Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MechAg94 on December 15, 2016, 04:23:16 PM
-
I saw this on another site and thought y'all would be interested in seeing this also.
http://www.kristv.com/story/34045158/man-accused-of-shooting-ccpd-officers-found-not-guilty
CORPUS CHRISTI -
A Nueces County jury has delivered a not guilty verdict in a case where a man accused of shooting three CCPD SWAT officers.
Ray Rosas was found to be not guilty in a shooting that happened February 19th, 2015. Police were serving a warrant at his home on Churchill Drive when they say he opened fire and shot three officers.
http://www.caller.com/story/news/crime/2016/12/13/man-acquitted-officer-involved-shooting/95396862/
Jurors explain why.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/12/15/the-inexplicable-prosecution-and-vindication-of-ray-rosas/?utm_term=.b81464e48d48
It appears to be a simple case of a homeowner firing on police as they attempt a no-knock raid. No one was killed, but a few police were injured. The suspect who was a nephew living there was not present at the time of the raid.
-
Wow, the jury's post-acquittal commentary sure delivered a swift kick to the prosecution's and CCPD's jimmy. They hit most of the notes:
1. Differing treatment for regular citizens vs LEOs for the same action.
2. LEOs not doing their homework and ensuring the guy they want to arrest is actually in the residence.
3. Brazen testilying by some LEOs.
4. LEO flash bang distraction device worked as intended and defendant was distracted enough he didn't know it was LEOs tearing through his home.
-
Sadly, justice has not been served.
-
Sadly, justice has not been served.
True -- no police officers were prosecuted for the fuster cluck.
The bad news is that he was ever charged in the first place. And that police departments across the country continue to put themselves and the public at risk by conducting such volatile, high-stakes raids not just on people suspected of nonviolent, consensual crimes but also on people like Rosas, who aren’t even suspected of such crimes but merely happen to be related or connected to someone who is.
I've been saying for years that no knock, "dynamic entry" warrants should be totally outlawed. Same with the so-called "knock and enter" warrants, which is when the cops stand outside the door, tap a couple of times, whisper "POLICE," wait 9.73 seconds, and THEN smash down the door.
The state’s case against Rosas was weak. The cops did no surveillance on the house before the raid. They didn’t verify that Rosas’s nephew was in the home at the time of the raid. They subjected not only Rosas to the violent tactics but also his elderly, disabled mother, who could also have been injured or killed in the gunfire. The officers gave conflicting testimony about his demeanor after the raid. Some said he was uncooperative and profane (both of which would have been perfectly understandable, given the circumstances). Others said he was cooperative and apologetic. Before deliberations, the judge in the case instructed jurors to factor in the fact that the state had failed to produce some critical evidence and that they should consider that evidence unfavorable to the state. Prosecutors eventually dropped the attempted capital murder charges but pressed on with the multiple charges of aggravated assault.
Business as usual. This is why/how there are no knock, dynamic entry warrants being served at incorrect addresses, or at correct addresses except that the subject of the warrant moved out MONTHS before, yada, yada.
The CATO institute tracks this kind of stuff. It's pretty scary, actually.
A number of the comments fault the police higher-ups, and I agree with that. But there's another group that also bears a lot of culpability -- the judges who sign these warrants. They should be FORCED to read every single report of a SWAT "warrant service" in complete, agonizing, excruciating detail before they are ever allowed to consider signing one of these warrants. Better yet, the legislatures should just make all such raids illegal. They endanger the police, they endanger innocent people, and they endanger people who may live in proximity to a house being raided.
-
A number of the comments fault the police higher-ups, and I agree with that. But there's another group that also bears a lot of culpability -- the judges who sign these warrants. They should be FORCED to read every single report of a SWAT "warrant service" in complete, agonizing, excruciating detail before they are ever allowed to consider signing one of these warrants. Better yet, the legislatures should just make all such raids illegal. They endanger the police, they endanger innocent people, and they endanger people who may live in proximity to a house being raided.
A number of police departments have ended the practice of no-knock warrants and raids outside of things like hostage situations.
The police chiefs and sheriffs generally say that they don't really miss them. If a suspected drug house has enough drugs to be worth raiding(as opposed to raiding a home, finding half a blunt, and calling it good), they aren't going to be able to get rid of them in an hour, much less a few minutes or the seconds that are used to sell no-knocks.
