried a capital case before. He allowed for the case to be moved to majoritively white area from an area where he'd likely have had a more sympathetic jury.

She, apparently. She actually put in a motion to have the case moved. She eventually realized her error and tried to have it moved back, but it was too late. (according to the Reason article).

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36869.html

He has since been replaced by a man named Bob Evans. It appears Evans was let go as a result of agreeing to represent Mayes. That doesn't sound like an effort to achieve justice. It sounds more like a witch hunt.

Damn, I hadn't heard that part.

I like this paragraph from the Reason article:

It’s a remarkable double standard. The reason these raids are often conducted late at night or very early in the morning is to catch suspects while they’re sleeping and least capable of processing what’s going on around them. Raids are often preceded by the deployment of flash-bang grenades, devices designed to confuse everyone in the vicinity. While narcotics officers have (or at least are supposed to have) extensive training in how to act during a raid, suspects don’t, and officers have the advantage of surprise. Yet prosecutors readily forgive mistaken police shootings of innocent civilians and unarmed drug suspects while expecting the people on the receiving end of late-night raids to show exemplary composure, judgment, and control in determining whether the attackers in their homes are cops or criminals.

I like this paragraph from the Reason article:

It’s a remarkable double standard. The reason these raids are often conducted late at night or very early in the morning is to catch suspects while they’re sleeping and least capable of processing what’s going on around them. Raids are often preceded by the deployment of flash-bang grenades, devices designed to confuse everyone in the vicinity. While narcotics officers have (or at least are supposed to have) extensive training in how to act during a raid, suspects don’t, and officers have the advantage of surprise. Yet prosecutors readily forgive mistaken police shootings of innocent civilians and unarmed drug suspects while expecting the people on the receiving end of late-night raids to show exemplary composure, judgment, and control in determining whether the attackers in their homes are cops or criminals.

Like I said, had they been a real SWAT team trained to raid properly instead of a hodgepodge group of rednecks with guns, it would have been very different. How a SWAT team behaves is fast, efficient, and unmistakable.

However, that statement quoted is very maddening. Prosecutors and investigators are not forgiving of accidental shootings at all. If you had ever seen an investigation of an accidental shooting, you would know that.

I like this paragraph from the Reason article:

It’s a remarkable double standard. The reason these raids are often conducted late at night or very early in the morning is to catch suspects while they’re sleeping and least capable of processing what’s going on around them. Raids are often preceded by the deployment of flash-bang grenades, devices designed to confuse everyone in the vicinity. While narcotics officers have (or at least are supposed to have) extensive training in how to act during a raid, suspects don’t, and officers have the advantage of surprise. Yet prosecutors readily forgive mistaken police shootings of innocent civilians and unarmed drug suspects while expecting the people on the receiving end of late-night raids to show exemplary composure, judgment, and control in determining whether the attackers in their homes are cops or criminals.

That's exactly the problem. We often see such a presumption of innocence for cops, but the case screams mistake, and yet, this guy appears not to have the presumption. The ONLY evidence for him being guilty are the same cops who he shot at. So they have to admit they badly executed and it got one of them killed in order for him to be innocent?

Seriously, everything about this case makes me cringe. Part of me hopes I find something that makes him look guilty. Because this looks like the Innocent Man case in the Grisham book to some degree. I believe both the prosecution and the cops want to protect their town and do what's right, but it seems like their tactics are questionable.

Like I said, had they been a real SWAT team trained to raid properly instead of a hodgepodge group of rednecks with guns, it would have been very different. How a SWAT team behaves is fast, efficient, and unmistakable.

Something can only be unmistakable if you've heard it before. You may have heard a SWAT team moving. I haven't.

However, that statement quoted is very maddening. Prosecutors and investigators are not forgiving of accidental shootings at all. If you had ever seen an investigation of an accidental shooting, you would know that.

How many actually get prosecuted? Of those, how many are convicted?

When it's the other way around, and a person mistakenly shoots an officer, how many get prosecuted? How many are convicted?

I don't doubt that the internal investigations are rigorous. But the truth of the matter seems to be that police officers very rarely face legal action for such things.

Something can only be unmistakable if you've heard it before. You may have heard a SWAT team moving. I haven't.

Go get some drugs and then tip off the police that you have drugs and are heavily armed. However, don't do it in Mississippi.

How many actually get prosecuted? Of those, how many are convicted?

When it's the other way around, and a person mistakenly shoots an officer, how many get prosecuted? How many are convicted?

I don't doubt that the internal investigations are rigorous. But the truth of the matter seems to be that police officers very rarely face legal action for such things.

I can only think of one such case personally (that I know the person) that actually he got convicted of negligent homicide, and the circumstances I thought were very dubious. I would have had a hard time convicting him as a juror, but I wasn't picked.

However, you must realize that when an accidental shooting does occur, that the circumstances are often very chaotic. The person who got shot (and presumably killed) is not there to testify their version, so only the police officer(s)' version gets heard.

However, on the side of the internal investigation, any time a shooting occurs, no matter how obvious the circumstance, the officer gets put on administrative leave for at least two weeks while the investigation is in play. The investigator comes from IA and he's out to tear down and destroy that officer for shooting someone, whether it was justified or not. I don't care if the policeman in question had 10 bullets in his vest from the man that he shot - he's still put on leave and an investigation is performed.

Don't begin to think that we can shoot anybody we feel like and get away with it. It's just not like that.

Go get some drugs and then tip off the police that you have drugs and are heavily armed. However, don't do it in Mississippi.



I can only think of one such case personally (that I know the person) that actually he got convicted of negligent homicide, and the circumstances I thought were very dubious. I would have had a hard time convicting him as a juror, but I wasn't picked.

However, you must realize that when an accidental shooting does occur, that the circumstances are often very chaotic. The person who got shot (and presumably killed) is not there to testify their version, so only the police officer(s)' version gets heard.

However, on the side of the internal investigation, any time a shooting occurs, no matter how obvious the circumstance, the officer gets put on administrative leave for at least two weeks while the investigation is in play. The investigator comes from IA and he's out to tear down and destroy that officer for shooting someone, whether it was justified or not. I don't care if the policeman in question had 10 bullets in his vest from the man that he shot - he's still put on leave and an investigation is performed.

Don't begin to think that we can shoot anybody we feel like and get away with it. It's just not like that.

That's the problem. It is chaotic. Why is that an excuse for officers who are trained, but not suspects who aren't? Mayes was an innocent man put in a horrible situation. It appears that situation was not only born of bad policing, but has been compounded by incompetance across the board. His lawyer was terrible, the examiner was ABSURD. That such things pass in what is called a JUSTICE system is unacceptable.

That's the problem. It is chaotic. Why is that an excuse for officers who are trained, but not suspects who aren't? Mayes was an innocent man put in a horrible situation. It appears that situation was not only born of bad policing, but has been compounded by incompetance across the board. His lawyer was terrible, the examiner was ABSURD. That such things pass in what is called a JUSTICE system is unacceptable.

I don't deny that this case is all screwed up. This is why it's SOP that, if a home is going to be invaded, to call SWAT. We know what we're doing. These rednecks didn't know what they were doing. They should not have gone in pretending like a SWAT team.

1) They failed to gather proper intelligence about their target(s).
2) They failed to plan the proper tactics for entry
3) They failed to be properly armed

Kick a door down? Seriously? I don't think I've ever done that.

The big part of this case that shocks me is that they had one SWAT team member with them. Being on SWAT, he should have known better than to allow them to do that, or, if he was not in a position to disallow it, in going himself. Here in Florida, SWAT works as a team, or not at all.

Don't begin to think that we can shoot anybody we feel like and get away with it. It's just not like that.

Oh, I don't.

I just think the justice system is more likely to conclude that an accidental shooting from a police officer really was a mistake than it is when it's an accidental shooting of a police officer.

