Malinowski murder by ATF

#126
#126
GroverCleveland said:
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.
Click to expand...
not in Arkansas. they are very pro-no-knock there.

and that seems like a great exploit for anyone wanting to shot at the cops, just claim you didn't know who it was and you can just shoot at whoever.
 
#127
#127
LouderVol said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agree with your 1st two paragraphs.

What follows is a hot mess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77 and hog88
#128
#128
LouderVol said:
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.
Click to expand...
That doesn't address whether a person would be within their rights or not to fire depending on whether the correct address was raided.
I'm quite sure that if someone cuts power to your house, blocks your view of who may be outside, and breaks in armed and unannounced, the thought of a rational person is that someone is intent on doing them harm. And thus they are within their rights to open fire. He wasn't wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens, McDad, 82_VOL_83 and 1 other person
#129
#129
EasternVol said:
That doesn't address whether a person would be within their rights or not to fire depending on whether the correct address was raided.
I'm quite sure that if someone cuts power to your house, blocks your view of who may be outside, and breaks in armed and unannounced, the thought of a rational person is that someone is intent on doing them harm. And thus they are within their rights to open fire. He wasn't wrong.
Click to expand...
does one have the right to use violence to stop federal agents from pursuing a legal action with the backing of a judge against you? I think any court case is going to say you can't (legally).

when they raid the wrong address or grab the wrong person they aren't pursuing a legal action backed by a judge. thus you are going to be justified in defending yourself.

in both cases it doesn't matter what the agents, or the self defense person, THINKs; what matters is the truth of the matter.

I don't think no-knocks SHOULD be legal, but they are. just like the anti-2A doesn't want self defense to be legal, but it is.
 
#130
#130
LouderVol said:
does one have the right to use violence to stop federal agents from pursuing a legal action with the backing of a judge against you? I think any court case is going to say you can't (legally).

when they raid the wrong address or grab the wrong person they aren't pursuing a legal action backed by a judge. thus you are going to be justified in defending yourself.

in both cases it doesn't matter what the agents, or the self defense person, THINKs; what matters is the truth of the matter.

I don't think no-knocks SHOULD be legal, but they are. just like the anti-2A doesn't want self defense to be legal, but it is.
Click to expand...

You don't know if this was a legal action or not at this point. What justification did they use to obtain a no knock warrant, probably false or misleading information knowing the ATF. It is absolute policy for the local LEO to have their body cams on at all times but for some odd reason none accompanying the ATF on this raid had them on. So did the ATF violate local law/policy by ordering them to be off? There are so many pieces to this puzzle so if one is out of place the entire raid is potentially illegal.

Not to mention, none of it makes sense and that is why this entire thing was an ATF kill mission.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and davethevol
#131
#131
hog88 said:
You don't know if this was a legal action or not at this point. What justification did they use to obtain a no knock warrant, probably false or misleading information knowing the ATF. It is absolute policy for the local LEO to have their body cams on at all times but for some odd reason none accompanying the ATF on this raid had them on. So did the ATF violate local law/policy by ordering them to be off? There are so many pieces to this puzzle so if one is out of place the entire raid is potentially illegal.

Not to mention, none of it makes sense and that is why this entire thing was an ATF kill mission.
Click to expand...
which is why I have included several qualifications as it hasn't been proven in a court case. but similarly your assumptions haven't been proven either in a court case. but it doesn't look good for your arguments when the defense lawyer is the source of my quotes saying he was involved in illegal activities and shot first.
 
#132
#132
LouderVol said:
which is why I have included several qualifications as it hasn't been proven in a court case. but similarly your assumptions haven't been proven either in a court case. but it doesn't look good for your arguments when the defense lawyer is the source of my quotes saying he was involved in illegal activities and shot first.
Click to expand...

The guy is dead, nothing about this will see the inside of a courthouse and the ATF will continue to use the “open investigation” excuse not to answer questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens and davethevol
#133
#133
I can speculate on how this went down because about 15 or so years ago the ATF nailed a guy I know. At the time he was 60something, retired Navy corpsman, retired from something else (can't remember what) and his hobby was buying, refurbishing and selling/trading guns. He bought, sold/traded 30-40 guns a year and the ATF pulled a sting on him. Agent got to know him, then vouched for some guys that couldn't legally own guns just to get "Doc" to sell to them. That went on for awhile, the agent even sold "Doc" some stolen guns and of course he turned around and sold some. Doc ended up a convicted felon although his plea deal kept him from going to prison and on pretty restrictive probation until the day he died.

Now since the ATF changed the rules as to who needs to have their FLL I suspect they knew this guy was doing some buying and selling so they decided to set him up in order to make him an example then it dawned on them he had the means and backing to fight it in court so they offed him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, tbh and davethevol
#134
#134
LouderVol said:
does one have the right to use violence to stop federal agents from pursuing a legal action with the backing of a judge against you? I think any court case is going to say you can't (legally).

when they raid the wrong address or grab the wrong person they aren't pursuing a legal action backed by a judge. thus you are going to be justified in defending yourself.

in both cases it doesn't matter what the agents, or the self defense person, THINKs; what matters is the truth of the matter.

