Man kills police officer during no knock search warrant, believing it was a home intrusion

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dumb ass police.

The whole "felon" issue here is completely out of context. He was convicted in the 90's and HAD served his time. He spent his five years post completion of his sentence and the state of TEXAS restored his RIGHT to own guns. So in the eyes of the law at a state level AND federal level, Magee had done NOTHING illegal in regards to the guns.

As I posted in an earlier comment, I stated I suspected that the deceased deputy had some kind of personal ties to Magee. I've continued my research here, the deputy had close ties to Magee's family. Things got extremely interestingbfrom there. In the local communities, nothing is being said about the warrant stating they were looking for "other drugs" or illegal weapons. The local medias are ALSO not saying anything about how the warrant was a no-knock warrant. When I posted some of the information from the initial news posting, my comment was removed and comments were closed.
Fortunately, just as I predicted, Magee has been transported to a neighboring county and should expect to be indicted in the next 90 days. Something is TERRIBLY WRONG here.
A cop is shot and killed with 7 more cops behind him, yet the one who shot the cop walked out of the house without a scratch.... the other officers KNEW before they even walked on the property that they were screwing up! We ALL know that at the very LEAST you get the snot beat out of you for killing a cop right in front of other cops unless they know without a doubt they had no business doing what they were doing in the first place. The statement of the Texas Ranger that supported Magees self defense claim are seemingly being whitewashed from the reports as well.
And still, to this date, he is not being charged with felony gun possession charges. Why? Because he had regained his rights to defend himself from a situation just like what happened.
This case is opening a humongous can of worms in the 2nd amendment argument, I assure you this.
Will the courts decide that once you've fallen into the category of "felon", will they EVER be allowed to regain their place in society with the rest of America? Once labeled as a "felon", does that mean one can never expect to feel secure in their own home? How would things have turned out had Magee NOT shot the Deputy? How would things have turned out if Magee didn't open fire, but instead his pregnant girlfriend sustained a fatal injury from the deputy's gun... "I'm SOOO sorry I shot her, It was dark inside, I noticed movement and I thought it was Magee going for one of the stolen guns I claimed I had information he had in his posession...". When things like this happen (and they do), the report gets swept under the carpet. Who in this country makes much of a fuss over, or really even CARES when a pothead gets shot? Just another justified execution of a criminal in the courts eyes.
"I thought I saw a gun!" The most common excuse in the book, except in this case Magee got HIM before HE got capped. Had Magee been killed in this, it wouldn't had drawn any attention.
I for,lay believe this case is a prime example of how once one has completed their sentence for their nonviolent crimes, their record should reflect this in the manner they are no longer called "felon".
I'm pretty sure that Magee has been facing the same problem the majority of us who have already paid for their crimes. With a former conviction, no matter how hard you try to reintegrate into society, you will NEVER find a good job, never be treated as an equal by the rest of society. If you ever get a felony conviction, you'd BETTER get a gun to defend yourself becouse no one, not even the police, will defend you or stand up for your rights.

If the police were smart they would try to buy him off. Enough money can bring forgiveness pretty quickly. I know that sounds cold but it is true a lot of the time.

www.burlesonstar.net...



Here is the report as it stands now, in the town it occurred.

The Rangers statement? Gone.
The specifics that the warrant was for a no-knock forced entry? Suspiciously absent.....
They also convienently leave out the fact that they were looking for stolen guns as well.....
Already the media is twisting and leaving out facts to demonize their local "cop killer"
The county prosecutor, when interviewed with Magees attorney on the subject of if the Sheriffs announced themselves before entering the residence, responded that she did not know the details, but to keep in mind information of the "no-knock" detail is coming from Magee... yet the warrant its self was left inside the house after the raid. With this in mind, I have no doubt Magee's attorney has seen the warrant himself and would not continue Magees defense of not being made aware it was Sheriffs busting in his residence if that was not the case. The prosecutor is even covering her tracks.
May I use an overused quote from our country's past?

