Are Blacks not allowed to defend themselves?

mulp · #1 (**permalink**) 05-31-2008, 07:01 PM

I just ran across a mention of this looking for info on Reason.org.

Reason Magazine - The Case of Cory Maye

Quote:

The Case of Cory Maye

A cop is dead, an innocent man may be on death row, and drug warriors keep knocking down doors.

Radley Balko | October 2006

Cory Maye had settled into a chair in front of the television and was drifting off to sleep. It was around 9 p.m. on the day after Christmas, 2001, and the 21-year-old father had put his 18-month-old daughter, Tacorriana, to bed an hour earlier. Her mother—Chenteal Longino, Maye’s girlfriend—had left for her job on the night shift at the Marshall Durbin chicken plant in Hattiesburg, more than an hour away. The three shared half of a small, bright yellow duplex on Mary Street in Prentiss, Mississippi, a depressed town of 1,000 people in Jefferson Davis County, about halfway between Jackson and the Gulf Coast.

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.

Maye says the next thing he remembers is hearing someone scream, “Police! Police! You just shot an officer!” He then dropped his gun, slid it away from his body, and surrendered.

One of the three bullets had found its way around Officer Ron Jones’ bulletproof vest, pierced his abdomen, and ripped through several vital organs. Jones would die of massive internal bleeding on the way to the hospital.
:
Maye insists he didn’t hear the officers announce they were police until after he’d fired his gun. Asked by his lawyer at the trial what he’d have done if he’d known the intruders were police, he replied, “I would have let them in.”

A jury rejected this account of mistaken self-defense and sentenced Maye to death for the murder of Ron Jones. But the evidence strongly suggests Maye was telling the truth. His conviction has provoked outrage not only among left-liberals concerned about racially charged Southern justice—Maye is black and Jones was white—but among conservative supporters of the right to keep and bear arms.

Beyond the issues of race and guns, beyond even the question of Cory Maye’s guilt or innocence, the death of Ron Jones illustrates the dangers of an increasingly literal war on drugs featuring unnecessarily aggressive, militaristic tactics that regularly lead to tragedies for police officers and civilians alike. At least 40 innocent people have been killed in paramilitary-style drug raids since the early 1980s, as have at least 15 police officers. And there are at least 150 cases of “wrong door” raids, in which SWAT teams or similarly aggressive police units have raided the wrong home.
:

Beyond the point that Reason makes about the costs to innocent people and tax payers for the "war on drugs", this is yet another example of blacks being convicted for defending themselves with guns if they wound or kill a white. On the other hand, when whites wound or kill a black in similar situations, it seems they aren't prosecuted.

Of course, when the police are involved, the following assessment applies to more than drug raids, but also confrontations between police on the streets:

Quote:

There are dozens more examples. And a botched raid needn’t end in death to do harm. It’s hard to get a firm grip on just how often it happens—police tend to be reluctant to track their mistakes, and victims can be squeamish about coming forward—but a 20-year review of press accounts, court cases, and Kraska’s research suggests that each year there are at least dozens, perhaps hundreds, of “wrong door” raids. And even when everything goes right, it’s overkill to use what is essentially an urban warfare unit to apprehend a nonviolent drug suspect.

Criminal charges against police officers who accidentally kill innocent people in these raids are rare. Prosecutors almost always determine that the violent, confrontational nature of the raids and the split-second decisions made while conducting them demand that police be given a great deal of discretion. Yet it’s the policy of using volatile forced-entry raids to serve routine drug warrants that creates those circumstances in the first place.

Worse, prosecutors are much less inclined to take circumstances into account when it comes to pressing charges against civilians who make similar mistakes. When civilians who are innocent or who have no history of violence defend their homes during a mistaken raid, they have about a one in two chance of facing criminal charges if a policeman is killed or injured. When convicted, they’ve received sentences ranging from probation to life in prison to, in Maye’s case, the death penalty.

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.

The article summaries the use of SWAT teams, their rise to popularity, especially as part of the Reagan Revolution, and the costs to individuals and society.

I think if upper middle class white folk experienced the kinds of injustice from the double standards present in this and many other cases, the public would have long ago been outraged and things changed.