Instead, they get a little strategic. What I've heard:
1. Tapping the sewer line out of the house. Drugs come out of that, those in the house not only get drug charges, but attempted destruction of evidence charges...
2. Actually staking out the house. Find out how many are in it, as well as if it's really a drug house.
3. Pick people up after they've left, until the place is suitably empty. Especially wait for the kids to be out.
-
Where have they ever tapped a sewer line?
I can flush 50 g's worth of dope in 30 seconds. So long as it's not weed
And there are evidentiary concerns your hypothesis leaves unaddressed
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
From reading the linked story, I think what really seems to have killed the prosecution's case is charging the victim with the shooting of the cop who was actually shot by another officer - in effect saying "We want to punish YOU because OUR trigger happy cop is an incompetent moron."
-
Where have they ever tapped a sewer line?
I can flush 50 g's worth of dope in 30 seconds. So long as it's not weed
And there are evidentiary concerns your hypothesis leaves unaddressed
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
The biggest question to me is if the potential for destroyed evidence is worth the risk of injury or death to police officers and the people in the location. However, I agree with the other idea that there are other ways to take control of the location with less risk.
-
Good. While I don't condone shooting cops, do stupid crap win a prize.
The case law is worth it alone.
-
Good. While I don't condone shooting cops, do stupid crap win a prize.
The case law is worth it alone.
Well, he stopped shooting once he realized they were cops. As far as the homeowner was concerned, he was shooting a bunch of home invaders. He should never have been charged.
-
Where have they ever tapped a sewer line?
I can flush 50 g's worth of dope in 30 seconds. So long as it's not weed
And there are evidentiary concerns your hypothesis leaves unaddressed
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
1. It was in a news story a while back. Probably a semi-unique opportunity on their part.
2. Is even $50k worth of dope worth the risks of a high shock value SWAT raid?
3. It's not my hypothesis. It's the statements from police departments where they've ended the practice of going after presumed drug houses with no-knock warrants.
Personally, I think that the police should explicitly be told that, while they may still be able to do no-knock raids, that since such raids are so high-speed and deliberately disruptive to the senses of the occupants, that the occupants will not be considered "competent" during the raid because it's so high speed that they can't make informed decisions. Ergo, They get shot, by the occupants or OTHER police, which happens about as often(because SWAT raids are fast and often chaotic), that it's on their own heads. No murder charges.
I remember in one case that the police and prosecutor tried to press murder charges on a home owner who was completely unarmed because one SWAT officer shot and killed another SWAT officer. In his case they found a minor amount of drugs.
-
. . . I remember in one case that the police and prosecutor tried to press murder charges on a home owner who was completely unarmed because one SWAT officer shot and killed another SWAT officer. In his case they found a minor amount of drugs.
I remember a case where police and prosecutor tried to press murder charges on an escaped prisoner because a police officer responding to the call ran his vehicle off the road and fatally crashed his squad car . . . some 40 miles away from the scene.
Were I a juror and heard a DA trying to press something this asinine . . . I'd have a very strong inclination to dismiss EVERYTHING the prosecution presented, since their credibility would be zero.
I suspect this sort of thing was at play in the current case being discussed here.
-
Those kinda charges are pretty routine.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Those kinda charges are pretty routine.
Too true -- and that's a problem that needs to be dealt with.
This wasn't even a case of jury nullification. Jury nullification applies when the defendant is legally guilty of the charges but the jury refuses to convict. This was a jury doing what a jury is supposed to do -- telling the prosecutor and the cops they had no case. Big thumbs up for the jury.
-
- They threw in a flashbang before identifying themselves. Even if they did 'announce' themselves afterwards, it should count as a no-knock.
- Unshockingly, no video from a body camera or the SWAT vehicle
- No pre-raid survey
- Didn’t make sure the person the warrant named was in the house before the raid
Honestly, I'm generally leery of no-knock warrants. You can't blame someone for shooting random unidentified strangers breaking into their house. There theoretically is a higher bar for no-knock warrants, but it should be better codified with actual sanctions if said bar is not met. Because it regularly is not.
-
You can't blame someone for shooting random unidentified strangers breaking into their house.
Correct.
And armed men screaming "POLICE" or "WARRANT" as they break in prior to presenting a warrant or allowing the homeowner to view their credentials does NOT constitute identification in my book.
