http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336850,00.html

Quote :

"This past January that scenario played out at the Chesapeake, Va., home of 28-year-old Ryan Frederick, a slight man of little more than 100 pounds. According to interviews since the incident, Frederick says when he looked toward his front door, he saw an intruder trying to enter through one of the lower door panels. So Frederick fired his gun. The intruders were from the Chesapeake Police Department. They had come to serve a drug warrant. Frederick's bullet struck Detective Jarrod Shivers in the side, killing him. Frederick was arrested and has spent the last six weeks in a Chesapeake jail."

Quote :

"Friends and neighbors describe Frederick as shy, self-effacing, non-confrontational and hard-working. He had no prior criminal record. Frederick and his friends have conceded he smoked marijuana recreationally. But all — including his neighbors — insist there's no evidence he was growing or distributing the drug. According to the search warrant, the police raided Frederick's home after a confidential informant told them he saw evidence of marijuana growing in a garage behind the home. The warrant says the informant saw several marijuana plants, plus lights, irrigation equipment and other gardening supplies. After the raid, the police found the gardening supplies, but no plants. They also found a small amount of marijuana, but not much — only enough to charge Frederick with misdemeanor drug possession."

Quote :

"Frederick told a local television station that he was an avid gardener. A neighbor I spoke with backs him up, explaining that Frederick had an elaborate koi pond behind his home and raised a variety of tropical plants. He'd even given his neighbors gardening tips on occasion. One of the plants Frederick told the local television station he raised was the Japanese maple, a plant that, when green, has leaves that look quite a bit like marijuana leaves."

Quote :

"The raid in Chesapeake bears a striking resemblance to another that ended in a fatality. Last week, New Hanover County, N.C., agreed to pay $4.25 million to the parents of college student Peyton Stickland, who was killed when a deputy participating in a raid mistook the sound of a SWAT battering ram for a gunshot and fired through the door as Strickland came to answer it. So in the raid where a citizen mistakenly shot a police officer, the citizen is facing a murder charge; in the raid where a police officer shot a citizen, prosecutors declined to press charges."

3/12/2008 1:53:23 PM

Sad but true.

Quote :

"Over the last quarter century, we've seen an astonishing rise in paramilitary police tactics by police departments across America. Peter Kraksa, professor of criminology at the University of Eastern Kentucky, ran a 20-year survey of SWAT team deployments and determined that they have increased 1,500 percent since the early 1980s — mostly to serve nonviolent drug warrants."

and the "war on terror" is making it even worse, since almost anything can be done under the banner of "keeping us safe". I feel much less safe, and the source of all my fears is our own government.

3/12/2008 2:20:20 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "Over the last quarter century, we've seen an astonishing rise in paramilitary police tactics by police departments across America. Peter Kraksa, professor of criminology at the University of Eastern Kentucky, ran a 20-year survey of SWAT team deployments and determined that they have increased 1,500 percent since the early 1980s — mostly to serve nonviolent drug warrants.""

wtf? someone likes using $10 words

3/12/2008 3:28:58 PM

Gosh, I hate these threads. "Let's second guess the lawyers on this emotionally charged issues based solely on the word of an agenda-drive journalist". *sigh*

First, the facts in this case are hardly clear cut:

Quote :

"Chesapeake's lawyer, Paul Ebert, said at a recent bond hearing for Frederick that Shivers, the detective who was killed, was in Frederick's yard when he was shot, and that Frederick fired through his door, knowing he was firing at police. Frederick's attorney disputes this. Ebert also said Frederick should have known the intruders were police because there were a dozen or more officers at the scene. But some of Frederick's neighbors dispute this, too. One neighbor told me she saw only two officers immediately after the raid; she said the others showed up only after Shivers went down."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336850,00.html

If the police made it perfectly clear who they were and that they were entering, this guy should go to jail. And first degree murder is 100% the right way to go. If they did not, the defendant can prove his case in court.

Second, this reporter needs to do his homework. He says:

Quote :

"So in the raid where a citizen mistakenly shot a police officer [Strickland], the citizen is facing a murder charge; in the raid where a police officer shot a citizen, prosecutors declined to press charges."

