TexasCHLforum.com

In my neck of the woods there was the case of Ray Rosas he had a similar home defense shooting with the police but nobody died. He was in jail for 2 years before he got a trial and was acquitted.

http://kdhnews.com/news/crime/accused-k ... d80ef.html

The widow of the Killeen detective and SWAT officer who was killed on May 9, 2014, looked on as Marvin Louis Guy, the man accused of the slaying, was in court for a status hearing Thursday.

It was lawyers and Judge John Gauntt who did all the talking in the 27th Judicial District Court, however, as the killing of Charles “Chuck” Dinwiddie is not resolved and no trial date has been set.

Guy, who could face the death penalty if convicted, is charged with one count of capital murder and three counts of attempted capital murder after he exchanged gunfire during an early-morning “no-knock” warrant at his apartment on Circle M Drive in Killeen more than four years ago.

Dinwiddie was fatally shot and two other police officers were wounded during the raid.

In past interviews, Guy has said that he believed his home was being broken into during the 5 a.m. raid, and he began shooting in self-defense.

From back in 2014
https://archive.is/zz53e WP archive

Documents released Wednesday including search warrant affidavits and a lengthy evidence inventory provide details of both the drug raid that left one Killeen police officer dead and another injured and of the crime scene investigation that followed the deadly shooting.
...
The evidence return does not list any drugs.
...
KWTX says an informant allegedly saw white bags of cocaine transported in and around the house. That may well have happened, but informants are notoriously unreliable.

Not sure he was even legal to own a gun. There is a lot more to the story than is out due to the gag order that is in place.

From http://kdhnews.com/news/crime/capital-m ... 5d3b0.html

In numerous Herald jail interviews with Guy, he said police singled him out because of his felony criminal history of bank robbery and other offenses and said he was simply defending himself when his bedroom window was broken out that morning.

Keith B wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:08 pm Not sure he was even legal to own a gun. There is a lot more to the story than is out due to the gag order that is in place.

From http://kdhnews.com/news/crime/capital-m ... 5d3b0.html

In numerous Herald jail interviews with Guy, he said police singled him out because of his felony criminal history of bank robbery and other offenses and said he was simply defending himself when his bedroom window was broken out that morning.

From another article I read it says the bank robbery happened in 1997. He might be legal to have a gun in his home under state law. He is likely still prohibited from owning a gun under federal law but that would be up to the feds to prosecute if they had the inclination to do so.

https://www.johntfloyd.com/convicted-fe ... -in-texas/

Under Texas state law a convicted felon may possess a firearm in the residence, in which he lives, once five years have elapsed from the date his sentence was discharged. This means the later of release from prison or parole. This is not true under federal law. So, while a convicted felony could lawfully possess a firearm in these very limited circumstance under state law, he could possibly be charged and convicted under federal law, even though current federal policy is to defer to state law on this issue.

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code ... 46-04.html

(a) A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possesses a firearm:
(1) after conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the person's release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person's release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later;  or
(2) after the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.

Personally I'm of the mindset that someone who has completed their sentence should automatically have all of their rights restored.

Four years is a long time to be in jail waiting on a trial. I think they might be trying to stall to get him to take some kind of plea. You don't kill police and wait in jail for four years
if they had the evidence to convict you, felon or not. Something doesn't smell right here; to me at least.

Allons wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:10 pm Four years is a long time to be in jail waiting on a trial. I think they might be trying to stall to get him to take some kind of plea. You don't kill police and wait in jail for four years
if they had the evidence to convict you, felon or not. Something doesn't smell right here; to me at least.

Whats wrong is called the constitutional right to a speedy trial, which is being violated here.

So, has the prosecution forgotten that part about the right to a speedy trial?? Or was my high school civics teacher fibbing?

OneGun wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:45 pm So, has the prosecution forgotten that part about the right to a speedy trial?? Or was my high school civics teacher fibbing?

If they try him, they know they will probably lose. They don't like losing. Avoiding trials actually works pretty well at least it works well in Communist Red China, and in Cuba, Where just a few people manage to keep the population well under control.

Some quick thoughts:
How much of this delay has been at the request of his Attorney?
Has his attorney filed motions to proceed with the trial or objected to the delays?
Has his attorney filed appeals for denied motions or objections, and when were they filed?

