Malinowski murder by ATF

[hndog609]

I have. one ran by a lawyer. he said it wasn't enough to think. you had to know what you are shooting at.

his point was if you don't know what/who you are shooting at, how are you going to be able to be cross examined and say you KNEW your life was in danger if you didn't know who it was.

Castle Doctrine has moved this needle a bit, or at least grayed the line. For instance this is TN39-11-611(c). (bolded added by me)

"Any person (this would be the homeowner) using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."

So anyone forcing their way into a dwelling uninvited can carry a legal presumption of reasonable fear of death/serious bodily harm. Now note the usage of "unlawfully". This is where it becomes complicated as later in the code there's the caveat following in (d)4

"The person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle in the performance of the officer's official duties, and the officer identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer."

So obviously you can't just say "These cops aren't invited so I can claim a CD defense." However not what I've boldened in that section. People bursting in completely unannounced obviously negates any immediate "identification" of being LEO and takes a serious chunk out of anyone in that violent and chaotic scenario of someone having "reasonably should have known" being applied to them, don't you think?

 

[82_VOL_83]

I have. one ran by a lawyer. he said it wasn't enough to think. you had to know what you are shooting at.

his point was if you don't know what/who you are shooting at, how are you going to be able to be cross examined and say you KNEW your life was in danger if you didn't know who it was.

Because, at least here in KY, my lights are off, the door is kicked in (violent entry), I may see guns drawn....I'm shooting because I have reason to "THINK" that my life or my families lives are in danger. That is all you have to have. In KY you don't have to know WHO you are shooting at, just what. Violent invasion, middle of the night, no warning. You are getting shot. Cops shoot and kill me, my wife will live in high cotton for the rest of her life.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

They executed this guy. His crime, he owned a lot of guns.

Maybe a gun registry is not a great idea. And maybe no knock warrants are a bad idea also.

Did Epstein and Bill fly out of Little Rock?

That wasn't his crime and you know it.

 

[82_VOL_83]

he made the point if you can clearly see a gun, a shoot can be justified. but again you have to positively ID a gun. what happens when that armed intruder is actually just carrying something that isn't a weapon? its dark, you are confused, scared, jumped up on adrenaline, easy to misidentify something. there is a reason eye witness testimony isn't all that reliable.

if you are able to clearly identify a weapon why wouldn't you also be able to clearly identify any number of identifiers on the individual carrying the weapon you have clearly identified?

In KY they are dead if you are a good shot.

 

[McDad]

he made the point if you can clearly see a gun, a shoot can be justified. but again you have to positively ID a gun. what happens when that armed intruder is actually just carrying something that isn't a weapon? its dark, you are confused, scared, jumped up on adrenaline, easy to misidentify something. there is a reason eye witness testimony isn't all that reliable.

if you are able to clearly identify a weapon why wouldn't you also be able to clearly identify any number of identifiers on the individual carrying the weapon you have clearly identified?

It's a reasonable ask. If you can clearly ID a gun, you should be able to clearly ID badges, etc. But that is a lot of processing in a small amount of time.

I disagree with the lawyer in how he explained those events. Like @Orangeslice13 recently posted. I wouldn't want to just start blasting at people. I would announce or show I am armed and give them an opportunity to retreat or surrender. I don't WANT to kill anyone. Following that approach, there is even more assurance in who or what you are encountering. In that scenario, LEOs would be easy to identify as well.

 

[82_VOL_83]

In TN there is none of that BS. Armed or not, someone breaks into your house you have every right to put them down.

Your last sentence is hogwash, it's dark(ATF cut the power), the ATF was wearing black clothing with their faces covered. Are people expected to verify the identity of the armed intruder prior to defending themselves, should he have asked for identification?

No one is addressing or has to address the fact that had he not shot, he was carrying a firearm and they probably would have shot him anyway. No body cams, they could easily say that he pointed the firearm.

 

[McDad]

In TN there is none of that BS. Armed or not, someone breaks into your house you have every right to put them down.

Your last sentence is hogwash, it's dark(ATF cut the power), the ATF was wearing black clothing with their faces covered. Are people expected to verify the identity of the armed intruder prior to defending themselves, should he have asked for identification?

No knock is stupid.
No knock at night is incredibly stupid.
No knock at night wearing black and covered faces is monumentally stupid.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Castle Doctrine has moved this needle a bit, or at least grayed the line. For instance this is TN39-11-611(c). (bolded added by me)

"Any person (this would be the homeowner) using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."

So anyone forcing their way into a dwelling uninvited can carry a legal presumption of reasonable fear of death/serious bodily harm. Now note the usage of "unlawfully". This is where it becomes complicated as later in the code there's the caveat following in (d)4

"The person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle in the performance of the officer's official duties, and the officer identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer."

So obviously you can't just say "These cops aren't invited so I can claim a CD defense." However not what I've boldened in that section. People bursting in completely unannounced obviously negates any immediate "identification" of being LEO and takes a serious chunk out of anyone in that violent and chaotic scenario of someone having "reasonably should have known" being applied to them, don't you think?

Kinda the same in KY, but our class made it clear that is ONLY your domicile and not an out building or a detached garage. Has to be in your house.

