Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film
View Poll Results: What should happen to Ryan Frederick?
He was correct to use his second amendment right to help defend himself and his home. Free him.
90.29%
Despite a recent break-in at his home, he was too hasty to use deadly force. Prosecute him fully.
9.71%
Voters: 103. You may not vote on this poll

Homeowner charged with murder for shooting stranger who broke in

Old 01-31-08, 04:49 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 1,069
Homeowner charged with murder for shooting stranger who broke in

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124709.html

Ryan Frederick was arraigned today. He was charged with first-degree murder, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and . . . simple possession of marijuana.

That's right. Though police still haven't told us how much marijuana they found, it wasn't enough to charge Frederick with anything more than a misdemeanor. For a misdemeanor, they broke down his door, a cop is dead, and a 28-year-old guy's life is ruined. Looks like the informant mistook Frederick's gardening hobby for an elaborate marijuana growing operation, and those Japanese maple trees for marijuana plants.

The parallels to Cory Maye are pretty striking. You've got a young guy minding his own business, with no criminal record, whose worst transgression is that he smokes a little pot from time to time. A bad informant and bad police procedures then converge, resulting in police breaking down his door while he's sleeping. He fires a gun to defend himself, unwittingly kills a cop, and now faces murder charges.

Here's hoping Frederick escapes Cory Maye's fate. This guy shouldn't be in jail. He should be compensated by the City of Chesapeake. As should the family of Detective Shivers. And these raids need to stop.

You wonder how large the pile of bodies will need to grow before the cops stop breaking down doors and invading homes to enforce consensual crimes.

Prior posts on this case here.
Does a Supreme Court decision support the victim?

A sad situation. The victim had a wife and two daughters.
feenst is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 07:33 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,487
I'm sure we'll hear a chorus of "he got what he deserved."

I read about this several weeks ago.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 07:35 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
what is the law on shooting an intruder? do you have to believe your life is in danger or can you shoot anyone who you think is an intruder?
al_bundy is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 07:45 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,487
Originally Posted by al_bundy
what is the law on shooting an intruder? do you have to believe your life is in danger or can you shoot anyone who you think is an intruder?

Differs by state, but here is a general primer:
Castle Doctrine
Red Dog is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 07:52 AM
  #5  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,538
The subject header on this thread would make grundle proud.
Groucho is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 08:00 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
in this case there are some stories that say the cop was on his hands and legs coming through the lower part of the door and wouldn't have been a threat in this position
al_bundy is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 08:03 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Galt's Gulch
Posts: 2,623
Originally Posted by al_bundy
what is the law on shooting an intruder? do you have to believe your life is in danger or can you shoot anyone who you think is an intruder?
Not sure what the VA law is but in NC you can shoot someone as they are trying to break into your house but once they actually break in they have to be in possession of a deadly weapon.
John Galt is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 08:09 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Originally Posted by Groucho
The subject header on this thread would make grundle proud.
I love a little grundle-bashing as much as anyone, but I'm not really sure how the thread title is inaccurate in any way. What does the fact that it was a cop breaking in change?
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 08:13 AM
  #9  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,538
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet
I love a little grundle-bashing as much as anyone, but I'm not really sure how the thread title is inaccurate in any way. What does the fact that it was a cop breaking in change?
The subject header implies it was a burglar. This was a police officer with a warrant. The OP is deliberately presenting the facts in such a way to mislead, which is exactly what grundle does again and again.
Groucho is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 08:14 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Originally Posted by Groucho
The subject header implies it was a burglar. This was a police officer with a warrant. The OP is deliberately presenting the facts in such a way to mislead, which is exactly what grundle does again and again.
I can see your point. Just doesn't seem as misleading to me. At least the facts of the story fit the title, unlike most of grundle's threads.
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 08:17 AM
  #11  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,538
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet
At least the facts of the story fit the title
You're even using the grundle defense!
Groucho is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 08:25 AM
  #12  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hail to the Redskins!
Posts: 24,530
Originally Posted by Groucho
The subject header implies it was a burglar. This was a police officer with a warrant. The OP is deliberately presenting the facts in such a way to mislead, which is exactly what grundle does again and again.
I'm with Groucho on this.
DVD Josh is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 08:56 AM
  #13  
DVD Talk Ruler
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,149
Pot-head loser. Kill him.
General Zod is online now  
Old 01-31-08, 09:11 AM
  #14  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Originally Posted by General Zod
Pot-head loser. Kill him.
Well, that didn't take very long.
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 09:47 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Posts: 3,068
Originally Posted by Groucho
The subject header implies it was a burglar. This was a police officer with a warrant. The OP is deliberately presenting the facts in such a way to mislead, which is exactly what grundle does again and again.
A police officer with a warrant based on shoddy information and a police officer who , according to neighbors, did not announce himself.

The questions become:
a) was this person, who clearly was not running a grow operation, a threat large enough to justify a late night no knock raid
b) How could he have known that they were actually police, when he was the victim of a prior home invasion the week before, and a common tactic amongst burglars and such is to announce themselves as police.

Once again another regrettable casualty in the War on Drugs, something that apparently we're more and more willing to accept. What exactly was accomplished by ANY of the actions that these police took? What was the expected result?
Birrman54 is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 09:49 AM
  #16  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Originally Posted by Birrman54
A police officer with a warrant based on shoddy information and a police officer who , according to neighbors, did not announce himself.