O.F.Fascist wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:25 pm

Keith B wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:08 pm Not sure he was even legal to own a gun. There is a lot more to the story than is out due to the gag order that is in place.

From http://kdhnews.com/news/crime/capital-m ... 5d3b0.html

In numerous Herald jail interviews with Guy, he said police singled him out because of his felony criminal history of bank robbery and other offenses and said he was simply defending himself when his bedroom window was broken out that morning.

From another article I read it says the bank robbery happened in 1997. He might be legal to have a gun in his home under state law. He is likely still prohibited from owning a gun under federal law but that would be up to the feds to prosecute if they had the inclination to do so.

https://www.johntfloyd.com/convicted-fe ... -in-texas/

Under Texas state law a convicted felon may possess a firearm in the residence, in which he lives, once five years have elapsed from the date his sentence was discharged. This means the later of release from prison or parole. This is not true under federal law. So, while a convicted felony could lawfully possess a firearm in these very limited circumstance under state law, he could possibly be charged and convicted under federal law, even though current federal policy is to defer to state law on this issue.

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code ... 46-04.html

(a) A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possesses a firearm:
(1) after conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the person's release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person's release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later;  or
(2) after the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.

Personally I'm of the mindset that someone who has completed their sentence should automatically have all of their rights restored.

I agree with that last statement, but I think that there should be some limitations on that. For instance, if the felon has been convicted of a crime of violence, or use of a firearm in commission of a crime, or is a recidivist with more than one conviction and sentencing, then maybe they’ve demonstrated that they continue to be a threat to their community even after release, and can never again be trusted with a firearm.

So in principle, yes, if a persona has fulfilled their debt to society, then their rights should be restored; but if they continue to incur debts to society, then they become like a borrower with a history of defaulting on loans. At some point, they can’t borrow any more money because society knows they’re not good for repayment.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 10:42 am I agree with that last statement, but I think that there should be some limitations on that. For instance, if the felon has been convicted of a crime of violence, or use of a firearm in commission of a crime, or is a recidivist with more than one conviction and sentencing, then maybe they’ve demonstrated that they continue to be a threat to their community even after release, and can never again be trusted with a firearm.

So in principle, yes, if a persona has fulfilled their debt to society, then their rights should be restored; but if they continue to incur debts to society, then they become like a borrower with a history of defaulting on loans. At some point, they can’t borrow any more money because society knows they’re not good for repayment.

My thoughts are that a person who has shown they are a continuing threat to society should be given an appropriately lengthy sentence. It is not logical to think that guns can be kept out of the hands of any individual who chooses to own one.

In theory I'm fine with making no-guns a condition of parole for a violent crime that involved a gun, but once that person has completed the parole they should get those rights back. It is not like having a gun makes a person turn into a criminal.

I think Mr. Guy already did more time in jail than the guy who killed Justine Damond. Mr. Guy also did more time than the guy who killed Daniel Shaver. Both Justine Damond and Daniel Shaver were unarmed when they were shot in public, whereas Mr. Guy shot an armed man breaking into his home.

So much for justice in the justice system.

O.F.Fascist wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 12:21 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 10:42 am I agree with that last statement, but I think that there should be some limitations on that. For instance, if the felon has been convicted of a crime of violence, or use of a firearm in commission of a crime, or is a recidivist with more than one conviction and sentencing, then maybe they’ve demonstrated that they continue to be a threat to their community even after release, and can never again be trusted with a firearm.

So in principle, yes, if a persona has fulfilled their debt to society, then their rights should be restored; but if they continue to incur debts to society, then they become like a borrower with a history of defaulting on loans. At some point, they can’t borrow any more money because society knows they’re not good for repayment.

My thoughts are that a person who has shown they are a continuing threat to society should be given an appropriately lengthy sentence. It is not logical to think that guns can be kept out of the hands of any individual who chooses to own one.

In theory I'm fine with making no-guns a condition of parole for a violent crime that involved a gun, but once that person has completed the parole they should get those rights back. It is not like having a gun makes a person turn into a criminal.