 

[McDad]

Castle Doctrine has moved this needle a bit, or at least grayed the line. For instance this is TN39-11-611(c). (bolded added by me)

"Any person (this would be the homeowner) using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."

So anyone forcing their way into a dwelling uninvited can carry a legal presumption of reasonable fear of death/serious bodily harm. Now note the usage of "unlawfully". This is where it becomes complicated as later in the code there's the caveat following in (d)4

"The person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle in the performance of the officer's official duties, and the officer identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer."

So obviously you can't just say "These cops aren't invited so I can claim a CD defense." However not what I've boldened in that section. People bursting in completely unannounced obviously negates any immediate "identification" of being LEO and takes a serious chunk out of anyone in that violent and chaotic scenario of someone having "reasonably should have known" being applied to them, don't you think?

Nice add to the convo. Thanks.

 

[McDad]

Kinda the same in KY, but our class made it clear that is ONLY your domicile and not an out building or a detached garage. Has to be in your house.

And, I assume, not to your car??

 

[82_VOL_83]

And, I assume, not to your car??

Correct, someone breaking into your car, unless you are in it or approaching it and the person is armed and threatens you, cannot be shot.

 

[GroverCleveland]

In TN there is none of that BS. Armed or not, someone breaks into your house you have every right to put them down.

Your last sentence is hogwash, it's dark(ATF cut the power), the ATF was wearing black clothing with their faces covered. Are people expected to verify the identity of the armed intruder prior to defending themselves, should he have asked for identification?

He has to be trolling. That was insane BS. Identifying markings/patches in the dark and must be sure they are carrying a weapon. Comical.

 

[McDad]

They executed this guy. His crime, he owned a lot of guns.

Maybe a gun registry is not a great idea. And maybe no knock warrants are a bad idea also.

Did Epstein and Bill fly out of Little Rock?

According to the info, this guy was a bad gun owner and irresponsible in who he sold weapons to.

He didn't deserve to die at the hands of the state because of those transgressions but the responsible gun owners should have no tolerance for the chronically irresponsible owners. They give all of us a bad name.

 

[McDad]

He has to be trolling. That was insane BS. Identifying markings/patches in the dark and must be sure they are carrying a weapon. Comical.

I disagree with the lawyere's approach that Louder referenced. But that viewpoint it is a fair ask...if you cannot ID a gun, you shouldn't shoot. If you can, why could you not ID marking and badges?

I also agree with others here who take the position, if someone breaks into my home at night the ASSUMPTION is this is a bad person here to do bad things and ultimate defense is viable.

 

[hog88]

That wasn't his crime and you know it.

He's dead so we'll never know if he committed a crime or not.

 

[hog88]

It's a reasonable ask. If you can clearly ID a gun, you should be able to clearly ID badges, etc. But that is a lot of processing in a small amount of time.

I disagree with the lawyer in how he explained those events. Like @Orangeslice13 recently posted. I wouldn't want to just start blasting at people. I would announce or show I am armed and give them an opportunity to retreat or surrender. I don't WANT to kill anyone. Following that approach, there is even more assurance in who or what you are encountering. In that scenario, LEOs would be easy to identify as well.

It's pretty easy to buy a badge.

 

[GroverCleveland]

And, I assume, not to your car??

Could depend on the state.

Georgia treats one's car as an extension of the home (at least they did when I moved to Tennessee) and one could carry a weapon in the vehicle without a license.

Tennessee, at the time, did not consider the vehicle as an extension of the home and required a CCW. That law was changed within a few years of me moving here.

 

[hog88]

No one is addressing or has to address the fact that had he not shot, he was carrying a firearm and they probably would have shot him anyway. No body cams, they could easily say that he pointed the firearm.

This was a kill mission so the guy was going to die regardless, the wife is just lucky she wasn't killed also.

 

[hog88]

No knock is stupid.
No knock at night is incredibly stupid.
No knock at night wearing black and covered faces is monumentally stupid.

Cops are not known for their brilliance.

 

[McDad]

Another nuance (which may have been discussed earlier), under routine LEO encounters you can ask for name, badge number, call the station and verify they are legit. Anyone think under a tense situation (homeowner armed in a standoff with LEOs in his house) the LEOs would give that information over and wait for the homeowner to verify?

Also, are there instances where people have pretended to be LEOs to gain entry and then committed crimes?

 

[hog88]

And, I assume, not to your car??

Pretty sure the TN legislature has extended the castle doctrine to your vehicle.

 

[McDad]

He's dead so we'll never know if he committed a crime or not.

You discount the previous legal issues from this person?

 

[McDad]

It's pretty easy to buy a badge.

I asked about that very thing a few posts up.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Just looks like murder to me. I mean, unless someone is in the house who is at immediate danger or reasonable dangerous to the people executing the warrant than all this no knocking, wearing black, no body cams, etc. is just setting up a cover to kill the guy. The dry run pretty much seals the deal for me if the warrant was just for his house. They created a dangerous situation on purpose which lead to the killing of someone that's innocent.

 

[hog88]

According to the info, this guy was a bad gun owner and irresponsible in who he sold weapons to.

He didn't deserve to die at the hands of the state because of those transgressions but the responsible gun owners should have no tolerance for the chronically irresponsible owners. They give all of us a bad name.

I guess we'll never know if he was an irresponsible gun owner or not.