Malinowski murder by ATF

[LouderVol]

He knew what he was shooting at: intruders. There's valid fear for one's life when someone breaks in at night. He wasn't wrong to shoot.

agents of the government serving a warrant count as intruders? That would hold up in a court of law? going to be some interesting precedent from that one.

there is what he THOUGHT, and there is reality.

I THINK someone is breaking into my house at night, but really its my neighbor coming over to feed my dog because I didn't tell him I got home a day early, and I shoot him, I am probably going to jail. doesn't matter that i THOUGHT he was an intruder.

a government or utility worker on my property working on something in a right of way, easement, or line going to my house, and I shoot them because I think they are an intruder, and I am going to jail. Doesn't matter that I thought he was an intruder.

you shoot at cops, or agents of a government with jurisdiction, serving a lawful warrant, and it doesn't matter what you THINK. you shot at cops/agents serving a lawful warrant. full stop.

what you THINK doesn't clear you of wrong doing. Again, I have ALWAYS been told that I need to KNOW what I am shooting at. not THINK, KNOW. now everyone here is saying I can just shoot whatever and say I THOUGHT it was a bad guy and be in the clear.

 

[LouderVol]

No, that is potential evidence and far from proof.

Again, this was a kill mission to eliminate a challenge to ATF authority.

so why didn't the ATF shoot first?

 

[hog88]

so why didn't the ATF shoot first?

Who says they didn't? Got any footage?

When they raided the Davidian compound they waited for Koresh to be there because they were certain there would be a fight with him there.

 

[LouderVol]

Then why were they executing a search warrant? Sounds pretty "I dunno just yet" to me.

pretty sure if you are caught red handed it is still SOP to still go collect evidence with a SEARCH warrant.

 

[hog88]

pretty sure if you are caught red handed it is still SOP to still go collect evidence with a SEARCH warrant.

Typically if you are caught red handed you are arrested, then they go search for corroborating evidence.

 

[EasternVol]

agents of the government serving a warrant count as intruders? That would hold up in a court of law? going to be some interesting precedent from that one.

there is what he THOUGHT, and there is reality.

I THINK someone is breaking into my house at night, but really its my neighbor coming over to feed my dog because I didn't tell him I got home a day early, and I shoot him, I am probably going to jail. doesn't matter that i THOUGHT he was an intruder.

a government or utility worker on my property working on something in a right of way, easement, or line going to my house, and I shoot them because I think they are an intruder, and I am going to jail. Doesn't matter that I thought he was an intruder.

you shoot at cops, or agents of a government with jurisdiction, serving a lawful warrant, and it doesn't matter what you THINK. you shot at cops/agents serving a lawful warrant. full stop.

what you THINK doesn't clear you of wrong doing. Again, I have ALWAYS been told that I need to KNOW what I am shooting at. not THINK, KNOW. now everyone here is saying I can just shoot whatever and say I THOUGHT it was a bad guy and be in the clear.

To answer your question, in this situation absolutely yes.
If your neighbor comes over to feed your dog would he cut the power, tape over your peephole, and break in at night?
Utility workers outside aren't intruders in your house.
Yes it does matter what you think, what a reasonable person would think. He knew he was shooting at someone who broke in, hence he had a valid fear for his and his wife's lives.

 

[MercyPercy]

agents of the government serving a warrant count as intruders? That would hold up in a court of law? going to be some interesting precedent from that one.

there is what he THOUGHT, and there is reality.

I THINK someone is breaking into my house at night, but really its my neighbor coming over to feed my dog because I didn't tell him I got home a day early, and I shoot him, I am probably going to jail. doesn't matter that i THOUGHT he was an intruder.

a government or utility worker on my property working on something in a right of way, easement, or line going to my house, and I shoot them because I think they are an intruder, and I am going to jail. Doesn't matter that I thought he was an intruder.

you shoot at cops, or agents of a government with jurisdiction, serving a lawful warrant, and it doesn't matter what you THINK. you shot at cops/agents serving a lawful warrant. full stop.

what you THINK doesn't clear you of wrong doing. Again, I have ALWAYS been told that I need to KNOW what I am shooting at. not THINK, KNOW. now everyone here is saying I can just shoot whatever and say I THOUGHT it was a bad guy and be in the clear.