Oh, I don't.

I just think the justice system is more likely to conclude that an accidental shooting from a police officer really was a mistake than it is when it's an accidental shooting of a police officer.

That has everything to do with the 12 people sitting in the jury box.

That has everything to do with the 12 people sitting in the jury box.

Only if it gets that far.

If a prosecutor won't even take the case before a grand jury, you never even have to worry about what those 12 people think.

Only if it gets that far.

If a prosecutor won't even take the case before a grand jury, you never even have to worry about what those 12 people think.

The reason a prosecutor wouldn't take it to the grand jury is that he's pretty sure what those 12 people would say beforehand.

I don't deny that this case is all screwed up. This is why it's SOP that, if a home is going to be invaded, to call SWAT. We know what we're doing. These rednecks didn't know what they were doing. They should not have gone in pretending like a SWAT team.

1) They failed to gather proper intelligence about their target(s).
2) They failed to plan the proper tactics for entry
3) They failed to be properly armed

Kick a door down? Seriously? I don't think I've ever done that.

The big part of this case that shocks me is that they had one SWAT team member with them. Being on SWAT, he should have known better than to allow them to do that, or, if he was not in a position to disallow it, in going himself. Here in Florida, SWAT works as a team, or not at all.

Reading more about the case, it seems the town has a history of questionable tactics. Sadly, it seems that the man who died was one of the more professional officers.

The reason a prosecutor wouldn't take it to the grand jury is that he's pretty sure what those 12 people would say beforehand.

Or. You know. They simply don't feel they have enough evidence to pursue the case. Or they're pressured not to pursue the case. WHich, as you've clearly illustrated, such people as IA and those people who would prosecute and officer is not viewed politely by other officers. Hell. Have you seen how people who've SUED an officer is treated by the police?

Or. You know. They simply don't feel they have enough evidence to pursue the case. Or they're pressured not to pursue the case. WHich, as you've clearly illustrated, such people as IA and those people who would prosecute and officer is not viewed politely by other officers. Hell. Have you seen how people who've SUED an officer is treated by the police?

First point:

Of course we don't like IA. They're out to get us, whether we've done anything wrong or not. I've never met an IA that tried to give the officer in question a fair shake. Now, that being said, we do cooperate with them.

Second:

You make this sound like some kind of conspiracy, like we "lean" on the prosecuting attorney to let Frank or Jim off. That is not the case (at least, not in my division). The same statement goes for those who have a case to sue the police - we still afford them the same protections as every other citizen.

First point:

Of course we don't like IA. They're out to get us, whether we've done anything wrong or not. I've never met an IA that tried to give the officer in question a fair shake. Now, that being said, we do cooperate with them.

Second:

You make this sound like some kind of conspiracy, like we "lean" on the prosecuting attorney to let Frank or Jim off. That is not the case (at least, not in my division). The same statement goes for those who have a case to sue the police - we still afford them the same protections as every other citizen.

Bwahaha. That's awesome. IA is no more out to get you than cops are out to get citizens. Apparently we shouldn't like cops. As is often said, "if you're innocent, you've got nothing to worry about."

The second part is hilarious in light of the first part.

Bwahaha. That's awesome. IA is no more out to get you than cops are out to get citizens. Apparently we shouldn't like cops. As is often said, "if you're innocent, you've got nothing to worry about."

The second part is hilarious in light of the first part.

Of course we're out to get you. ;)

First point:

Of course we don't like IA. They're out to get us, whether we've done anything wrong or not. I've never met an IA that tried to give the officer in question a fair shake. Now, that being said, we do cooperate with them.

Second:

You make this sound like some kind of conspiracy, like we "lean" on the prosecuting attorney to let Frank or Jim off. That is not the case (at least, not in my division). The same statement goes for those who have a case to sue the police - we still afford them the same protections as every other citizen.

Possibly not eveywhere no, but it isn't quite unheard of for people to be persecuted for doing something against a police officer. Like calling them a fat ass pig and getting a ticket for it. Or you know, other such instances.

And when was the last time that a police officer has ever NOT treated a suspect like a criminal? Regardless of guilt or innocence. Same job. Different people. They do exactly what you do, only they police you instead of citizens.

Possibly not eveywhere no, but it isn't quite unheard of for people to be persecuted for doing something against a police officer. Like calling them a fat ass pig and getting a ticket for it. Or you know, other such instances.

There are laws against disrespecting the police, and yes you can be ticketed for it. I don't think I've ever given a ticket for it, but I could.

And when was the last time that a police officer has ever NOT treated a suspect like a criminal? Regardless of guilt or innocence. Same job. Different people. They do exactly what you do, only they police you instead of citizens.

The difference is that I am attempting to protect the citizenry from criminal elements. They are attempting to protect the citizenry from police, and, while that may be necessary at points, the vast majority of police do not need any such inquisition. However, they don't look at the evidence first. They begin questioning on the presumption of guilt, then look at the physical evidence later. It's SOP.

First point:

Of course we don't like IA. They're out to get us, whether we've done anything wrong or not. I've never met an IA that tried to give the officer in question a fair shake. Now, that being said, we do cooperate with them.

You know, this is how a lot of people feel about police officers, but I'm sure most try to give people a "fair shake."

Second:

You make this sound like some kind of conspiracy, like we "lean" on the prosecuting attorney to let Frank or Jim off. That is not the case (at least, not in my division). The same statement goes for those who have a case to sue the police - we still afford them the same protections as every other citizen.

It doesn't have to be intentional. If a prosecutor is thinking about going after Frank or Jim and you think they've done nothing wrong, there is going to be tension there. You might even think that the prosecutor isn't giving the officer a fair shake. There will be resentment and it will likely show, even with officers trying to remain professional.

The same can happen with a civilian who sues a police officer. There's a good chance that you'll think they don't have a case, and that could lead to you being resentful towards them and/or treating them differently, even unintentionally.

And, in some cases, I do think it's intentional. You may not see these sorts of things, but I know someone who helped reveal a corrupt officer and his whole family has been harassed by police for it. As a result, the family has developed what I would consider a pretty extreme distrust of police. In the same town, the DA charged an officer with the wrong crime to help get him off after he misused his position to sleep with an underage girl. Despite having clearly misused his position and committed statutory rape, he's still on the force. These things do happen and police forces (well, the justice system in general) are more corrupt in some places than others.

You know, this is how a lot of people feel about police officers, but I'm sure most try to give people a "fair shake."

Yes we do, and public misconception about it is probably one of our biggest obstacles to fighting crime in general. I'm not sure what we can do about that, personally. I'm a cop, not a sociologist.

It doesn't have to be intentional. If a prosecutor is thinking about going after Frank or Jim and you think they've done nothing wrong, there is going to be tension there. You might even think that the prosecutor isn't giving the officer a fair shake. There will be resentment and it will likely show, even with officers trying to remain professional.

I can't say for what I may have done unintentionally, but I've always cooperated with the prosecutor. That doesn't necessarily mean we had the same opinion, but that doesn't mean I didn't cooperate.

The same can happen with a civilian who sues a police officer. There's a good chance that you'll think they don't have a case, and that could lead to you being resentful towards them and/or treating them differently, even unintentionally.

See above. If they called me to court, I would be under order to speak what I feel is the truth, and they may not agree with that. However, if they are getting mugged on the street, I'm not going to turn around and look the other way.

And, in some cases, I do think it's intentional. You may not see these sorts of things, but I know someone who helped reveal a corrupt officer and his whole family has been harassed by police for it. As a result, the family has developed what I would consider a pretty extreme distrust of police. In the same town, the DA charged an officer with the wrong crime to help get him off after he misused his position to sleep with an underage girl. Despite having clearly misused his position and committed statutory rape, he's still on the force. These things do happen and police forces (well, the justice system in general) are more corrupt in some places than others.