Houston, we have a problem.....

I think the bottom line is - you break into someones home your asking for it. It goes back to that question of legal versus right. You can have all the legal means to execute such a maneuver but is it right.

How was that warrant obtained, was that the judge that thinks NSA wiretapping is Orwellian or was it the judge that said it was completely legal. A judge, his knowledge of the law makes the difference between a dead police officer and one home with his family right now.

If you don't have a hostage/imminent threat to human life situation do not break into a persons home.

reply to post by klikmaus


did I miss that in the post..

But that is what I was thinking.. He got his rights restored..

Now the cops did word it in the press release of a felon... who had guns..


Jury pool pollution--
nope they know they screwed up
standard tactic



As for the indiana poster..

Texas Castle law does not apply to police officers so its iffy
but they have to ID themselves so...

If it had not been a no knock then they might have had him

I know I check.. it Does not cover CPS agent..
dont ask.. It was a fun factoid to inform them in a friends case.. (decided they wanted o check my house..)



What I have wondered is if your house was protected guerrilla warfare style how they would respond

Snake Pits
computerized Guns
those spring loaded things with spikes
Bouncing betties..

I am adding it in a story...

signalfire

I'm glad the guy has a high powered defense attorney. Texas, you're insane. Some idiot cop is dead because of your idiot drug laws; way to go.

Precisely. Idiot cop is dead. The thought process boggles the mind -

1) Guy has a gun.

2) Guy is not afraid to use said gun.

3) Guy with gun who isn't afraid to use it has a 5 month pregnant girlfriend to defend, not to mention defending himself.

*** QUANTUM LEAP OF ILLOGIC ***

4) It would be a good idea to kick prepared and motivated guy's door in at dawn, unannounced, like any common home invasion artist.

Sounds like a candidate for the Darwin Award to me.

Yes, the press release states "felon", the terms and legalities are a sure headache.
Five years from the release date of supervision/parole/etc....
Texas automatically restores a convicted felon's gun rights (but only in the case the felony was not gun related or of domestic violence
Federal law stipulates that individual states are allowed to reinstate a convicted felons constitutional rights removed by a felony conviction when such priveages are allowed by that states constitution.
The manner in which TEXAS goes about this is the right to OWN and POSSESS a firearm is restricted to one's residence. So.....
In his home, Magee was breaking no state or federal law by being in possession of his guns.
I myself have a nonviolent felony charge here in Texas from, shoot, fourteen? years ago. I was released from commumity supervision in 2006. Things being the way they are, and considering the direction the country is going.... I have studied how the state and federal laws worked together in the instance of gun rights for a god long time, and continue watching the changes in legislation. For instance, now air rifles are now basically considered a firearm. Yup..... pappy's old Red Rider is now no different than an AR-15. ("You're gonna shot your EYE OUT!"). And given this, you're not allowed to discharge your air rifle, even outside the city limits, unless you're on 10 acres or more. Being a felon legally possessing (owning) a firearm, you are not allowed to go to a shooting range to familiarise yourself with your firearm. So unless you happen to live on acreage outside the city limits, you basically never even get to know if your gun actually WORKS, or HOW it works, until it's too late. As for hunting.... I haven't really looked into if a felon can get a license for game. I DO know my .22 rimfire revolver isn't legal for any game hunting anyways.... so it hasn't been an issue. Thankfully I live on 15 acres outside of any municipality, so I HAVE had the opportunity to refine my aim. One may think a .22 isn't much better than a pop gun, but I assure you a hollow point between the eyes at short range is just as lethal as a .38, and there is a large pile of skunk and possum carcasses in the back of my pasture that attest to the accuracy of my aim

ripcontrol
reply to post by klikmaus

 

did I miss that in the post..

But that is what I was thinking.. He got his rights restored..

Now the cops did word it in the press release of a felon... who had guns..