I understand the principle of FAFO. Dude wouldn't be in this situation if he wasn't doing some shady **** so he'd have to live with the consequences... if he was still alive.

I don't think most people here are arguing against that. We are arguing against tactics used by law enforcement that contributed greatly to why he is dead today and why many others are killed/injured in these no knock raids (sometimes they don't even get the right house, whoops!)

If someone can provide a coherent explanation on why they needed to raid his house in the middle of the night for this particular search warrant execution I would listen with an open mind. To me it seems like a good way to encourage armed conflict.

 

[KptVFL]

agents of the government serving a warrant count as intruders? That would hold up in a court of law? going to be some interesting precedent from that one.

there is what he THOUGHT, and there is reality.

I THINK someone is breaking into my house at night, but really its my neighbor coming over to feed my dog because I didn't tell him I got home a day early, and I shoot him, I am probably going to jail. doesn't matter that i THOUGHT he was an intruder.

a government or utility worker on my property working on something in a right of way, easement, or line going to my house, and I shoot them because I think they are an intruder, and I am going to jail. Doesn't matter that I thought he was an intruder.

you shoot at cops, or agents of a government with jurisdiction, serving a lawful warrant, and it doesn't matter what you THINK. you shot at cops/agents serving a lawful warrant. full stop.

what you THINK doesn't clear you of wrong doing. Again, I have ALWAYS been told that I need to KNOW what I am shooting at. not THINK, KNOW. now everyone here is saying I can just shoot whatever and say I THOUGHT it was a bad guy and be in the clear.

1- Horrible analogy. Someone did break into his house. That's why he is dead.

2- A utility worker in your yard vs one breaking down your door have zero in common.

3- I try to avoid saying absolutes like..... it was a kill mission. I can't say that with certainty. I can say with certainty that they were well aware that busting in someone's door in the middle of the night.... someone who, assuming their allegations were true, was certain to be armed...... would much more likely than not lead to gunfire.

 

[GroverCleveland]

pretty sure if you are caught red handed it is still SOP to still go collect evidence with a SEARCH warrant.

In the middle of the night? Without providing identification? Just break into a man's house?

We have different concepts of what proof means. The ATF was just playing "Navy Seals" and a man died. With regards to @hog88 's point about who shot first, I'm wondering why Malinowski's "shot" hit the man he saw in the hallway in the foot? Surely he would have had better aim than that. He missed by almost 3 feet.

 

[DC_Vol]

The oddest thing to me is they chose to bust down his door when he was at home. They rallied for the raid the previous night. When they found out he wasn’t home, they postponed it.

Why not go when he wasn’t in the house? Seems kind of weird to me.

 

[LouderVol]

Who says they didn't? Got any footage?

When they raided the Davidian compound they waited for Koresh to be there because they were certain there would be a fight with him there.

The dead guys defense lawyer says they didn't. it was in the link I posted.

"Cummins agreed, calling it a “tragedy” and admitting that his client shot first."

it doesn't say it outright, but the wording makes it sound like that first shot by Malinowski is the shot that wounded the agent.

 

[LouderVol]

To answer your question, in this situation absolutely yes.
If your neighbor comes over to feed your dog would he cut the power, tape over your peephole, and break in in at night?
Utility workers outside aren't intruders in your house.
Yes it does matter what you think, what a reasonable person would think. He knew he was shooting at someone who broke in, hence he had a valid fear for his and his wife's lives.

really? Have some cases where the agents/cops were serving a warrant on the correct house and the "defendant" was cleared of shooting at the cops? especially when firing first?

I know of some cases, including no knock, where it was the wrong address and it was poop all over the cops. I don't know of any where it was the right place.

