Two SWAT Raids. Two Officers Dead. One Defendant Is Black, One White. Guess What Happened.21OKT14

OH we don't have a problem with racist police and a racist justice system, do we..... This on equal justice, Texas style, from +Mother Jones .....

Two SWAT Raids. Two Officers Dead. One Defendant Is Black, One White. Guess What Happened.

The two cases in Texas, just 100 miles from each other, raise troubling questions about race and "no-knock" police raids.

—By Shane Bauer

| Tue Oct. 21, 2014 5:25 PM EDT

Marvin Guy and Henry Magee Bell County Sheriff's Department and Burleson County Sheriff's Department

One Friday last May, the sun had not yet risen when a SWAT team ignited a flash-bang grenade outside Marvin Guy's apartment in Killeen, Texas. Officers were trying to climb in through a window when Guy, who had a criminal record and was suspected of possessing cocaine, opened fire. Four officers were hit; one of them was killed.
Five months earlier, 100 miles away, a SWAT officer was shot during a predawn no-knock raid on another house. In that case, too, police threw a flash-bang grenade and tried to enter the residence. Henry "Hank" Magee, according to his attorney, grabbed his gun to protect himself and his pregnant girlfriend. "As soon as the door was kicked in, he shot at the people coming through the door," says his attorney, Dick DeGuerin. With his legally owned semi-automatic .308 rifle, Magee killed one of the officers.
The cases are remarkably similar, except for one thing: Guy is black, Magee white. And while Magee was found to have acted in self-defense, prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Guy. He remains in jail while he awaits trial.

Historically, police serving warrants were required to knock on a door, announce their presence, and wait for an answer. But in SWAT raids, this is often no longer the case. Police aren't required to announce themselves if they believe the circumstances present a threat of physical violence, or if they believe evidence would be destroyed. According to a study by the American Civil Liberties Union, no-knock warrants are used in around 60 percent of drug searches.
Like Guy, Magee was initially charged with capital murder, which is punishable by death. But before Magee's trial, a grand jury found there was not enough evidence for him to stand trial on that charge. "In essence it was a ruling in self-defense," DeGuerin said. Guy has been through the grand jury process as well, his attorney said, but in his case, the grand jury allowed prosecutors to move ahead with capital murder charges. So while Magee awaits trial for felony possession of marijuana, Guy awaits potential execution.
Both defendants had previous encounters with the law: Magee had been arrested twice for driving while intoxicated and twice for possessing marijuana. Guy had previous charges of bank robbery, theft, burglary, and "felony in possession of a firearm," and had done time in prison. Guy's arrests warrant shows that police suspected him of possessing cocaine after receiving a tip from an informant who said he was selling. The search of his apartment turned up an "orange glass pipe," but no drugs. Magee, however, did have drugs—"more than 4 oz but less than 5 lbs" of marijuana, according to the district attorney.
When SWAT teams were created, they were not intended for drug raids. They were set up in the late 1960s for extreme scenarios like active shooters and hostage situations. Yet 85 percent of SWAT deployments today are for "choice-driven raids on people's private residences," Peter Kraska, an Eastern Kentucky University researcher who studies tactical policing, testified in a recent Senate hearing. The ACLU study found that 62 percent of SWAT deployments today are for doing drug raids. The study also found that in around half of SWAT deployments for drug offenses, no contraband is found at all.
The study also showed that 71 percent of today's SWAT raids affect people of color, even though white people are more likely to be involved in the types of scenarios SWAT teams were created for, like active shooter and hostage situations.
Magee was found to have acted in self-defense by shooting at unannounced intruders before dawn. Whether the same standard will apply to Guy remains to be seen. His trial is scheduled for next June.

Shane Bauer

Reporter

Shane Bauer is a reporter in Mother Jones' San Francisco bureau, covering criminal justice, social justice, and human rights. His work has also appeared in the Guardian, The Nation, Salon, Slate, the Los Angeles Times, the Christian Science Monitor, and many other publications. He is the co-author of A Sliver of Light, a memoir he wrote with his fellow hostages (one of whom is now his wife) about their two years as prisoners in Iran. Follow him on Twitter here. RSS | Twitter

If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

• Video: What We Saw Before Being Kicked Out of the SWAT Convention

  Inside the trade show where police get their military-style gear—and learn to use it.

• So Basically Everyone Killed By a Cop Is A Criminal, According to the FBI

  FBI data classifies all victims of justified homicides by police as "felons"—why?

• Cops Pepper Spray Black Teen In His Own Living Room After Mistaking Him For Burglar

  We wonder why.

• Here’s the Data That Shows Cops Kill Black People at a Higher Rate Than White People

  Plus: the crazy way the FBI classifies all police shooting victims as criminals.

• Putting Body Cameras on Cops Is Hardly a Cure-All for Abuses

  Deploying the technology properly will require time, money, and smart management.