Owning a gun might offer some possibility of protection, but in cases where you might expect the gun to protect you, you might find the using the gun to protect yourself makes you the criminal, especially if you are black.

mulp · #2 (**permalink**) 05-31-2008, 07:26 PM

Reading more by the CATO researcher, author, and advocate for Maye, here:
The Agitator » Cory Maye

Quote:

:
Thank this war. The goddamned drug war. It is so incredibly senseless and stupid. And it’ll continue to claim and ruin lives, because too few politicians have the backbone to stand up and say after 30 years, $500 billion, a horrifyingly high prison population, and countless dead innocents, cops, kids, nonviolent offenders, decimated neighborhoods, wasted lives, corrupted cops, and eviscerations of the core freedoms this country was allegedly founded upon, the shit isn’t working. It’ll never work. It never has. It’s a testament to the facade of truth that is politics that no leaders from the two majors parties have in thirty years been able to say this. That maybe, just maybe, we’re doing it wrong. Maybe, just maybe, kicking down doors in the middle of the night and storming in with guns in order to stop people from getting high….isn’t such a good idea. Maybe, just maybe, the idea getting tips from racist, illiterate, drug-addicted informants about which doors, if you kick them down, will lead to drugs? Well maybe that isn’t such a sound policy, either. We can’t even get one of the leading candidates for president to say that. The safe position is always to advocate for more money, more government power, more militarism—and less freedom, less common sense, and less worry about collateral damage. Sensibility, honesty, or compassion? Too risky.

Incidentally, the whole no-knock, door-kicking, middle-of-the-night-storming stuff wasn’t the result of trial-and-error police tactics. It wasn’t suggested to policymakers by academic criminologists with years of experience studying best practice police tactics, either. It wasn’t even something police were particularly interested in at the time. If you read the book Smoke and Mirrors, journalist Dan Baum’s terrific history of the drug war, the sad fact of the matter is, the “no-knock raid” was a concept dreamed up in the late 1960s by political strategists working for the Nixon campaign.

That’s right. This map comes courtesy of a bunch of political hacks who knew very little about actual police procedures or criminal justice. But they did know a little something about winning elections. The no-knock raid was one of several get-tough-on-crime policies they thought would win over white suburban voters. They wanted to implement it in Washington D.C., the one urban area over which Congress had the power to directly implement criminal justice policy. What tougher crime policy could there be than to let narcotics cops bust down the doors of suspected drug users and distributors? These were voters who’d mostly only seen D.C. on TV, but they were voters Nixonians (correctly) anticipated were fed up with seeing evening news reports of black people rioting in the streets, and hippies smoking dope on the National Mall.

The plan worked. Nixon won, and his crime platform and appeal to the “silent majority” had a lot to do with it. By 1972, he’d initiated the modern “war on drugs.” Wars of course mean combat. And so door-busting narcotics raids took off 1970s, then exploded in the 1980s with the rise of SWAT teams.

I’m not a huge fan of conservative political theorist Richard Weaver. But he was certainly right about one thing: Ideas have consequences. The door-bashing drug raid—an untested, unstudied, get-tough-on-crime political tactic dreamed up not by guys in badges but by party animals in tailored suits—has had some very real consequences. One of those consequences can be seen in the memorial outside the Prentiss, Mississippi city hall, which marks the too-early death of good cop. T’a'Corianna Longino and Cory Maye, Jr. are also consequences of that idea dreamed up three decades before they were born. Just two more black kids who, if the state of Mississippi has its way, will spend the rest of their lives without a father. In this case, that’s despite the fact that they have a father who loves them, and desperately wants to be a part of their lives.
:

So, if you get killed by police guns because you don't have a gun to defend yourself, but get sentenced to death if you are black defending yourself, what good is the second amendment if you are black.

(If you think I'm wrong, provide at least one example of an innocent white man defending himself with a gun being convicted of murder, with bonus for a no-knock late night police break down the door police raid.)

wow · #3 (**permalink**) 06-03-2008, 06:52 PM

This was the jury's decision. Justice has been served, end of story. Move on!

SaintMalaclypse · #4 (**permalink**) 06-06-2008, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

...this is yet another example of blacks being convicted for defending themselves with guns if they wound or kill a white. On the other hand, when whites wound or kill a black in similar situations, it seems they aren't prosecuted.

You were a juror, then, and heard ALL the details that convinced the rest of the jury? Or are you just making presumptions based on race...i.e. being racist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

I think if upper middle class white folk experienced the kinds of injustice from the double standards present in this and many other cases, the public would have long ago been outraged and things changed.

Oh, yeah. Because, in small little redneck towns, there's NO SUCH THING as corruption. Police, Judges, Prosecutors...they're all upstanding citizens. No white people ever have any trouble.