...is if your house was protected guerrilla warfare style how they would respond

Snake Pits
computerized Guns
those spring loaded things with spikes
Bouncing betties..

I am adding it in a story...

how about a sprinkler system and wire up a generator.

water and electricity will fry anything.

ripcontrol

What I have wondered is if your house was protected guerrilla warfare style how they would respond

Snake Pits
computerized Guns
those spring loaded things with spikes
Bouncing betties..

I am adding it in a story...

Note that such TTPs are illegal in nearly any jurisdiction you can go to. They are collectively called "spring traps" (legal term) or "booby traps" (common term), regardless of the mechanism involved.

Also note that just because they are frowned upon by the law, that dos not mean they are never used. There are folks in this world very adept and inventive at setting up such things. If you wander around on their place, you'd better belong there - because if you belong there, you'll know where not to step, since they will have explained that to you.

Otherwise, unpleasantness ensues.

I used to know a fine young man who learned all about such things. He was rather fond of setting up "Malay whips" on the approaches to his place, but leaving the spikes off of them. They were arranged such that the trip wire was AHEAD of the whip, so you tripped it after you passed it, and it would whip around and spank you on the ass. It gave you an auto-pilot switching with a little note on the switch that said "don't come any further - last warning"

It was surprisingly effective at preserving his peace, and keeping his calm from being disturbed.

humm..

no need for me to respond but...

I see a potential market here... Automated defense systems would be very effective


as for the criminal side.. it would by suspects time to get away...
Intersting..

Yes they are illegal.. I do not see why.. it would prevent a whole lot of crap

reply to post by seabag

Not always…what if he leaves the residence armed? I’d rather catch him in the middle of a dream and have him in custody before he knows what’s going on.

What if? Do you have any evidence to suggest that he would more than likely leave the residence armed and be a threat? If he did, why would you suggest taking the approach to entering in the unknown instead of waiting for him to be exposed?

SURE! I bet there’s NO CHANCE he’ll run, right?

Well, of course there is a chance. There is also a chance you can get shot performing no knock entries, so take your pick. PROPER protocols DECREASE chances of failures. Its more proper to have a visual on your target instead of blindly entering their territory.

That sounds good but it’s not you walking peacefully through that door not knowing the intentions of the man behind it. Talk is cheap…

Ummm... I did say, "A small amount of questioning could determine if anyone else is in the home". The questioning is aimed at the subject after he's left the residence. So, while your questioning HIM, you can be sure HE is not located in the home anymore.

I look at it this way…if you’re a convicted felon you’d better expect some extra scrutiny. When you’re a convicted felon with a firearm and drugs you’d better expect to get your door kicked in. That’s just common sense really.

Extra scrutiny, sure. Extra scrutiny should also be aimed at the procedures for making arrests. Some people are kind of scrutinizing the no knock entry approach to warrant serving, a critical observation of it, if you will. I think we have observed a fault of no knocks, you can die from doing them. Not to mention the negative psychological effects that ripple through all of the affected people from a "no-knock" culture. So, while I agree that one may use some extra scrutiny with a felon, it doesn't mean that one should ignore the forethoughts of their actions as well.

That's what cops do these days. I hate to see people die and killing someone is never the answer but...when you play with fire...and act like your a special forces team in a war zone...you're going to take some casualties. Live by the sword and die by the sword.

reply to post by seabag


What I get from your post is that you feel:

A: A legal search warrant quashes the 4th amendment.
B: Since it was "legal" The police throw out all common sense and jump into the line of fire.

It is also legal to jump from high places if you aren't trying to kill yourself, but would you do this?

Your stance on this case is very troubling as far as freedom and liberty are concerned.. (as long as it is legal, you are fine with it).. I recommend thinking for yourself too. Not parroting the usual parrot syndrome false beliefs of the MSM and political pundits.

reply to post by FirePiston


Where I live there happens to be quite a lot of felons who have had their firearms rights restored by a judge. Anyone who isn't a violent felon is pretty much fair game for having their rights restored.