Granted, there is corruption within the justice system. That is why we have the necessary evil that is called Internal Affairs. This is why, though I despise them on every personal level, I cooperate with them in their investigations, and put up with them every time they have to come around.

I've personally been investigated five times by IA, and all five times it was living a nightmare that is only relieved by going to bed and having a different nightmare.

There are laws against disrespecting the police, and yes you can be ticketed for it. I don't think I've ever given a ticket for it, but I could.


What laws are these exactly? I've never heard of them. I know there's laws against assaulting an officer. But an insult hardly holds as assault.


The difference is that I am attempting to protect the citizenry from criminal elements. They are attempting to protect the citizenry from police, and, while that may be necessary at points, the vast majority of police do not need any such inquisition. However, they don't look at the evidence first. They begin questioning on the presumption of guilt, then look at the physical evidence later. It's SOP.

There's really no difference. When a police officer suspects someone is guilty they question and look for evidence to prove it. Sometimes the evidence proves them wrong.

IA is called in because an officer has done something questionable. They shot an innocent person in a gun fire. There's no question about if they did it or not. They did it. That's why IA is there. The only question is if shooting the person was an unfortunate/unforeseen outcome. Or a preventable action. I'm not saying that's why IA is called in every case.But it's relevant to this case.

I don't know about how IA works when corruption is suspect. But I don't think they come out and announce they're investigating for someone selling drugs.

What laws are these exactly? I've never heard of them. I know there's laws against assaulting an officer. But an insult hardly holds as assault.

Well, the courts have ruled that certain obscenities are considered "free speech" and are protected. However, "fighting words" are not protected and can be punished under disorderly conduct laws. However, where the line is drawn as to what constitutes "fighting words" is kind of up in the air.

There's really no difference. When a police officer suspects someone is guilty they question and look for evidence to prove it. Sometimes the evidence proves them wrong.

Sometimes, but most of us have a pretty good reason for suspecting it before we go looking for it.

IA is called in because an officer has done something questionable. They shot any person in gun fire. There's no question about if they did it or not. They did it. That's why IA is there. The only question is if shooting the person was an unfortunate/unforeseen outcome. Or a preventable action. I'm not saying that's why IA is called in every case.But it's relevant to this case.

Fixed.

I don't know about how IA works when corruption is suspect. But I don't think they come out and announce they're investigating for someone selling drugs.

You would have to ask them, on that one. How IA operates in that way is not within my realm of expertise. I would suspect that they have undercover operatives for that kind of thing.

The difference is that I am attempting to protect the citizenry from criminal elements. They are attempting to protect the citizenry from police, and, while that may be necessary at points, the vast majority of police do not need any such inquisition. However, they don't look at the evidence first. They begin questioning on the presumption of guilt, then look at the physical evidence later. It's SOP.

Again, many would and do say the same about police officers. I don't think that gross generalization applies to either group, but, hey, I say let's have a healthy lack of trust with all officers. Sound good?

Again, many would and do say the same about police officers. I don't think that gross generalization applies to either group, but, hey, I say let's have a healthy lack of trust with all officers. Sound good?

Then many would be wrong. In order of precedence:

1) Question Witnesses on the scene
2) Examine Physical evidence
3) Create suspect list
4) Question Suspects

For internal affairs:

1) Determine suspect
2) Question suspect
3) Question witnesses on the scene
4) Look at physical evidence
5) Ignore/use physical evidence and eyewitness testimony, and try to push it through

Then many would be wrong. In order of precedence:

1) Question Witnesses on the scene
2) Examine Physical evidence
3) Create suspect list
4) Question Suspects

For internal affairs:

1) Determine suspect
2) Question suspect
3) Question witnesses on the scene
4) Look at physical evidence
5) Ignore/use physical evidence and eyewitness testimony, and try to push it through

I believe you exactly as much as I believe other conspiracy theorists. They aren't out to get you. They are there to protect YOU from the stigma of criminal cops. The last thing they want to do is find someone guilty who isn't.

Like I said, I accept your premise. I'll make sure to treat officers with a complete lack of trust in the future. Fuck rational behavior. Let's just make gross generalizations.

I don't carry a gun, so they likely wouldn't be dead, but given my training, they'd be injured, and I'd be lucky not to have been shot. I would certainly position myself to defend my children at any cost. I can't imagine it even occurring to me that it might be officers.

Similarly gunless, I'd also not so likely to shoot anyone. Apparently, that would probably save me from a life-sentence.

Of course, if the mob of guntoting doorsmashers turn out NOT to be the police, it's less helpful.

Sometimes, but most of us have a pretty good reason for suspecting it before we go looking for it.


Generally, IA operates under the same information. Informants, reports, or you know. Someone being shot... that's always a good indicator.


Fixed.


I can't recall any case where IA was called in when the person shot was A.) unarmed B.) a civilian or C.) a fellow officer. At least IA was never called in at anypoint where I was from during any of their perfectly valid raids where they entered into a gun fight where they were fired upon.

This is the thing that really gets me about the whole story.

Let's assume he knew they were cops and that he intentionally shot them on that basis. Why the hell would he stop after just one - with bullets still in his gun?

If he knew he had just shot a police officer on purpose, he would know that it was game over - he was going down. Why wouldn't he just keep shooting? It's not like they could do any more to him than the death penalty, right?

But what really happened? They identified themselves as police officers and told him that he had just shot an officer. He surrendered his - still loaded - weapon and cooperated with them. The only actionable drugs on the premises were worth ~ a $50 fine.

Yeah, I'm gonna jump to believing that he just wanted to kill cops.

The whole scenario is a little crazy if you honestly believe it was just about killing cops. WHy would you do it on your own property, and surrender immediately? In this day and age, if you want to kill someone, there have to be better ways to get away with it.

I can't recall any case where IA was called in when the person shot was A.) unarmed B.) a civilian or C.) a fellow officer. At least IA was never called in at anypoint where I was from during any of their perfectly valid raids where they entered into a gun fight where they were fired upon.

Anytime a suspect is killed, even if he had an AK-47 in each hand and was firing madly (I'm using a hyperbole), IA comes in and puts in an appearance for a day or two. They do not always come in when a suspect is injured. That depends on the circumstance.

Just a quick question for you guys:

Many of you keep saying that if half a dozen (or more) fully armed men with full body armor barged into your home, you would shoot first and ask questions later. Now, what you have to ask yourself is, who did you piss off that the mob (or someone) would send half a dozen armed men with full body armor into your home to hurt you or kill?

If half a dozen people in full body armor burst into your house, I would say that 99.9999% of the time it's going to be the police, identified or not. SWAT penetration teams move in a very unique way compared to common thugs - it should be obvious to anyone that they are not thugs, even at a moment's glance.

Utter rubbish. If you're hiding in a dark corner listening to people smash your house up, the first clue you are going to get to their identity, is when you see the first one. Even then, dark house, no self-identification, all you're likely to know is that there are a number of people.... maybe.

The most likely scenario would be using your advantage to open fire first. Then maybe, if they are cops, they might identify themselves. Then you might stop firing. A lot like the alleged scenario, in fact.

Yes. There are generally not more than 2-3 thugs at any given time, and they have a tendency to:

A) Open doors
B) Break glass, reach in and open doors
C) Pick locks

I put pick locks last because by "thug" I assume you mean people who aren't good at robbery, so they might not be able to pick locks.

As to your second point:

Regular police are not supposed to conduct a home invasion - they are not trained for it. They should call SWAT. If they conducted it themselves (in a no-knock no-identify kind of way) that would be very unusual and would only add to the ensuing confusion. However, I don't see in the article where it said they were regular police or SWAT - the article doesn't specify.

Where does it suggest lock-picking? DOesn't the article suggest almost exactly the opposite?