I was told this was all bang bang, pun slightly intended. he really knew his power had been cut and there was tape over the peephole in the few seconds he was reacting? sounds like he knew exactly what was going on, and should have also known it was the cops. yall are claiming some prescient knowledge by this dude.

castle doctrine, and the right to defend yourself extends to your property line. so the worker on your property could be considered a threat under that. power could be out, you were just woken up by a loud noise, someone on your property. shoot first ask questions later.

in arkansas that right to self defense is limited if you are engaged in unlawful activity. didn't read far enough into it to see if this case counts as being "engaged" in unlawful activity. but that would be another angle at play.

 

[LouderVol]

I understand the principle of FAFO. Dude wouldn't be in this situation if he wasn't doing some shady **** so he'd have to live with the consequences... if he was still alive.

I don't think most people here are arguing against that. We are arguing against tactics used by law enforcement that contributed greatly to why he is dead today and why many others are killed/injured in these no knock raids (sometimes they don't even get the right house, whoops!)

If someone can provide a coherent explanation on why they needed to raid his house in the middle of the night for this particular search warrant execution I would listen with an open mind. To me it seems like a good way to encourage armed conflict.

letter of the law. spirit of the law.

I have been argued multiple times that it is the letter of the law that matters, I know hog is one of those, and I am sure some of the others have said the same thing. the ATF was in the right as far as the letter of the law. funny that hog is suddenly spirit of the law when he wants.

I don't like it either, but if we are going by the LETTER OF THE LAW, its probably a good shoot by the ATF. again a court case will likely decide on that "probably".

until no knocks are removed, its a valid tool. seems like Arkansas is pretty dang heavy on the no-knock warrants reading up on their laws and history. so its not even a state vs federal issue here, which would be a good argument.

 

[ButchPlz]

The oddest thing to me is they chose to bust down his door when he was at home. They rallied for the raid the previous night. When they found out he wasn’t home, they postponed it.

Why not go when he wasn’t in the house? Seems kind of weird to me.

...because they wanted a fight, and to kill the man.

 

[MercyPercy]

letter of the law. spirit of the law.

I have been argued multiple times that it is the letter of the law that matters, I know hog is one of those, and I am sure some of the others have said the same thing. the ATF was in the right as far as the letter of the law. funny that hog is suddenly spirit of the law when he wants.

I don't like it either, but if we are going by the LETTER OF THE LAW, its probably a good shoot by the ATF. again a court case will likely decide on that "probably".

until no knocks are removed, its a valid tool. seems like Arkansas is pretty dang heavy on the no-knock warrants reading up on their laws and history. so its not even a state vs federal issue here, which would be a good argument.

You seem to be arguing that it will be cleared as a just shoot in the eyes of the law but I'm not sure who you are arguing that with. There's not a doubt in my mind they'll all be cleared.

 

[ButchPlz]

You seem to be arguing that it will be cleared as a just shoot in the eyes of the law but I'm not sure who you are arguing that with. There's not a doubt in my mind they'll all be cleared.

"C.I.A. Says It Has Found No Link Between Itself and Crack Trade"

 

[LouderVol]

In the middle of the night? Without providing identification? Just break into a man's house?

We have different concepts of what proof means. The ATF was just playing "Navy Seals" and a man died. With regards to @hog88 's point about who shot first, I'm wondering why Malinowski's "shot" hit the man he saw in the hallway in the foot? Surely he would have had better aim than that. He missed by almost 3 feet.

its a legal warrant in Arkansas and the federal government. it may be an absolute crap legal warrant in Arkansas or by the feds. but its legal.

kinda like the 2A argument. get the law changed, until then its a moot point.

 

[LouderVol]

You seem to be arguing that it will be cleared as a just shoot in the eyes of the law but I'm not sure who you are arguing that with. There's not a doubt in my mind they'll all be cleared.

take it up with all the posters in here who have been putting words in my mouth.

I stated facts. people didn't like those facts. and tried to make my stating of facts as an opinion I hold. I have never once, at least not in this thread, posted anything pro-no-knock warrants. I have posted anti-no-knock warrants opinions multiple times ITT, but because I also recognize the facts as known today, I somehow become pro-no-knocks.