I suppose that the percentage of felon-gunowners is extremely low. However, I am curious if something like this has ever happened to a felon who had their rights restored. The folks I know still have to put their crimes on job applications but have carry licenses.

reply to post by FirePiston


I read the story and didn't see anything about him being a felon. Did I miss it or did you get that from another source? Just wondering if I'm getting old and missing things I read??

In Texas, felons are allowed to have guns in their homes 5 years after the completion of their sentence, so even if he is a previously convicted felon, that is not necessarily a prohibition for the possession of a gun, even under federal law.

I know, some will disagree with me about the federal "922" laws.

reply to post by WWJFKD

I think the bottom line is - you break into someones home your asking for it. It goes back to that question of legal versus right. You can have all the legal means to execute such a maneuver but is it right.

So a search warrant signed by a judge doesn’t constitute a legal entry and search?

If you don't have a hostage/imminent threat to human life situation do not break into a persons home.

You’re just moving the goal post.

Why do you get to arbitrarily set the standards for what is or is not an acceptable reason for entering someone’s home? What makes your standards more appropriate than this judge?

reply to post by alienreality

What I get from your post is that you feel:

A: A legal search warrant quashes the 4th amendment.

Obtaining a search warrant is the way they abide by the 4th amendment!!!! What more do you want?

B: Since it was "legal" The police throw out all common sense and jump into the line of fire.

To me, the common sense way to serve a warrant is to fly in quickly with the element of surprise; that’s what usually keeps people safe.

It is also legal to jump from high places if you aren't trying to kill yourself, but would you do this?

I don’t even know what that means……

Your stance on this case is very troubling as far as freedom and liberty are concerned.. (as long as it is legal, you are fine with it).

Uhm…yes, if something is legal then I usually don’t have a problem with it. There was no illegal search or seizure in this case.

I recommend thinking for yourself too. Not parroting the usual parrot syndrome false beliefs of the MSM and political pundits.

Me? Parroting the MSM?? Give me a break, professor.

Ridiculous…check my thread history.

reply to post by Rychwebo

What if? Do you have any evidence to suggest that he would more than likely leave the residence armed and be a threat? If he did, why would you suggest taking the approach to entering in the unknown instead of waiting for him to be exposed?

Why should the cops wait until the guy leaves? It is my understanding they had a warrant to search his residence . How will they accomplish that if they don’t make entry into his residence?

Well, of course there is a chance. There is also a chance you can get shot performing no knock entries, so take your pick. PROPER protocols DECREASE chances of failures. Its more proper to have a visual on your target instead of blindly entering their territory.

What makes you think they didn’t follow proper protocol? Sometimes you have to ‘go in and get’em’.

It’s funny how many people on ATS instantly find fault in all police actions…almost like they are programmed (or brainwashed) to think LE = EVIL.

reply to post by seabag

Why should the cops wait until the guy leaves?

To avoid getting shot by surprise.

It is my understanding they had a warrant to search his residence

We share this understanding.

How will they accomplish that if they don’t make entry into his residence?

They can easily make entry, go back and read how I described this smooth procedure.

What makes you think they didn’t follow proper protocol? Sometimes you have to ‘go in and get’em’.

What, to you, describes this subject as being the kinda guy where you can positively affirm that 'going in and getting him' is less risky than waiting for him to exit the premises?

It’s funny how many people on ATS instantly find fault in all police actions…almost like they are programmed (or brainwashed) to think LE = EVIL.

Its funny you missed when I said;

Btw, I'm not anti police, I'm anti ignorant, and its an ignorant thing to put yourself in unnecessary danger, unless its for fun.

I stand by that statement, despite you trying to read into and skew my thoughts. I'm still anti ignorant, which means I'm anti 'go in and get 'em', because it seems to be killing off my public servants.