Again...you're making presumptions based on race. If black people have been abused by the law, then of course NO white person ever was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

Owning a gun might offer some possibility of protection, but in cases where you might expect the gun to protect you, you might find the using the gun to protect yourself makes you the criminal, especially if you are black.

*sigh*

How about "especially if you are carrying a gun"? I've been tossed to the ground for telling a cop up front I had a weapon in my trunk! He asked, I told, he went into combat mode. He didn't give a shit that I was middle-class whitey. Why do you think only black people get harassed by police? Policemen are essentially bullies who took a job where they get to carry a gun and tell people what to do. The kind of man who pursues that job is automatically suspect in my book. And bad cops are abusive to everyone, not just blacks.

You assume that middle-class whitey can't understand what it's like to be black. Why not ALSO assume that blacky can't imagine what it's like to be middle-class whitey? What makes the black brain so superior that they can easily understand every nuance of everybody else's lives, but everyone else is way too stupid to ever understand what it's like to black?

When you're dealing with the corruption of government, you're looking at usurpation of power and infringement of rights. There's no class, color, religion, or creed they won't trample. Get over yourself and quit assuming that greed and corruption give a flying fuck what color you are.

Incidentally, the cop that lost his mind over my rifle in the trunk...was black. You do realize there are black cops, black judges, black politicians, and they're just as corrupt as the white ones. How do they fit into your racist theory of white oppression?

Monger · #5 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wow

This was the jury's decision. Justice has been served, end of story. Move on!

Sorry, but the American Justice System is not finished yet....there are more steps.

First off, when someone is given a death sentence, they get an automatic appeal whether they want the appeal or not;

Second, there is also executive clemency reviews;

Third, Governor may stay the execution and open investigation into the matter;

Fourth, if new evidence surfaces that would in-fact have definitely had impact on the decision of one or more former Juror had that evidence become known to them, a new trial may be conducted.

These are some very basic things that I have outlined here, and they are by no means all of the sitiuation.

Some of you can sit there and holler that the jury has spoken, justice has been served and that it is time to move on....but you need to realize that when you holler for these things, you are very wrong. The American Justice System is not yet finished with this case. There is far more to do in accordance with American Law and the American Constitution.

Black or white.....they are not yet finished with this case.

wow · #6 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monger

Sorry, but the American Justice System is not finished yet....there are more steps.

First off, when someone is given a death sentence, they get an automatic appeal whether they want the appeal or not;

Second, there is also executive clemency reviews;

Third, Governor may stay the execution and open investigation into the matter;

Fourth, if new evidence surfaces that would in-fact have definitely had impact on the decision of one or more former Juror had that evidence become known to them, a new trial may be conducted.

These are some very basic things that I have outlined here, and they are by no means all of the sitiuation.

Some of you can sit there and holler that the jury has spoken, justice has been served and that it is time to move on....but you need to realize that when you holler for these things, you are very wrong. The American Justice System is not yet finished with this case. There is far more to do in accordance with American Law and the American Constitution.

Black or white.....they are not yet finished with this case.

This jury served justice and that's it for them.

I realize there will be years of appeals, reviews etc....

Of course, the news media is probably leaving out some evidence that makes this an air-tight case but it will cost million$ to deliver punishment.

Monger · #7 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 11:02 AM

Before I say anything else, I will tell you that I happen to be a gun collector, and I am very pro-gun, and I am very, very, very, pro-law enforcement. I will always remember that the law enforcement community is made of up blue-collar citizen workers, and that the juries are made up of blue collar citizen workers.

Now, I think there are some other things to consider in this case:

There are many things that we dont know about this particular case, because the investigation and the entire line of evidence has not been made available to us. We dont have enough information in here to reasonably decide guilt or innocence. He may be a guilty cop killer, or he may be a man protecting his home and his child from what he believed to be a criminal attack.

These are some common habits and tactics employed by many police units in conducting forcible entry to execute a search warrant or a felony arrest warrant:

1. If you are after a particular suspect, you normally do your research on the suspect and the location that he is concealed in. The FIRST AND FOREMOST consideration is to determine whether or not their are children inside of the location. If that is so, then an armed raid is usually not considered to be an option. A suspect can be contacted, accosted, and arrested on a surveillance when the suspect leaves that location to walk or drive somewhere....such as to go to work, or to the store, or to travel to an associates residence. Also the child or children may leave the location with the mother leaving the suspect in the house alone to easily deal with. This particular suspect was in a duplex house, in a town of 1000 people. In a town that small, information abounds. Finding out whether or not there are kids in the house is too easy to do.