Anytime a suspect is killed, even if he had an AK-47 in each hand and was firing madly (I'm using a hyperbole), IA comes in and puts in an appearance for a day or two. They do not always come in when a suspect is injured. That depends on the circumstance.

I wasn't aware. I don't recall any mention of them. But I've never been that involved in the IA investigations. Not as many at least that weren't publicized.

I believe you exactly as much as I believe other conspiracy theorists. They aren't out to get you. They are there to protect YOU from the stigma of criminal cops. The last thing they want to do is find someone guilty who isn't.

Like I said, I accept your premise. I'll make sure to treat officers with a complete lack of trust in the future. Fuck rational behavior. Let's just make gross generalizations.

Your point is made, and, as I have previously stated, I cooperate with IA when they come around, but that doesn't mean I have to like them.

Similarly, I don't expect you to like me, but I do expect your cooperation to the best of your ability (and within your rights).

The whole scenario is a little crazy if you honestly believe it was just about killing cops. WHy would you do it on your own property, and surrender immediately? In this day and age, if you want to kill someone, there have to be better ways to get away with it.

Reading up on the whole case it's just shocking.

The defender was incompetent
The new defender was fired by the city for taking the case
The forensic expert is not an expert and knows nothing about forensics
The only evidence for the warrant died with the man who was shot
The only two witnesses who were not involved disappeared
The two people disappeared where the people on which the warrant was executed AND they were found with illegal drugs
They have never been charged
The man has no criminal history
He surrendered when he found he shot a cop but not before that when there was no reason to arrest him

There are so many things to be upset about in this case. I simply can't put together a reason to defend the prosecutor in this case.

Your point is made, and, as I have previously stated, I cooperate with IA when they come around, but that doesn't mean I have to like them.

Similarly, I don't expect you to like me, but I do expect your cooperation to the best of your ability (and within your rights).

I actually love cops. I was in the Marine Corps with a lot of cops, even a couple of cheifs. There are no more corrupt cops than corrupt IA than corrupt firefighters than corrupt tollbooth operators.

I actually love cops. I was in the Marine Corps with a lot of cops, even a couple of cheifs. There are no more corrupt cops than corrupt IA than corrupt firefighters than corrupt tollbooth operators.

Darn tollbooth operators! We need to start an Internal Tollbooth Affairs agency.

Actually, that sounds dirty. Scratch the title.

Darn tollbooth operators! We need to start an Internal Tollbooth Affairs agency.

Actually, that sounds dirty. Scratch the title.

It's easy to solve. Make all the operators women. There would suddenly be world peace. *nods*

Reading up on the whole case it's just shocking.

The defender was incompetent
The new defender was fired by the city for taking the case
The forensic expert is not an expert and knows nothing about forensics
The only evidence for the warrant died with the man who was shot
The only two witnesses who were not involved disappeared
The two people disappeared where the people on which the warrant was executed AND they were found with illegal drugs
They have never been charged
The man has no criminal history
He surrendered when he found he shot a cop but not before that when there was no reason to arrest him

There are so many things to be upset about in this case. I simply can't put together a reason to defend the prosecutor in this case.


Nepotism? Protectionism?

They knew they could get away with it?

It's easy to solve. Make all the operators women. There would suddenly be world peace. *nods*

On the tollways, anyway.

On the tollways, anyway.

Yeah, cuz when I think of peace, I think of women. My ex, now she was was peaceful. Just like the ex before her, and before her, and before her.

....

I kind of suck at picking women to be attracted to. Poli was a MAJOR mistake.

Yeah, cuz when I think of peace, I think of women. My ex, now she was was peaceful. Just like the ex before her, and before her, and before her.

....

I kind of suck at picking women to be attracted to. Poli was a MAJOR mistake.

So do I. Don't worry. Something about my job always attracts women at first, then they run later when they find out what it's like. It's very odd.

No, you're clearly unable to tell the difference between different situations. I sincerely doubt someone knocking on your door and it being the wrong apartment is equivalent to the execution of a warrant where the door was knocked down. They may have sounded different. But, hey, don't stop making assumptions now. Be consistent.wrong Jocabia, the situation as far as Cory Mayes and I are the same, we both were woken up by loud pounding on the door. what's the difference between the two?

To you, the difference is you are factoring facts that Cory didn't know. that the people pounding his door were cops serving a warrant.

so are you assuming then that cory KNEW who was at his door? if not then the situation is the same.

Again, where was the phone. You clearly know. The phone was clearly in his toddler's room. Which wall? Please, you must have information we don't. READ my posts and please tell me where I said there was a phone in the room. Please tell me where I ASSUMED there was a phone in that room. and I'll show you I asked why didn't he call 911.

unless YOU'RE ASSUMING that my joke was serious...

Yes, shockingly when a black man kills a police officer the jury doesn't always give the presumption of innocence. Mississippi certainly has no history anyone could point that might support a case where an obviously innocent man was put in prison.
ah, so now you are ASSUMING that he was found guilty because he's black. nice one Jocabia.

You do an excellent job of avoiding reasoned arguments. If that's on purpose, you're quite successful.and now YOU'RE ASSUMING my 'yep' is an argumet and NOT ME AGREEING WITH YOU on that point. :rolleyes:

Like I said, excellent job of avoiding arguments. I know the purpose of the markings on police officers. I know that they are required, not kind of, sort of, but REQUIRED to ensure that people involved are not put in danger by them not identifying themselves. It's the reason for the giant white "POLICE" that you noted earlier.yet again you assumed alot. yet did Mayes make any indication that the house was occupied? by your own argument, no
Did the police have any indication that the house was occupied? possibly but not mentioned in the articles.
did the first officer through have his gun drawn? No. (Wiki says the officer's pistol was holstered)
Did Mayes shout a warning that he was armed before he fired? no.
where is the assumption on my part?

According to you it was dark. If they entered a dark home in a way that did not make it obvious they were officers, then they were in error. They endangered themselves and the occupants of the home. The occupants of the home were an innocent man and his baby. If they assumed it was unoccupied, they made a mistake. They aren't supposed to make that assumption. They are REQUIRED to ensure it's clear to anyone they might encounter that they are officers. The burden is on them. It sucks, but it's part of the job. and how were they [the police] supposed to enter the home?
the door was forced opened, one officer stepped though and was shot.

Like, I said, you're excellent at avoiding addressing arguments. So far, your entire argument rests on giving the officers the presumption of innocence, which violates the laws of our country, an attempt to paint this as either/or when there are more options, and an appeal to authority. Since we're discussing the case and whether the decision was right, saying "well, he lost so it must be right" isn't an argument. It's the opposite of one. Do it again, I'll accept your concession that you cannot make a reasoned argument. I'm not up for wasting my time. oh, I see, to you presumption of Innocence is only for the Defendant. you admitted that because you presume the defendant innocent you presume the prosecution to be GUILTY. since I stated that before, you are once more assuming I'm Avoiding the argument.

Actually, it appears the room was position so he could see the entrance, not that it was going into the child's room. It may have been, but it's not necessary with the details of the story.read the articles, there are TWO doors to the house. the officer came in from the rear door and entered the room when Mayes shot him.
They didn’t. They got worse. The commotion moved from the front of his home to the back, closer to Maye, and just outside the door to the room where he and his daughter were lying.
...
One loud, last crash finally flung the rear door wide open, nearly separating it from its hinges. Seconds later, someone kicked open the bedroom door. A figure rushed up the steep, three-step entrance to the house and entered the room. Maye fired into the darkness, squeezing the trigger three times.
He couldn't see any entrance, nor see who came in.

and the assumption that it was dark is not mine, but in the article.