The questions become:
a) was this person, who clearly was not running a grow operation, a threat large enough to justify a late night no knock raid
b) How could he have known that they were actually police, when he was the victim of a prior home invasion the week before, and a common tactic amongst burglars and such is to announce themselves as police.

Once again another regrettable casualty in the War on Drugs, something that apparently we're more and more willing to accept. What exactly was accomplished by ANY of the actions that these police took? What was the expected result?
But he's a pothead loser!
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 10:58 AM
  #17  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Work. Or commuting. Certainly not at home.
Posts: 17,816
This comes to the greater discussion of the use of anonymous informants, without corroborating their statements, to justify late night, no-knock paramilitary raids on people who are not a threat to the community.

(1) Mr. Frederick's house was broken into 72 hours prior to the warrant being served. He clearly was afraid when it happened again.

(2) There's at least some evidence that the person that broke into his house 72 hours earlier is the same person who was the informant whom the police relied upon. When Mr. Frederick was arrested, he mentioned the break-in 72 hours earlier, and the police stated they knew who had done it.

(3) What is served by the no-knock raid in the first place? Whatever happened to staking the place out and arresting him when he leaves for work or to get the mail?

The use of the no-knock raid in drug cases has done nothing to make us safer, has led to the death of countless innocents (Kathryn Johnston, Alberta Sprulli, among others), has led to the death of police officers, and has led to the unnecessary incarceration of people who, except for having a joint or two in their house, were not criminals, and certainly had no history of violence (Ryan Frederick and Cory Maye).

I really want someone to explain to me what a no-knock raid serves in drug cases. When SWAT teams were invented, they were used for the right things -- hostage situations, bank robberies in progress, etc. Situations in which there was an imminent threat to human life. This isn't the case in a drug raid.
wildcatlh is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 11:03 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Work. Or commuting. Certainly not at home.
Posts: 17,816
On the same subject, there's difficulty in knowing that the people who say they're police when they break in are actually police. For example...

Robbery Ring Disguised as Drug Raids Nets Convictions for Former LA Cops

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

FC1
ADVERTISEMENT

LOS ANGELES
Two former police officers were convicted in federal court Wednesday of participating in a robbery ring that disguised home invasions as drug raids.

William Ferguson, 35, a former Los Angeles policeman, and his 33-year-old brother, Joseph, a former Long Beach officer, were convicted of charges including conspiracy to deprive people of their rights under color of law and conspiracy to possess marijuana and cocaine.

William Ferguson was found guilty of 13 charges and acquitted of five counts. His brother was convicted of three counts. Jurors deadlocked on 18 other counts.

Defense attorneys said they would appeal. Prosecutors did not immediately say whether they would retry the brothers on the deadlocked charges. Sentencing was set for April.

Prosecutors said the ring conducted about 40 robberies from 1999 to 2001 in which members would steal cash and drugs, then sell them on the street.

Fifteen people, including the ring's suspected leader, former LAPD Officer Ruben Palomares, have pleaded guilty in the investigation. Palomares worked with William Ferguson in the LAPD's scandal-tinged Rampart Division until both were fired in 2003. He testified against the brothers at trial.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,326885,00.html
wildcatlh is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 02:10 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: US
Posts: 9,621
I'm curious how/why they are charging him with 1st degree murder, when there obviously wasn't any premeditation.
Dave99 is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 02:29 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,487
Originally Posted by Dave99
I'm curious how/why they are charging him with 1st degree murder, when there obviously wasn't any premeditation.

I'm a bit confused myself. I thought maybe this triggered felony murder as it was a police officer who was killed, but I don't see a felony murder statute in the VA Code (there is 'felony homicide' but that triggers 2nd degree murder), and I don't see premeditation here.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 02:30 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Originally Posted by Dave99
I'm curious how/why they are charging him with 1st degree murder, when there obviously wasn't any premeditation.
Some states prosecute any murder of a police officer as first degree murder, regardless of circumstances.
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 02:31 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Originally Posted by Red Dog
I'm a bit confused myself. I thought maybe this triggered felony murder as it was a police officer who was killed, but I don't see a felony murder statute in the VA Code (there is 'felony homicide' but that triggers 2nd degree murder), and I don't see premeditation here.
Well, there goes my theory.
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 02:41 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,079
My guess is that the state's theory is that Frederick knew the victim was a police officer and shot anyway (although that would be capital murder under Va. Code Ann. 18.2-31, so maybe not).
JasonF is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 02:49 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,487
Originally Posted by JasonF
My guess is that the state's theory is that Frederick knew the victim was a police officer and shot anyway (although that would be capital murder under Va. Code Ann. 18.2-31, so maybe not).

Yeah I considered that it was a potential capital murder charge cut down to 1st degree, but the cap murder statute says:

The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of a law-enforcement officer as defined in 9.1-101 or any law-enforcement officer of another state or the United States having the power to arrest for a felony under the laws of such state or the United States, when such killing is for the purpose of interfering with the performance of his official duties;
You still need premeditation, and that's hard to see here.

Last edited by Red Dog; 01-31-08 at 02:51 PM.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 01-31-08, 02:55 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Legend
 
bunkaroo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicago West Suburbs
Posts: 15,452
The accused needs to watch this film to get an idea of how things will turn out:

bunkaroo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.