The statement is technically true, but not totally accurate (i prefer to think the guy made a mistake rather than call him a dishonest douche). The prosecutor brought the case to a grand jury, and they decided not to indict him on manslaughter charges.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/strickland/story/634627.html

If a grand jury that heard ALL the evidence doesn't think the proescutor has enough evidence to go to trial a much lesser charge like manslaughter, I fail to see why we should second guess their decision. Especially based solely on the word of a Fox News reporter that doesn't care enough about the case to google it.

[Edited on March 12, 2008 at 4:02 PM. Reason : ``]

3/12/2008 3:58:30 PM

I'm always a lot more likely to side with the homeowner if its actual intruders/robbers/burglars that he is shooting...its a lot tougher when he's shooting at the cops and the reason they are there is for a warrant

3/12/2008 4:09:39 PM

It is tragic the officer was killed. I don't think this guy had any reason to believe the police would be serving a Warrant at his home, he had no criminal record and was not manufacturing drugs. He had nothing to hid but a little bit of weed that he would not have even gotten in trouble for.

Why would he intentionally shoot at the cops?

3/12/2008 4:13:08 PM

I figure he was probably growing and selling and thats why he shot at them

maybe he got tipped off to the raid or something and moved the plants

i'm just speculating, but he also had gardening supplies in his garage...i mean he MIGHT be growing legal plants inside his garage with artificial lights, etc

3/12/2008 4:18:23 PM

^^ That's what I keep wondering, but that's why these types of threads are not useful. Without knowing anything else about the case, I'm so suprised they charged this guy with first degree murder. Manslaughter seems like the much easier case. But if the lawyer has any brains at all, he must have had a reason for not going the easier route. He must think he has enough evidence to prove that this guy intentionally murdered the cop.

And who knows what evidence the prosecutors have? The trial hasn't even started. So what's the point in second-guessing the folks with education and evidence when all we have to go on is a bad opinion article?

[Edited on March 12, 2008 at 4:21 PM. Reason : ``]

3/12/2008 4:21:22 PM

Quote :

"If a grand jury that heard ALL the evidence doesn't think the proescutor has enough evidence to go to trial a much lesser charge like manslaughter, I fail to see why we should second guess their decision."

The cops killed him and his dog. I feel quite comfortable second guessing the jury's decision.

3/12/2008 5:15:05 PM

Quote :

"i'm just speculating, but he also had gardening supplies in his garage"

Not to pick nits, but where does everyone keep their gardening supplies?


What the OP left out was this critical first paragraph:

Quote :

"It's 8 p.m. You work an early shift and need to be out the door before sunrise, so you're already in bed. Your nerves are a bit frazzled, because earlier in the week someone broke into your home. Oddly, they didn't take anything; they just rifled through your belongings."

That adds a lot of back story to this. Why did the cops have to go in after dark? This is one scrawny dude who someone said was growing marijuana. I'd be interested in knowing just what information they had on him that made them feel like they needed to raid his house instead of just knocking on the door. He had no criminal record.

WTF?

I'm not saying that the cop deserved to get shot, but unless drastically different evidence comes to light, that is a different issue, but judging by what the case appears to be, this guy should get off. Either way, someone needs to lose his job over the decision to raid.

3/12/2008 5:54:18 PM

I don't actually think someone breaking into your house constitutes sufficient threat to use deadly force.

3/12/2008 7:38:02 PM

Cash,

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether you think the raid was "justified". It was legal and approved, period. Now we must decide if this little guy intended to kill a police officer. And no one on this board can answer that question in any satisfactory way.

3/12/2008 7:44:13 PM

It does in North Carolina, I don't know about Virginia.

(A person caught in the act of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony can be shot during the break-in. Once inside your home, they cannot be met with deadly force unless you are in imminent danger of death or grevious bodily injury or, in the case of females, sexual assault).



^ I don't think I did miss the point. I said that someone should lose his job for approving this raid. It was, by all the evidence we've got here, an extremely poor decision.

I also said, that given what we know, I don't think he should be charged with murder, but I qualified that by saying that other information could come to light.