If they entered the home with guns not drawn then these cops were woefully incompetent. There is no scenario where it would necessary to knock down a door but not draw your weapon, unless you were trying to save an innocent person, which we obviously have no indication of. The officer who entered was shot and killed. No other officer entered. That doesn't tell us anything about whether the weapon was pulled. You seriously are the king of making wild assumptions. or unless the officers assumed (they did, not you or me) that the house was empty. which would explain why after the shots, they didn't return fire but informed mays he shot an officer.

and so that there is NO assumption on anyone's part. I am not saying the offiers were NOT stupid by not having their guns drawn.

You claimed they thought it was unoccupied. You really want to have this both ways, huh? Your story now has the police woefully incompetent, and the man a complete lunatic. Yes, that's much more believable than the scenario we started with. err.. THREE POSSIBLITIES means three seperate possiblities. you know. that means they won't tie in with each other. like how you are ASSUMING they would.

In which case, he wouldn't be guilty of a crime. If he was unaware they were officers, it was self-defense. Again, you've avoided the point. Offer a reasonable explanation for how this man could be guilty. no, it boils down to they said they didn't. it doesn't mean he's not guilty after all, assumption of innocence is NOT assumption of truthfulness. Could Corey be lying about not hearing the police? maybe, maybe not (and for you Jocabia, that means that Corey COULD BE lying, not he is lying nor he isn't. you know. A possibility.)

My house shares a common wall on both sides. I've NEVER heard my neighbors unless they were outside. The walls are firewalls. I am not in a particularly affluent neighborhood and in Chicago, it's very common. We have a little bit of a history of fires. are you assuming all homes are built like yours? what were his walls made of? when was it built?

But, hey, he MUST have heard it right? I mean, nothing about the story suggests that he did, but don't stop making assumptions now. yes, by all means go ahead as long as you note that it's an assumption you're making.

You're not familiar with presumption of innocence, are you? See, what happens is we ASSUME the person is innocent, unless they can be demonstrated to be guilty. Not the other way around. You can't make up wild unsupported scenarios for why they're guilty. In order for them to be guilty, the burden is on the state to show them guilty with direct evidence, not wild speculation. I know we don't have all the information, but nothing about this story makes any sense. And, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to assume the court got it right, particularly when we KNOW for sure it got the sentencing wrong. I can't see any scenario where the death penalty OR life in prison would be justified. As of yet, no one has offered one.

swing and another miss. Re read what you quoted. to make it easier, here it is.

so we base our assumptions and speculations on one side of the events?
I will BOLD the word you missed. you have been on the stance that since Mays is PRESUMED innocent (and I am not disagreeing with you on this point.) you said the OFFICERS are GUILTY because their story doesn't make sense, what is their story or are you basing it off of a third party's account of the officer's story.


And your question is irrelevant, since it requires us to make rather bizarre assumptions. yes, GOD FORBID we have any form of discussion. I asked people answered. we discussed.

We don't have a 911 recording. You keep bringing this up, but you might as well wish he'd recorded the event on video for all the relevance it has.and if you followed the conversation before popping in with cries of Assumptions.

I said IF HE HAD CALLED 911, THERE WOULD BE A RECORDING.

You said he should have gone to the door and turned on the lights. You told us what you did when someone knocked on your door. Are you honestly NOW going to claim he should have gotten his daughter and then brought her CLOSER to the commotion?WRONG! I said HE COULD, not SHOULD. COULD

Now mister Armchair Quarterback, please show where I suggested he pick up his daughter FIRST and then go to the door. oh, but that's the ONLY possiblity to you right?

Just like you are baising the officer's events not on what they said, but what someone else says they said.

What others? I'm talking to you. I accept that you're losing an argument and you want to drag others in, but the fact is that this is YOUR argument to defend. I give a crap what others are doing.too bad your arguments are all ONE side of other conversations. so you ignore all other evidence and hang on tightly to your percived evidence. nice :rolleyes:

Again, you're presenting a fallacy. They don't. Sometimes people simply make mistakes. Mayes mistakenly killed an officer. The officers mistakenly entered the wrong home in a way that allowed one of them to be killed. It's not either/or. The officers mistakenly didn't identify themselves. In this case, officers being in the wrong makes this man innocent. Assumption on your part. can you provide the transcripts that show the errors of the officer's part?

or are you just assuming things again.

You're right. The officers are not the ones on trial. That's why they don't get the presumption of innocence here. glad you solidified your point. ACCORDING TO JOCABIA, NO ONE BUT THE DEFENDANT IS INNOCENT IN ANY TRIAL GUYS!!!

so don't sue anyone. they'll be considered innocent while you will be considered guilty.

Glad our system doesn't work that way.


Um, okay, I'm going to stop here. I hate to be rude, but if you think that the officers get the presumption of innocence (and here, you're saying that means they can't have made a mistake) to the extent that the reasonable possibility of their error causing the death of the officer cannot be presented, then you're simply not capable of having this argument. Go read about presumption of innocence and return. Frankly, it's a required understanding for this discussion. It doesn't go to everyone. It goes to everyone on trial. As you pointed out, that's only Mayes.
Wait, what? first you say Mayes is innocent and made a mistake that killed an officer, now you say the officers cannot be innocent if they made a mistake... I suggest you follow up with your own advice.


Meanwhile, before you offer up another fallacy, it doesn't mean you can presume the guilt of the officers. It does, however, mean that the reasonable possibility of their wrongdoing, intentional or otherwise, can be presented.and the same for Mayes, dude. the same thing can be presented for mayes.


No. Everyone is focusing on giving the initial presumption of innocence to the accused. It's not the same thing. The officers don't have to be guilty of a crime for this man to be innocent. WRONG YET AGAIN. why? The TRIAL IS OVER. the Accused has been convicted. (that doesn't mean he can't appeal and I do wish him luck)
Just like OJ is NOT GUILTY of murder. Just like the three officers in the Bell shooting are NOT GUILTY.

so read the thread again and you find people (not all) not presuming mayes innocence but the officer's guilt.

Again, I fear you don't actually understand. I'm not inclined to continue if you don't understand presumption of innocence.no, I just don't understand YOUR presumption of innocence means the other side is guilty.

No, I didn't. What crime did I accuse them of? Again, unless they are on trial they don't need the presumption of innocence.what crime? incompetance. re read your posts.

Heh. Well, we have our own jury here, and I'm quite comfortable letting them decide. Your assumptions are obvious. Your silly claims about 911 are relatively obvious and absolutely laughable. Your silly assumptions about going to the door and turning on the light is laughable. Your understanding of the presumption of innocence is laughable. Your attempts to flip this on its head and claim we have to defend the rights of the officers is laughable. Your "questions" and "speculation" are not supported by evidence. They are simply wild assumptions. guess what dude, I never said my question and speculation were supported by evidence. my question was just that. a question, why the hell should it be supported by evidence since that question is asking about a possible outcome for an action he never took.

oh, and here's my proof (http://www.crimedoctor.com/home.htm). where's yours.

Lighting
Interior lighting is necessary to show signs of life and activity inside a residence at night. A darken home night-after-night sends the message to burglars that you are away on a trip. Light timers are inexpensive and can be found everywhere. They should be used on a daily basis, not just when you’re away. In this way you set up a routine that your neighbors can observe and will allow them to become suspicious when your normally lighted home becomes dark. Typically, you want to use light-timers near the front and back windows with the curtains closed. The pattern of lights turning on and off should simulate actual occupancy. It’s also comforting not to have to enter a dark residence when you return home. The same light timers can be used to turn on radios or television sets to further enhance the illusion of occupancy.

Exterior lighting is also very important. It becomes critical if you must park in a common area parking lot or underground garage and need to walk to your front door. The purpose of good lighting is to allow you to see if a threat or suspicious person is lurking in your path. If you can see a potential threat in advance then you at least have the choice and chance to avoid it. Exterior lighting needs to bright enough for you to see 100-feet and it helps if you can identify colors. Good lighting is definitely a deterrent to criminals because they don't want to be seen or identified.