2. Most police units will run a recording device to at the very least, capture the audio on everything that is done and said during a forced entry style "raid" on any dwelling or business. The audio recording will reflect whether or not anyone identified themselves as police when they hit that house. It would be unusual not to have an audio recording at the very least in the form of a small vest pocket recording device on at least one of the officers. WHERE IS THE RECORDING AND WHAT WAS SAID?

3. If the police in this case admit that they announced they were the police and the suspect had just shot an officer, that should raise many questions here. It would not be usual or necessary to make such an announcement after the gun was fired if the announcement of the arrival of police into the interior of the residence had been made. All of the entry team would have been screaming "police" over and over as they went into the house. If they were working with a court-ordered "no-knock" provision written into their warrant - meaning that when on the outside of the residence they can avoid announcing their arrival for officer safety because they have reason to believe that a vital element of surprise will be lost in dealing with a suspect they have reason to believe will fire on them, it would not be much of a factor in this case, because once you smash in the door and cross the threshold, your no-knock provision is finished and you have to begin at that point to announce your arrival into the dwelling.

4. An armed raid on a tiny duplex in which there is an infant is something that is just unusual and not normally done. It is too risky, and it endangers the child. It is unlawful to endanger a child....that is a felony in most states....and clearly there are other options.

5. Thus jury's decision is easy to manipulate by any prosecutor, and by any defense attorney. That is WHY the jury does not get the final decision in these cases. The jury merely reaches AN INITIAL CONCLUSION that must be dealt with later on by the court system. The jury never has the final word in a capitol case, and in a variety of other cases. The jurors are not educated in police tactics. The jurors are not educated in the laws. The jurors are "fed" and must "decide" on what they are fed. The jury is not entitled to full disclosure under our laws. The jury is only entitled to what the judge will allow them to hear.

THERE ARE SOME VERY UNUSUAL ASPECTS TO THIS CASE, AND THAT IS APPARENT IN THE SCANTY INFORMATION WE HAVE HERE. THE UNUSUAL ASPECTS BY NO MEANS WOULD AUTOMATICALLY EXONERATE OR ABSOLVE THE SUSPECT OF ANY GUILT, BUT THEY COULD ALSO MEAN THE SUSPECT MAY NOT BE GUILTY. In order for us to reach any kind of reasonable conclusion here, we would need all of the facts of the case, and not just the media hype. We all know that the media is rarely trustworthy. We all know that police units can make mistakes. We all know that there are despicable criminals out there that would murder a police officer and claim self defense. At this particular point in time, based on the information we have at the moment, we can only conclude that a man was in a house with a baby, and that a police officer was shot and killed inside of the house. We dont have enough information to decide if there was a mistake made, or if there was an intent to murder the police officer. We can also conclude that the raid on the little duplex was not the only option for the police, and we can also conclude that a number of police units would probably have decided against a raid with the infant inside of the house.

Evidence that would have been nice to have for our review today, would be as to whether anyone else in that tiny town happened to hear or see the events, and whether or not the police announced their arrival just prior to or at the time of the forced entry into the dwelling.

At this point in time, we just dont have enough information.

36shadow · #8 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 11:31 AM

We don't know all the facts presented in this case so we will never know for sure. What we do know is this shit happens all to often the problem is it is not restricted to black americans like mulp the retarded liberal idiot would like you to believe. Then you have people like monger that are a problem on the other side of the equation. Good cops and police policies etc. etc. etc. are a rare thing these days not the norm as in the past. The failure of our govt. (local and federal)to secure our borders and have affective long established immigration policies , procedures and enforcment has lead to a lot of this crap landing on our door steps. Corruption and failure to put citazens rights above the need to capture these criminals and due process etc. etc. has lead to a lot of this crap landing on our door steps. No one is immune to it Mulp so pull your head out of your ass, you only propagate racism with your statements nothing else. Oh one last note to you and others like you Mulp. I don't give a rats ass if this kind of thing did happened to blacks, color is still not an issue PERIOD. The main issue would still be that this injustice is happening to AN AMERICAN CITAZEN , AN AMERICAN NOT A BLACK, WHITE FUCKEN ASIAN MARTIAN ETC ETC. JUST AN AMERICAN PERIOD.

A. Crowley · #9 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 11:33 AM