And herein lies the problem..... In principle, you’re absolutely correct. It is NOT likely that having a gun makes a person into a criminal. The issue is really whether or not the person IS a criminal.....who also has a gun. And as a libertarian leaning person, I am inclined to agree with the idea that a person’s punishment and loss of rights shouldn’t continue beyond the fulfillment of their sentence. It is NOT justice to hold someone’s past over their head forever, if they demonstrate a reformed character and turn their lives around. But the problem is that we don’t live in a world where the courts hand out appropriately long sentences, no matter what the law says.....and that cuts both ways. Some people are over-penalized, and others are under-penalized. It’s a flawed system because it depends on judges and juries who have different opinions of what the penalties ought to be.....or in some cases, if the accused is even guilty - OJ Simpson, for instance, for whom the evidence of guilt seemed overwhelming, but counsel for the defense successfully turned it into an issue of race, and the jury had a chance to “stick it to the man” by acquitting OJ. In such an environment, it matters little whether or not the law calls for specific penalties for certain crimes.

I realize that there are no guarantees in life, and also that liberty does not come without risks. But, the law-abiding population does have some reasonable expectation that the legislative, legal, and criminal justice systems will So where is the balance between ensuring that the criminal justice system appropriately sentences convicts, which it often does not today, and simultaneously ensuring that people who have fulfilled their correctional obligations are able to be returned to society as fully participating members?

IMHO no knock warrants are a violation of constitution, given out too easily and a sign of laziness and cowboying. Completely innocent citizens have died because of it. Just wait for him to leave the property, take him and then search the property. A lot of innocents died at Waco because of this kind of crap. It is a bad law and bad policy for a nation of supposedly free people with 4th Amendment rights.

TEX wrote: ↑Sun Jul 22, 2018 3:16 am IMHO no knock warrants are a violation of constitution, given out too easily and a sign of laziness and cowboying. Completely innocent citizens have died because of it. Just wait for him to leave the property, take him and then search the property. A lot of innocents died at Waco because of this kind of crap. It is a bad law and bad policy for a nation of supposedly free people with 4th Amendment rights.

Like everything they have a rightful, useful and reasonable use..

Your stated position assumes the criminal will cause no harm outside the home... But that is not reality,, reality is, some desperate criminals wold (have) rather kill everyone one, take hostages, run over anyone, do anything to avoid being taken into custody.. Not just officers, but the public is safer with those being taken into custody in a controlled, contained surprise event in the house. Innocents in the house,,, their safety is paramount of course, but the risk is the direct causation of the criminal who put them in danger.

Like everything that has a rightful, useful and reasonable use....the tactic is overused, I'll go so far as to say abused.. But its not as simple or black and white as just GOOD/BAD its how, when, why used or not.

Recently an innocent homeowner was killed in Waller County, TX.
https://www.click2houston.com/news/swat ... puties-say

Investigators said the Waller County Sheriff’s Office SWAT team and the Houston Metro Internet Crimes Against Children Unit were executing the warrant around 5:30 a.m. at a home on Avenue I in Pattison, when a man at the home pointed a gun at the SWAT team. A member of the team opened fire, shooting the man at least once, deputies said.
...
A source with knowledge of the investigation told KPRC that while serving the warrant an entry team knocked loudly on the door and broke a window.

When no one answered, the team forced its way in. A man and woman were inside the bedroom. The source told KPRC the man told his wife to call police.

The source said the man grabbed a gun and when SWAT members approached, he pointed it at the officers. That's when he was shot and killed.

From the comments section:

The man they shot was NOT the person they were looking for. The person they were looking for moved away 2 months ago! At 5:30AM they woke up to someone bashing their door in. He was startled & jumped up to see what was going on. His wife/girlfriend only heard her husband screaming to call the police 3 times in a row with unintelligible screaming in the background...& then gunfire at close range. Shame on all of you for APPLAUDING THE DEATH OF AN INNOCENT MAN.

https://www.click2houston.com/news/frie ... d-shooting

Waller County authorities said it appears the man shot in a deadly raid was not the target of an investigation.

Friends and family of the man who was killed are in shock. LeNae Schulz cannot believe her best friend, landscaper Mickey Coy of Pattison, is gone.
...
KPRC obtained that search warrant and learned Coy was not named. Authorities wrote that an IP address connected to the home was linked to communications with an undercover agent and involved the sharing of lewd pictures of underage children.

Atleast the police claim to have knocked.

Didn't realize dynamic raids based on an IP address were a thing now, guess they were worried the guy they were really after had some thermite sitting on top of his hard drives.