Another important area to be well-lighted is the perimeter of your home or apartment especially at the entryway. Exterior lighting on the front of a property should always be on a timer to establish a routine and appearance of occupancy at all times. Common area lighting on apartment properties should also be on a timer or photo-cell to turn on at dusk and turn off at dawn. The practice of leaving the garage or porch lights turned on all day on a single family home is a dead giveaway that you are out of town. Exterior lighting at the rear of a home or apartment are usually on a switch because of the proximity to the sleeping rooms. The resident can choose to leave these lights on or off. Security lights with infra-red motion sensors are relatively inexpensive and can easily replace an exterior porch light or side door light on single family homes. The heat-motion sensor can be adjusted to detect body heat and can be programmed to reset after one minute. These security lights are highly recommended for single family homes.

Use interior light timers to establish a pattern of occupancy
Exterior lighting should allow 100- feet of visibility
Use good lighting along the pathway and at your door
Use light timers or photo-cells to turn on/off lights automatically
Use infra-red motion sensor lights on the rear of single family homes


your assumptions that my suggestion of turning on the lights being are silly is just that. YOUR ASSUMPTIONS.


I've clearly stated what information I have and where it's from. I've clearly admitted that I'm going on that information and the possibility that more exists. However, based on the information we have, the officer's version makes no sense. If you have more information that makes it make sense, please offer it. Currently, it's absurd.bullshit. where are the transcripts that outline what the officer's did. or are you going by one person's account? Between the two of us, YOU are the one saying the officers were incompetant with the surity of evidence. bring it out. link to it. show where the officers themselves said what they did. after all, Mayes said what he did.

Again, I've been clear. If you have additional information, please present it. Until then, I have to go with the information we have. Do I also have to explain how debate works? gee who's avoiding the argument now? you made such claims that the officers were in the wrong, well, back it up.

and I suggest you look over your debate notes. since you broke the rules
1) supplying evidence
2) attack the evidence or argument, not the person
3) do your research since you admantly said that turning on the lights is wrong yet I supplied proof that turning on the lights helps.

oh wait, you'll say, because they were COPS and not burglers, turning on the lights wouldn't do a damn thing for the situation... :rolleyes:

It's not speculation. He had the ability to see the door. Of this there is no doubt. He had enough light to move safely about the home. If this was a typical street, and we have no reason to assume it wasn't, there were lights outside. The man entering the home would have been silohuetted and easy to target. I'm not willing to assume this street, it's streetlights, and this home was atypical, but I'm willing to accept evidence that he couldn't safely target intruders. Present some. Currently, we know he DID target the intruders effectively. So much so that he killed one. prove it.
Link to the source that states he could see the door.
show where it said there was enough light.
are you assuming it was a typical street? sometimes the street light is busted.
I've shown where it said he fired into the darkness. how do you know there was enough light to silohuette anyone.

Or are you assuming AGAIN.

I'm only going by the information I have. What am I assuming about the actions of the officers. We've analyzed several scenarios and in none of them does Mayes appear guilty. Of the scenarios I've discussed I've chosen the one that makes the most sense. I'm not assuming it's true. It just makes the most sense. What doesn't make sense is a scenario where he has a phone in a 18-month-old's room. Regardless, what you don't get, speculating reasonable scenarios is permitted in the presumption of innocence. We're not talking about who was wrong. We're talking about whether or not this man was GUILTY. Since that's the argument, it's perfectly reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt. In fact, it's required. Too bad for everyone else that you're presumption of innocence doesn't extend to everyone involved.

and this is not an assumption, but baised on your own words.

So far every "assumption" you've claimed I've made has been a misunderstanding. If you don't know what that word means, please stop using it. You're embarrassing yourself. gee, I've used speculation, question as well as the simple wondering.

I asked a what if and you accused only me of making assumptions. I do not think the word means what you think it means.

but you just said you didn't take maye's version as the God Given truth? thus in your mind, the officers also HAVE to be perceived as innocent. no, I took Mayes version to be HIS version. nothing more. Just like I would take the officer's version to be their version.

YOU stated that the officers are guilty because Mayes has to be presumed innocent.

Actually, no, they don't. They aren't on trial, as you pointed out. If we were talking about their trial, they would get the presumption. Sometimes under the presumption of innocence, no one can be found guilty. Meanwhile, we aren't talking about whether or not the officers are guilty of a crime, but whether or not they made mistakes. We ARE talking about whether Mayes is guilty of a crime. I have yet to see a scenario where it makes sense that he committed a crime.nope, all must be presumed innocent thus the truth can reveal the guilty.

we don't know what the officers did outside of a third party saying what happened. thus we cannot take that account as to being the truth... or at least accurate.

We don't have all the evidence, son. We have information and we make judgements based on it all the time. Given the evidence I have, there is no way to see this man as guilty. Now, if you have something that explains his guilt, provide it. No, I will not except wild speculations that don't even explain his guilt and further muddy the waters. THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING. yet the Jury got the evidence. they made the decision and you are saying they are WRONG while you don't have all the evidence!

Again, appeal to authority. Juries are not infallible. Neither are judges. In fact, we know for a fact, they failed to sentence properly.Baised on what? the evidence that you just admitted is incomplete? you basing your facts on incomplete evidence?

you (and others) called the verdict wrong yet you just said we don't have all the evidence. so how can you say the verdict is wrong?

the Jury heard more than we did. and they are fighting the decision. but I guess anyone that turns down that appeal is corrupt in your eyes.


Wow, I stand corrected. You clarified you were not making assumptions, by making more assumptions. Not only did you do so, but you showed how you are either unwilling or unable to give the man the presumption of innocence. Beyond that, you continually engaged in logical fallacies. Dump a generous helping of poor rhetoric, and I'm going to go with, "Nii, you probably want to rethink your post." It's not logic. It's not reason. It's not supported by evidence. It's not analyzing my post. And it makes several leaps that would be difficult for Superman. I suggest you start with the post that asks the question "why didn't he call 911" and you will see that you made the biggest assumption of all. your assumption that for some reason, I'm calling what mays did or didn't do wrong.


I'm not assuming the officers or the courts are guilty. What I am saying is that I've found nothing that makes this man look even remotely guilty. You've only succeeded to demonstrate how difficult it is to challenge that statement. Thanks for showing excellently how strong my point is.yet you just said they cannot be presumed innocent. I didn't have to challenge it, because YOU contradicted yourself.

One loud, last crash finally flung the rear door wide open, nearly separating it from its hinges. Seconds later, someone kicked open the bedroom door. A figure rushed up the steep, three-step entrance to the house and entered the room. Maye fired into the darkness, squeezing the trigger three times.
He couldn't see any entrance, nor see who came in.

So you're pretty much backing the court findings, even though the article which you use to strengthen your argument states quite clearly that Mayes did not and could not see who was breaking down his door, that whoever it was was doing it so violently that it almost broke off the hinges (which does take an awful lot of determination and force), followed by a few seconds later a person rushing into his house and kicking open the bedroom door. Mayes was in no position to see who the intruder was until they had kicked the bedroom door open - and not even then, as it was dark. He fired 3 shots into the darkness, one of which hit and killed the intruder.
At no time was Mayes able to ascertain who the intruder was. And this was in a duplex where there were known drugdealers. So it's entirely plausible for Mayes to act the way he did because he truly thought the intruders were crims.

Yet despite all this, you go to the trouble of posting an entire page on this thread attempting to show that Mayes deserves to be in prison because he 'must have known what he was doing'.

fucking pigs.

15 pages in this thread now and still no appearance from the NSG Self Defense Cheerleading Squad to stand up for Cory Mayes.