By your logic, if someone "approves" a cop shooting me in my home from a building across the street, I'm not entitled to shoot back until I can positively identify the shooter as not being a policeman. This is unlikely, but the burden of identification morally has to go to the Police who knock down the door.

3/12/2008 7:45:15 PM

Quote :

"If the police made it perfectly clear who they were and that they were entering, this guy should go to jail. And first degree murder is 100% the right way to go. If they did not, the defendant can prove his case in court. "

I agree with this statement. But, 90% of the time, it's absolutely not made clear. There are so many incidents like this one. As a matter of fact, I know someone that went through this exact thing.

The same thing happened in Minnesota with a relative of mines just recently. The cops stormed his house (wrongly) and he went for his shotgun. He fired several warning shots. And the cops unloaded on him and his family. But, luckily his son noticed the SWAT logo on the intruders outfit. His son yelled out to him that they were police. So, he laid off the trigger and dropped the gun.

No one was killed or even hurt after over 30 fired shots. A miracle. Otherwise, I would have a relative in prison for killing a cop. Or a dead relative. Either way, it's getting out of control.

Found a link to an article on that situation...

[Edited on March 12, 2008 at 7:48 PM. Reason : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317398,00.html]

[Edited on March 12, 2008 at 7:50 PM. Reason : read article for more details]

3/12/2008 7:47:20 PM

Cash,

Um, no. I'm saying that if a cop identifies himself and has a warrant, he can enter your home. Period.

And like I said before, all we can see here and do is speculate over the question of whether this guy knew he was shooting at a cop.

That's why these threads are silly.

3/12/2008 7:58:27 PM

Quote :

"I'm saying that if a cop identifies himself and has a warrant, he can enter your home. Period."

I'm not disagreeing with that.


What I am saying is:

Issue #1: based on this article (no prior convictions, no violent history, one witness heresay) this raid was ill advised and someone should lose their job over it, someone else has already lost their life.


Issue #2: (unrelated except by events) the onus is on the Police to identify themselves. If they came smashing in at 8pm with minimal identification, then I don't think this guy is guilty.

Put yourself in this guy's shoes. If someone yells "Police Open Up!" and starts smashing down your door while you're half-awake in another part of the house while your dogs are barking like crazy there is a very solid chance you're not going to know who is trying to break down your door.

I've already said twice that I qualify my comments based on the validity of this story, I'm not saying it again.


either way, Soap Box and TWW in general are silly. *shrug*

3/12/2008 8:09:41 PM

Unless there is prior evidence of violence the police should be prevented from doing no-knock enteries.

3/12/2008 8:20:59 PM

Cash,

Not saying it again? Not even if I tripple dog dare you?

3/12/2008 8:34:13 PM

ohhh a triple dog dare.


knock on my door. tomorrow night. 8pm. don't mind the dogs. we'll discuss it then

3/12/2008 8:35:52 PM

Quote :

"One of the plants Frederick told the local television station he raised was the Japanese maple, a plant that, when green, has leaves that look quite a bit like marijuana leaves."

If you can't tell the difference between ganja and a japanese maple, maybe you shouldn't be a cop. Maybe they could look a little closer, or smell it even.

THERE COMIN' RIGHT FOR US NED!

3/12/2008 8:38:48 PM

Quote :

"If the police made it perfectly clear who they were and that they were entering, this guy should go to jail. And first degree murder is 100% the right way to go. If they did not, the defendant can prove his case in court. "

Minor issue with this statement. The defendant has to prove nothing. The onus is on the state to prove the cops did everything they could to identify themselves, and that the guy knew he was shooting at cops. Also, assuming this was a no knock situation as described, the onus should also be on the state to prove that a no knock entry was appropriate for this situation.

3/12/2008 8:48:20 PM

Quote :

"You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether you think the raid was "justified". It was legal and approved, period. "

I think you're missing the point, that is the alarming part of the whole story.

3/12/2008 9:55:58 PM

Quote :

"If you can't tell the difference between ganja and a japanese maple, maybe you shouldn't be a cop. Maybe they could look a little closer, or smell it even."

It was an informant that ID'ed it as pot, not the police.

3/12/2008 11:38:17 PM