I don't think no-knocks SHOULD be legal, but they are. just like the anti-2A doesn't want self defense to be legal, but it is.
Click to expand...
We seem to be going around in a circle. It's not an issue of the guy trying to stop the warrant being executed. It's an issue of the guy defending himself and his wife against apparent criminal intruders. He didn't know about the warrant so his actions were not done with the intent to block its execution.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, GroverCleveland and hog88
#135
#135
EasternVol said:
We seem to be going around in a circle. It's not an issue of the guy trying to stop the warrant being executed. It's an issue of the guy defending himself and his wife against apparent criminal intruders. He didn't know about the warrant so his actions were not done with the intent to block its execution.
Click to expand...
I ask again because its been avoided. Has that held up in court?

my understanding is that you get violent with an agent of the law, performing a lawful act, and its going to go poorly for you. doesn't matter if you don't know its an agent of the law, or if you didn't know it was a lawful act, etc.

your argument seems pretty faulty, and circular. under the same argument the ATF didn't know the guy was going to respond with lethal force. so from their stand point there was no flaw with their execution of the warrant.
 
#136
#136
LouderVol said:
I ask again because its been avoided. Has that held up in court?

my understanding is that you get violent with an agent of the law, performing a lawful act, and its going to go poorly for you. doesn't matter if you don't know its an agent of the law, or if you didn't know it was a lawful act, etc.

your argument seems pretty faulty, and circular. under the same argument the ATF didn't know the guy was going to respond with lethal force. so from their stand point there was no flaw with their execution of the warrant.
Click to expand...

We still don't know if the raid was a lawful act, we'll probably never know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and GroverCleveland
#137
#137
LouderVol said:
I ask again because its been avoided. Has that held up in court?

my understanding is that you get violent with an agent of the law, performing a lawful act, and its going to go poorly for you. doesn't matter if you don't know its an agent of the law, or if you didn't know it was a lawful act, etc.

your argument seems pretty faulty, and circular. under the same argument the ATF didn't know the guy was going to respond with lethal force. so from their stand point there was no flaw with their execution of the warrant.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of any applicable legal cases, are you?
I don't think that's what circular argument means. Circular argument | Definition, History, Examples, & Facts
We're stretching the limits of rational arguments here but in your example the ATF's criterion would be whether their actions would cause a rational person to respond with legal force, and the answer is yes.
 
#138
#138
LouderVol said:
I ask again because its been avoided. Has that held up in court?

my understanding is that you get violent with an agent of the law, performing a lawful act, and its going to go poorly for you. doesn't matter if you don't know its an agent of the law, or if you didn't know it was a lawful act, etc.

your argument seems pretty faulty, and circular. under the same argument the ATF didn't know the guy was going to respond with lethal force. so from their stand point there was no flaw with their execution of the warrant.
Click to expand...
Actually it has been upheld in court in various states that someone has the right to defend themselves in their home against law officers executing a no-knock warrant including cases where an LEO was killed, although the only Arkansas case (2008) I saw in Wikipedia the cops broke in, shot a man wielding an in-operable gun and then charged him with assault against the cops who shot him, so you may be right, Arkansas is retarded when it comes to this.

Arkansas does have a castle doctrine law (stand your ground), but I do not know when it was passed and have found no relevant cases. However, I'm of the opinion that in Arkansas right now, the ATF may not be in the best position on this case. It is a pro-gun state, with a dose of Federal gov/ATF skepticism thrown in.

Bottom line is if one does not know, one is most likely okay to shoot in many states, although Arkansas may be a little conflicted on that score.
 
#139
#139
LouderVol said:
not in Arkansas. they are very pro-no-knock there.

and that seems like a great exploit for anyone wanting to shot at the cops, just claim you didn't know who it was and you can just shoot at whoever.
Click to expand...

Well if you eliminate the no knocks then you take away that excuse. Pretty simple right?
 
#141
#141
LouderVol said:
I ask again because its been avoided. Has that held up in court?

my understanding is that you get violent with an agent of the law, performing a lawful act, and its going to go poorly for you. doesn't matter if you don't know its an agent of the law, or if you didn't know it was a lawful act, etc.

your argument seems pretty faulty, and circular. under the same argument the ATF didn't know the guy was going to respond with lethal force. so from their stand point there was no flaw with their execution of the warrant.
Click to expand...
SIAP but is this what you're inquiring about?

www.kiiitv.com

Rosas found not guilty in CCPD SWAT shooting

A jury has found 48-year-old Ray Rosas not guilty on three counts of aggravated assault against a public servant.
www.kiiitv.com www.kiiitv.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, McDad, LouderVol and 1 other person
#143
#143
DC_Vol said:
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.
Click to expand...
???

So you are saying that you want LEO to just go to unattended homes and avoid having to confront the owners?

Am I misreading what you are saying here?
 
#150
#150
hog88 said:
Not to mention the fact that the policy for the local LEO that assisted is the body cameras must be worn and on at all times. ATF had them turn their cameras off.

ATF wanted to kill this guy to make an example out of him.
Click to expand...

Just like Ruby Ridge and many others I am sure. These 3 letter agencies think they are above the law, and even think theyre above Congressional oversight. Its ridiculous and 75% of these agencies need to be disbanded.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top