The silence is still deafening and telling.

glad you solidified your point. ACCORDING TO JOCABIA, NO ONE BUT THE DEFENDANT IS INNOCENT IN ANY TRIAL GUYS!!!

so don't sue anyone. they'll be considered innocent while you will be considered guilty.

Glad our system doesn't work that way.

Damn, I typed out a whole reply and then saw this. If I'd read it first, I could have ended the argument.

To anyone at all familiar with our justice system the complete ignorance of this statement is obvious. I'm sorry, but continuing would be bullying you.

He couldn't see any entrance, nor see who came in.

So you're pretty much backing the court findings, even though the article which you use to strengthen your argument states quite clearly that Mayes did not and could not see who was breaking down his door, that whoever it was was doing it so violently that it almost broke off the hinges (which does take an awful lot of determination and force), followed by a few seconds later a person rushing into his house and kicking open the bedroom door. Mayes was in no position to see who the intruder was until they had kicked the bedroom door open - and not even then, as it was dark. He fired 3 shots into the darkness, one of which hit and killed the intruder.
At no time was Mayes able to ascertain who the intruder was. And this was in a duplex where there were known drugdealers. So it's entirely plausible for Mayes to act the way he did because he truly thought the intruders were crims.

Yet despite all this, you go to the trouble of posting an entire page on this thread attempting to show that Mayes deserves to be in prison because he 'must have known what he was doing'.

What I want to know is why didn't he videotape it? Of course, my question isn't relevant and has nothing to do with what actually happened, but I like to just make crap up to distract from reality.

HE WOULD HAVE HAD A VIDEOTAPE. WHY DIDN'T HE VIDEOTAPE IT?

The amount of error in Junni's post is astounding, and I don't think I could even begin to explain without charts.

I kind of suck at picking women to be attracted to. Poli was a MAJOR mistake.

...hey! I'll have you know I'm very nice and peaceful, thankyouverymuch. :mad:






;)

...hey! I'll have you know I'm very nice and peaceful, thankyouverymuch. :mad:






;)

Yes, but you bite.

Yes, but you bite.

Only upon request!

The amount of error in Junni's post is astounding, and I don't think I could even begin to explain without charts.

before you attempt it Neo, follow the conversation.

I asked a hypothetical question. "Why didn't he call 911."

people responded and we discussed the possiblities, there were NO abosultes and no "that's why's." in other words. they were all "ASSUMPTIONS." No where did I say Maye's actions nor the police's actions were wrong. you may search my posts for those claimes and you won't find it.

then Jocaba comes in and accuses only me of making assumptions and while I NEVER DEINED it, I questioned why Jocaba focused only on me and showed how Jocabia was also making assumptions.

now follow the conversation between Jocabia and I and ask yourself this.

who was denying that they were making assuptions? Me or Jocabia
Who was claiming their "conclusions" were baised on facts while also admitting that their "Facts" were incomplete. Me or Jocabia.
Who started the argument by accusing one person of making "a whole lotta assumptions" then is trying to divert that conversation to something else. me or Jocabia.

Only upon request!

I request.

I request.

*chomp*

before you attempt it Neo, follow

The conversation flow is irrelevant. The comments you made, regardless of the context of the conversation, were so nonsensical and bizarre that anyone who has a basic understanding of the law gets a headache.

before you attempt it Neo, follow the conversation.

I asked a hypothetical question. "Why didn't he call 911."

people responded and we discussed the possiblities, there were NO abosultes and no "that's why's." in other words. they were all "ASSUMPTIONS." No where did I say Maye's actions nor the police's actions were wrong. you may search my posts for those claimes and you won't find it.

then Jocaba comes in and accuses only me of making assumptions and while I NEVER DEINED it, I questioned why Jocaba focused only on me and showed how Jocabia was also making assumptions.

now follow the conversation between Jocabia and I and ask yourself this.

who was denying that they were making assuptions? Me or Jocabia
Who was claiming their "conclusions" were baised on facts while also admitting that their "Facts" were incomplete. Me or Jocabia.
Who started the argument by accusing one person of making "a whole lotta assumptions" then is trying to divert that conversation to something else. me or Jocabia.

You should quit while you're ahead. Seriously, you don't have to agree with me, but you should at least try to admit the limitations of your understanding.

You suggested I accused them of the "crime" of "incompetence". You conflated civil and criminal trials. You don't even on a surface level understand the presumption of innocence. You don't appear to know what the word assumption means or at least how to use it properly. You don't know what the term "armchair quarterback" means, or at least how to use it properly.

There is nowhere to go with this. You're simply not having a conversation that has anything to do with reality.

Only upon request!

Snoring is not a request.

Snoring is not a request.

Maybe you talk in your sleep?

Snoring is not a request.

Hey, if it's so loud I can hear it from several states away, you deserve to be bitten anyway. :p

Hey, if it's so loud I can hear it from several states away, you deserve to be bitten anyway. :p

I can't help it if you have to be that far away in order to... man, even I can't make that penis joke.

I can't help it if you have to be that far away in order to... man, even I can't make that penis joke.

I didn't think there was a penis joke you couldn't make, honestly.

I can't help it if you have to be that far away in order to... man, even I can't make that penis joke.

............what the heck was that pink thing that just knocked on my window?

ZOMG 500-MILE-LONG DEMON PENIS! Get it away :eek:!

............what the heck was that pink thing that just knocked on my window?

ZOMG 500-MILE-LONG DEMON PENIS! Get it away :eek:!

Ah, the effects of anime on the imagination.

Poli says --- because you know it's NSG when a serious thread about cop shootings turns into a discussion of giant demon penises.

You should quit while you're ahead. Seriously, you don't have to agree with me, but you should at least try to admit the limitations of your understanding.

You suggested I accused them of the "crime" of "incompetence". You conflated civil and criminal trials. You don't even on a surface level understand the presumption of innocence. You don't appear to know what the word assumption means or at least how to use it properly. You don't know what the term "armchair quarterback" means, or at least how to use it properly.

There is nowhere to go with this. You're simply not having a conversation that has anything to do with reality.

again you're wrong. the whole gist of the discussion between us was all the assumptions that were going around on this thread.
Then you started saying that you baised your 'assumptions' on facts even tho when asked, you admitted that not all the facts were known.
then you brought up the presumption of innocence and that the officers could be lying/incompetent/wrong because of that presumption of innocence that the defendant had.

then you focused on that while I still was focusing on all the assumptions YOU were making.

Basically we ended up talking about two different things in the one conversation.

again you're wrong. the whole gist of the discussion between us was all the assumptions that were going around on this thread.
Then you started saying that you baised your 'assumptions' on facts even tho when asked, you admitted that not all the facts were known.
then you brought up the presumption of innocence and that the officers could be lying/incompetent/wrong because of that presumption of innocence that the defendant had.

then you focused on that while I still was focusing on all the assumptions YOU were making.

Basically we ended up talking about two different things in the one conversation.

Like I said, go with that. I started to attempt to explain what is wrong with your understanding, but you quite simply don't understand. There is nowhere to go from here.

If you don't recognize that when we are discussing the guilt or innocence of a man on trial, that he gets the presumption and that everything else is based on that, then there is nowhere to go. He doesn't have the burden to prove he is innocent. He doesn't have the burden to have set things up in a way to protect the officers. He could have made mistakes. He could have made thousands of mistakes. The LAW requires that he be PROVEN to have intentionally and willfully murdered an officer.

Now we could discuss that, but since you don't understand what the presumption of innocence means or even what it applies to, we can't.

Like I said, go with that. I started to attempt to explain what is wrong with your understanding, but you quite simply don't understand. There is nowhere to go from here.

If you don't recognize that when we are discussing the guilt or innocence of a man on trial, that he gets the presumption and that everything else is based on that, then there is nowhere to go. He doesn't have the burden to prove he is innocent. He doesn't have the burden to have set things up in a way to protect the officers. He could have made mistakes. He could have made thousands of mistakes. The LAW requires that he be PROVEN to have intentionally and willfully murdered an officer.