-
The biggest question to me is if the potential for destroyed evidence is worth the risk of injury or death to police officers and the people in the location. However, I agree with the other idea that there are other ways to take control of the location with less risk.
Edward will always side with the police, it's not worth it.
-
I can flush 50 g's worth of dope in 30 seconds.
Using standard inflated police "street values," that's what, two Norco and an old contact lens?
-
A number of police departments have ended the practice of no-knock warrants and raids outside of things like hostage situations.
That.
I can't think of a situation other than a hostage or mass shooter situation where cutting utilities and waiting a day or two for them to come out isn't a better and safer strategy for everyone involved.
-
That.
I can't think of a situation other than a hostage or mass shooter situation where cutting utilities and waiting a day or two for them to come out isn't a better and safer strategy for everyone involved.
Less opportunity to play with their neat toys . . .
(https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mecd4d452917c57c573d3ac3ed35e2a43o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=264&h=177)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gbpolice.org%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2Fdillo.jpg&hash=e4659a7cf7fa4e58af21472283bcec0e248f9c25)
-
Less opportunity to play with their neat toys . . .
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gbpolice.org%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2Fdillo.jpg&hash=e4659a7cf7fa4e58af21472283bcec0e248f9c25)
I didn't think SWAT used the "Armadillo". It's for patrolling high-crime areas, according to Green Bay PD (no idea how well it works)
-
- They threw in a flashbang before identifying themselves. Even if they did 'announce' themselves afterwards, it should count as a no-knock.
- Unshockingly, no video from a body camera or the SWAT vehicle
- No pre-raid survey
- Didn’t make sure the person the warrant named was in the house before the raid
Honestly, I'm generally leery of no-knock warrants. You can't blame someone for shooting random unidentified strangers breaking into their house. There theoretically is a higher bar for no-knock warrants, but it should be better codified with actual sanctions if said bar is not met. Because it regularly is not.
It sounds like the lack of video is part of what pissed off the judge too. If that video was supposed to be available and wasn't, that should warrant some pretty serious penalties on the part of the prosecution and police. IMO, that should be illegal since it is essentially destruction of evidence. The judge or the victim should be pressing charges against the police and prosecutors.
-
Question for the Legal Eagles: Since the judge mentioned all these things the prosecution failed to produce, shouldn't that be grounds for dismissal of the case or summary judgement acquittal? The video alone should mean the judge throws it out IMO.
-
It sounds like the lack of video is part of what pissed off the judge too. If that video was supposed to be available and wasn't, that should warrant some pretty serious penalties on the part of the prosecution and police. IMO, that should be illegal since it is essentially destruction of evidence. The judge or the victim should be pressing charges against the police and prosecutors.
I'm sure it was an 'equipment malfunction'-funny how that happens when premeditated crimes are committed.
-
Question for the Legal Eagles: Since the judge mentioned all these things the prosecution failed to produce, shouldn't that be grounds for dismissal of the case or summary judgement acquittal? The video alone should mean the judge throws it out IMO.
IANAL, but if the judge throws out the case the prosecutor can try again with the ducks in a row this time; it's not double jeopardy. Let a defective case goto a jury and have them acquit, and it's over.
-
Again, for the Legal Beagles.
Now that the criminal trial is over, can he go after the CCPD for a 1983 civil rights violation?
-
IANAL, but if the judge throws out the case the prosecutor can try again with the ducks in a row this time; it's not double jeopardy. Let a defective case goto a jury and have them acquit, and it's over.
Depends on how judge dismissed . With prejudice means it's over
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
Depends on how judge dismissed . With prejudice means it's over
If a judge dismisses a case with prejudice, can't the prosecutor appeal that decision?
-
If a judge dismisses a case with prejudice, can't the prosecutor appeal that decision?
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that the prosecution can't appeal when dismissed with prejudice (as I'm sure this case was). The whole Double Jeopardy thing and all. Otherwise the prosecution can simply appeal until the get the verdict they want, making the process the punishment.
-
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that the prosecution can't appeal when dismissed with prejudice (as I'm sure this case was). The whole Double Jeopardy thing and all. Otherwise the prosecution can simply appeal until the get the verdict they want, making the process the punishment.
This case went to the jury and they came back with not guilty. Its over for this defendant.
Who can now sue the department for various reasons, but is probably too broke. If he's lucky he'll be paid for his time in jail.