 

[LouderVol]

"C.I.A. Says It Has Found No Link Between Itself and Crack Trade"

Wasn't it the George Floyd defendants who hired a third party investigation that found no wrong doing by George Floyd? it was one of the high profile death-by cop situations.

 

[hog88]

letter of the law. spirit of the law.

I have been argued multiple times that it is the letter of the law that matters, I know hog is one of those, and I am sure some of the others have said the same thing. the ATF was in the right as far as the letter of the law. funny that hog is suddenly spirit of the law when he wants.

I don't like it either, but if we are going by the LETTER OF THE LAW, its probably a good shoot by the ATF. again a court case will likely decide on that "probably".

until no knocks are removed, its a valid tool. seems like Arkansas is pretty dang heavy on the no-knock warrants reading up on their laws and history. so its not even a state vs federal issue here, which would be a good argument.

I have not argued spirit or letter of the law in this case. I haven't argued that the warrant wasn't valid or that they had no probable cause to conduct a search. My argument has been there was only one reason for them to conduct a no-knock search at that time of day and that was to give the ATF cause to kill him.

 

[EasternVol]

really? Have some cases where the agents/cops were serving a warrant on the correct house and the "defendant" was cleared of shooting at the cops? especially when firing first?

I know of some cases, including no knock, where it was the wrong address and it was poop all over the cops. I don't know of any where it was the right place.

I was told this was all bang bang, pun slightly intended. he really knew his power had been cut and there was tape over the peephole in the few seconds he was reacting? sounds like he knew exactly what was going on, and should have also known it was the cops. yall are claiming some prescient knowledge by this dude.

castle doctrine, and the right to defend yourself extends to your property line. so the worker on your property could be considered a threat under that. power could be out, you were just woken up by a loud noise, someone on your property. shoot first ask questions later.

in arkansas that right to self defense is limited if you are engaged in unlawful activity. didn't read far enough into it to see if this case counts as being "engaged" in unlawful activity. but that would be another angle at play.

What difference would it make if the warrant's valid for that address or not as far as the man having a reasonable assumption that his life was in danger from criminals?

 

[GroverCleveland]

its a legal warrant in Arkansas and the federal government. it may be an absolute crap legal warrant in Arkansas or by the feds. but its legal.

kinda like the 2A argument. get the law changed, until then its a moot point.

Yes, about that legality bit there. If one does not know who is breaking into their house, in many states they are legally justified in shooting them including, I believe, Tennessee which prohibited them since 2021.

 

[McDad]

He knew what he was shooting at: intruders. There's valid fear for one's life when someone breaks in at night. He wasn't wrong to shoot.

Louder isn't saying he's wrong. He's saying the government acted legally and responded to deadly force with deadly force.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Hmm, a guy is woken up by the sound of his front door being broken into. Guy grabs gun, guy goes into his living room and sees silhouettes of guys with guns does he A) stop and ask who they are or B) shoots at the strangers with guns that are in his house?

In TN I do have the right to shoot anyone who breaks into my house.

B

 

[LouderVol]

What difference would it make if the warrant's valid for that address or not as far as the man having a reasonable assumption that his life was in danger from criminals?

because the ASSUMPTION doesn't matter. its the reality of it that matters.

the cops had a, not sure this is the best word, right to be there. or at least legal justification to be there. they weren't criminals.

you don't get to shoot someone just because you THINK they are criminals or going to hurt you or yours. at least not without consequences if they aren't criminals or have a legal reason for their actions. you have to think they are criminals AND be right that they are criminals to get to use self defense as actual justification.

its like cops shooting someone holding a cell phone, banana, or poptart chewed into the shape of a gun, all because they THOUGHT they were holding guns. those cops were in the wrong even though they THOUGHT they were in danger. and those are cops with training, and the support of the system and all the protection it provides.

for us as civilians we don't get anywhere close to that level of leeway. so we have to be right. this guy was wrong.