Now we could discuss that, but since you don't understand what the presumption of innocence means or even what it applies to, we can't.
and this is what i'm talking about.

you popped in with this gem
Since you're assuming there was a phone in his toddlers room, you can obviously tell me where it was. Where was this phone? Interestingly enough, I have several neices and nephews under 3. None of them have phones in their room.

As far as me personally, I often leave my phone on a charger, and I usually plug it in wherever I happen to be. I don't usually plan to find it during a breakin and it's taken me half an hour to find my phone in the morning on rare occasion and usually takes a bit of thinking on the best day.

You are making a lot of assumptions, armchair quarteback.

and when I comment on why focus on me... your reply?

I don't care what "everyone else" is doing. The man gets the presumption of innocence. I'm sorry if you don't like that. That means it's entirely fair to assume the officers where in the wrong but not the other way around.

As far as cell phone habits, I'm not assuming. I know he didn't use the phone. I don't know why. The only way to treat that as evidence is to make an assumption about him. I'm not willing to do that. Thus, I'm ignoring that he didn't call 911. That's why I didn't mention it. You did. I'm also assuming he had an elephant to smack on the ass and knock all the officers down without harming them. You can tell by how I never mentioned them as evidence. Apparently, just ignoring something is an assumption. I mean, that is the opposite of what assumption means, but don't let English stop you.

And I'm not assuming Maye's version is the God-given truth. The officers' version doesn't make any sense. I have yet to hear a reason why an innocent man became a cop-killer. Why did an innocent man whose first instinct was to protect his daughter instead choose to endanger her? Because if he didn't CHOOSE to endanger her, then the conviction is wrong.



Uh-huh. I'm not telling him what he should have done. I looking at what he did. It appears to me that IF he was trying to protect himself and his daughter from what appeared to be immenent harm, he was far more effective than you were at it. How do I know? Because he managed to stop a team of police officers.

You can stop with the fallacies whenever you like. They just make your argument even weaker. There is a choice between treating the Maye's version as the God-given truth and convincting him of murder. It's called benefit of the doubt and it's granted to accused.

again you're focusing on my replies to a hypthetical question of "why didn't he call 911" and trying to twist it to a "Junii is not presuming Maye's innocent".

you don't care what everyone else is doing yet you didn't even focus on all my posts. Please do and show me where I presumed Mayes GUILTY or is that another one of YOUR ASSUMPTIONS.

I've asked it before, I'll ask it again, where did I say the actions taken by Mayes were WRONG.

here's a hint for you.

Did I say That? please show me where I said he deserved to be on deathrow or even given life.

agreed, and I never said he shouldn't have gone to his daughter to secure her safety. nor did I say he was wrong to arm himself.

and I never said he did anything wrong. There were many things he could've done and all would be 'right'. from turning on the outside lights, to calling 911, to arming himself or anything. I just asked why he didn't call 911?

and YOU quoted that post also.

You should quit while you're ahead. Seriously, you don't have to agree with me, but you should at least try to admit the limitations of your understanding.

You suggested I accused them of the "crime" of "incompetence". You conflated civil and criminal trials. You don't even on a surface level understand the presumption of innocence. You don't appear to know what the word assumption means or at least how to use it properly. You don't know what the term "armchair quarterback" means, or at least how to use it properly.

There is nowhere to go with this. You're simply not having a conversation that has anything to do with reality.

^This

^This
In other words
"I can't prove that Junii stated that Mayes was wrong or guilty, Nor can I prove the truth to my statements that the officers were wrong, that the jury was wrong and have even myself admitted that information was lacking, So I will quote myself instead."

Yes we do, and public misconception about it is probably one of our biggest obstacles to fighting crime in general. I'm not sure what we can do about that, personally. I'm a cop, not a sociologist.

I'd say a part of the issue is that many people feel that, if an officer decides to abuse his authority, the only way for justice to be served is to place faith in the exact same system that had brought about the situation by failing.

I'd say a part of the issue is that many people feel that, if an officer decides to abuse his authority, the only way for justice to be served is to place faith in the exact same system that had brought about the situation by failing.

That doesn't inspire much confidence when you look at it that way.

That doesn't inspire much confidence when you look at it that way.

But is that an accurate way of looking at it?

In other words
"I can't prove that Junii stated that Mayes was wrong or guilty, Nor can I prove the truth to my statements that the officers were wrong, that the jury was wrong and have even myself admitted that information was lacking, So I will quote myself instead."

JuNii, you don't understand. I know you don't understand. Most of the other people looking on know as well. I wish you did. I like you and I'd love to discuss it, but you don't recognize that you're making assumptions you can't make. Your reply to me making that comment was to accuse me of assumptions that prove you don't actually know what an assumption is. Assumptions are not the same as conclusions.

When I tried to better explain, you brought up the presumption of innocence in relation to civil cases. Again, I know you don't see what's wrong with that, but it's astonishing in it's ignorance of our system of law.

I tried to debate this with you, but your posts made less sense each time you posted. I even tried asking others to look at it, in case I was just not getting it, one of them replied in thread.

I don't know what to do for you, friend. I'm quite comfortable just letting you think you've won an argument here. Nearly everyone looking on knows different. I'd help you understand if I could, but, frankly, I've failed and I accept it.

That doesn't inspire much confidence when you look at it that way.

Well, particularly when even you don't exactly trust that system. We hear from cops (and stupid cop dramas) that IA is completely political that treats innocent and guilty cops the same. We need to believe there is a system that polices the police in order for the police to be trusted.

I've failed and I accept it.
Yes again you failed.
"please point to me, where I presumed Mayes Guilty."
I've asked that.
you've never supplied the answer.

"where did I say Mayes was wrong in his actions."
I've asked that.
you've never supplied the answer.

Yet you accused me of making assumptions
Yet YOU accused me of Dodging the questions.
and YOU accused me of not presuming Maye's innocence.

Yes, I agree with you. you failed.

Well, particularly when even you don't exactly trust that system. We hear from cops (and stupid cop dramas) that IA is completely political that treats innocent and guilty cops the same. We need to believe there is a system that polices the police in order for the police to be trusted.

and also it helps when you hear/see that system actually working.

"please point to me, where I presumed Mayes Guilty."

That question demonstrates the problem. Again, I recognize you don't see it, but the presumption of guilt isn't the only alternative to the presumption of innocence.

That question demonstrates the problem. Again, I recognize you don't see it, but the presumption of guilt isn't the only alternative to the presumption of innocence.

yet you accused me of NOT presuming him innocent by going into your tirade about the presumption of innocence, the claims that the cops were wrong because of mays presumption of innocence as well as even hinting (not accusing) that the juries were wrong.

why bring up all that about presumption of innocence unless you believed that I was not presuming mayes to be innocent?

I've asked you to show where I said mayes was wrong. you never did.
I've stated the JURY found him guilty and they heard more information that we did. you agreed with that yet you hounded me like I believed mays to be other than innocent.

even to the point of suggesting that methods of dealing with potential intruders to be silly yet not backing it up when I posted professional opinions that suggested I was correct.

Never have I presumed Mayes to be anything BUT innocent. I questioned his actions and we talked about hypotheticals that YOU took to be facts. I admitted I didn't know if there was a phone nearby yet you came on saying I was ASSUMING the location of phones. you jumped into a hypothetical discussion and you ranted about how I was not presuming maye's innocent yet could not and cannot back that presumption of your up.

and still you have not answered those questions.

here, I'll make it even simpler for you.
CAN YOU PROVE where I presumed Mayes Guilty or anything but INNOCENT?
CAN YOU PROVE where did I say Mayes was wrong in his actions?

If you can the PLEASE DO.