Debunking the Gun Culture Propaganda 19DEZ12

HERE is a great piece debunking the seemingly logical but actually stupid and false arguments against gun control. Share them, and use them when someone trys to use them on you. From HuffPost....
It's been just over eight years since the assault weapons ban expired, and in that time new gun control bills have been scarce. There are a variety of reasons for the deafening legislative silence, including a cowardly lack of political will and a river of gun industry cash that flows into campaign war chests every day. But it's also because radical gun fetishists led by the NRA have been supremely effective with clever marketing and misinformation campaigns intended to undermine the brutal realities of the American gun culture.
You've probably seen many of their finest agitprop slogans plastered all over Facebook, Twitter and the right-wing blogosphere these days. They're artfully designed to be digested by people who desperately want them to be true -- in this case, kneejerk gun enthusiasts starved for solid, airtight, easy-to-remember trump cards that are capable of defeating liberal gun control arguments with swift precision. Unfortunately for them, the slogans are about as thin as the bumpers stickers they're printed on.
PROPAGANDA: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
REALITY: This is probably the most prevalent, yet silliest line. No, an inanimate object can't spring to life and kill anyone. But a gun's intrinsic purpose is to kill, wound and threaten living beings. It's why they exist. Period. The firearms used at Aurora, Tucson, Sandy Hook and so many other mass shootings are specifically categorized as "assault rifles." The intention is, by definition, to assault. They're aggressive weapons intended to physically attack and do harm. Otherwise they'd be called "defense weapons" or "protection weapons." So, no, guns don't kill people, but people with guns and bullets kill lots of people. Around 30,000-plus per year in America.
PROPAGANDA: But cars kill a lot of people and no one wants to ban them!
REALITY: How do we deal with cars in America, compared with how we deal with guns in America? Cars and drivers are heavily regulated by the government, from emissions standards to annual inspections to safety features, and so forth. You can't legally drive a car that doesn't feature seatbelts, or a car that spews too much exhaust into the air. You have to take both a written and a behind-the-wheel test to get a license to operate a car. You often have to renew that license at regular intervals and, if you're older, you have to prove that you're physically capable of driving a car. You can't drive a car while drinking alcohol or impaired by other chemicals. There are thousands of police officers patrolling our roads and, as most of us have experienced at one time or another, they will penalize or arrest you for improper handling of a car -- with literally hundreds of laws to abide, and considerable penalties, ranging from fines to imprisonment to the government stripping you of your right to drive a car at all. So if gun fetishists are going to keep using this car analogy, then let's talk about regulating guns and gun owners the same way we regulate cars and drivers.
PROPAGANDA: You can kill someone just as easily with a knife as you can with a gun!
REALITY: Outrageously wrong. Ask any average soldier whether they'd prefer to attack an enemy with knife or with their rifle. After they laugh in your face, they'll obviously tell you they prefer their rifle. During the American Civil War, soldiers would rarely if ever use their bayonets in combat because the experience of stabbing someone was much more offensively visceral and gruesome than simply shooting them from a relative distance. Furthermore, how many mass stabbings (including meat cleavers) have there been in America? Two that we know of. The number of mass stabbings in world? Eleven. On the other hand, how many mass shootings have there been in America? Twenty-six since Columbine and not including any prior massacres. Some gun fetishists have noted that a mass stabbing occurred in China last week, with 22 victims. However, what they won't tell you, perhaps because they don't know, is that not one of those victims died.
PROPAGANDA: It's safer to have a gun in the house, or concealed on your person.
REALITY: Nope. Not true. I'll let conservative analyst and former Bush speechwriter David Frum take this one:

A gun in the house minimally doubles the risk that a household member will kill himself or herself. (Some studies put the increase in suicide risk as high as 10 times.) An American is 50% more likely to be shot dead by his or her own hand than to be shot dead by a criminal assailant. More than 30,000 Americans injure themselves with guns every year.

And here's Science Daily:

In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

Need more? Here's the American Journal of Lifestyle:

Author David Hemenway studied the various risks of having a gun in the home, including accidents, suicide, homicide, and intimidation. Additionally, the benefits of having a firearm in a household were also examined and those benefits included deterrence, and thwarting crimes (self-defense). From this in-depth look, it was concluded that homes with guns were not safer or deter more crime than those that do not. In fact, it was found that in homes with children or women, the health risks were even greater. "Whereas most men are murdered away from home," wrote Hemenway. "Most children, older adults, and women are murdered at home. A gun in the home is a particularly strong risk factor for female homicide victimization."

One more...
PROPAGANDA: Banning guns won't stop mass shootings because of the outlaws, blah blah blah.
REALITY: Once again, totally not true. Australia, May 1996, a lone gunman killed 35 people and wounded an additional 23. Subsequently, Australia passed a very strict gun control law that included a buy-back program that managed to recover 600,000 assault rifles and other arms -- 20 percent of all the known firearms in Australia. There were no more private sales of firearms, there were stringent registration laws, and, as with other nations, you had to prove to authorities that you had a specific reason for purchasing a firearm. And no, according to Slate, self-defense wasn't a valid excuse. What happened after that?

Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post's Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here's the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn't been a single one in Australia since.

I think that's enough for now. If you spot any more of these slogans and arguments, drop me a note via Facebook, Twitter or in the comments below and we'll work together to debunk this specious clap-trap once and for all. Doing so will help to unravel the deeply entrenched gun culture in America, and this must be an ongoing commitment, running concurrently with any and all legislation that comes as a result of these horrifying gun massacres.
Cross-posted at The Daily Banter.
Subscribe to the uncensored and totally raw Bob & Chez Show After Party podcast.
Click here to listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast.
BobCesca.com Blog with special thanks to Nicole Naum.

 

Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/debunking-the-gun-culture_b_2332088.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications