Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Cory Maye, the denouement
Posted by: Jon Henke on Saturday, December 30, 2006

Perhaps the best response I can offer to Joseph Rago's recent indiscriminate blog-bashing is to point to Radley Balko. From highlighting the absurdities of an overweening government to police malfeasance, his blogging stands among the best the blogosphere has to offer. But nothing else has been as worthy as his work on the wretched miscarriage of justice that was the Cory Maye case.

Sadly, it looks like his attempt to correct that injustice has been thwarted by a ignorant, apathetic and/or corrupt court.
Cory Maye has lost his motion for a new trial. The opinion is half-assed and poorly argued. Reads like a guy who had already made up his mind, and didn't want to be bothered with the damned facts. I can't believe the same attentive judge I saw at the hearing last December cobbled the shabby thing together.
In a follow-up post, he gives a brief overview of the judges decision.

Sadly, like Larry Fowlkes — about whom I've blogged in the pastCory Maye will spend the rest of his life in prison, generally forgotten by society — but an unforgettable symbol of shame upon those who put him in this position.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I think it is unfortunate that you have linked Larry Fowlkes with Mayes. Fowlkes professes not to have killed anyone while Mayes admits to being a cop killer. But you are in good company. Instapundit compares Mayes to the Duke Lacrosse Team. Because, you know, there’s not much difference between being falsely accused of rape and admitting to being a cop killer.
 
Written By: mikem
URL: http://
Because, you know, there’s not much difference between being falsely accused of rape and admitting to being a cop killer.
Yeah, and you know, there aren’t any extenuating or mitigating circumstances in the Cory Maye "cop killing" are there?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
while Mayes admits to being a cop killer.
No, Mayes admits to shooting an intruder. The intruder happened to be a cop. The cop in question should have made that clear prior to breaking into the house of an armed and innocent man willing to defend his family. Since he didn’t, he encountered a perfectly reasonable response to such an intrusion.

Unfortunately, Maye is being made to pay for the negligence of the officer and of the legal system that allows such dangerous situations to take place.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Just a note, when did Radley become an expert on judicial opinions? I take it IF the opinion had been the polar opposite it would have been a GREAT opinion, a veritable Legal Landmark Decision. Sorry, it’s one thing to be disappointed, another to be "slanderous."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Mayes admits to shooting an intruder. The intruder happened to be a cop
Jon, it’s a bit misleading to say that. Yes, that is what Maye admitted to... however, the jury, based on the evidence presented to it, concluded that Maye knew it was a police officer he was shooting at.
there aren’t any extenuating or mitigating circumstances in the Cory Maye "cop killing" are there
.McQ: I don’t know what specific circumstances you are referring to that even approach the neighborhood of the Duke case. Did the Mississippi prosecutor hide evidence? Refuse to consider the defendant’s alibi? Trash the reputation of the accused? Denigrate the accused for wanting to be represented by counsel? Say any other things in public that he knew to be false? About the only thing I see that is close is that neither prosecutor met with the alleged victim... but of course, in the Maye case, that’s because Maye killed the victim.

Yeah, the search was a no-knock drug raid, the cops entered Maye’s apartment thinking it was part of the apartment they were searching, the informant may be a racist pig, the search warrant may have been obtained improperly, yadda, yadda, yadda... But none of that is relevant to the question - and the sole relevant question as far as I’m concerned - of whether Maye knew he was shooting at a police officer.

Failing to show the jury was unreasonable in its conclusions, his defenders (including the bleeding heart DC law firm and the misguided Orin Kerr who took Maye on) have resorted to throwing up all sorts of peripheral s*** on the wall.... in the hopes that a sympathetic judge somewhere will throw out the conviction.

Funny how Balko thought nice things about this judge... as long as Balko thought the judge was going to rule in ’his’ favor... only to turn on the judge as incompetent and worse when the judge failed to see things just as Balko would have liked.

And if you guys don’t like no-knock raids, then how about trying to get your way through the legislative process, rather than through the courts? I thought we were supposed to be critical of those who attempted to thwart the will of the people by looking for activist judges.... I guess I was wrong, huh?
 
Written By: steve sturm
URL: www.thoughtsonline.blogspot.com
McQ: I don’t know what specific circumstances you are referring to that even approach the neighborhood of the Duke case.
Take a look at the wording, Steve. "Cop killer"?

There’s a little more to it than that, isn’t there, just as it appears (and as we’re now finding out) there was a lot more to the alleged "rape" or lack thereof in the Duke case, huh?
Yeah, the search was a no-knock drug raid, the cops entered Maye’s apartment thinking it was part of the apartment they were searching, the informant may be a racist pig, the search warrant may have been obtained improperly, yadda, yadda, yadda... But none of that is relevant to the question - and the sole relevant question as far as I’m concerned - of whether Maye knew he was shooting at a police officer.
Yes, he was, and he did so in fear of his life.

Most reasonable people call that "self-defense".
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
whether Maye knew he was shooting at a police officer
Why would he be dumb enough to shot at one cop, then surrender to the others after they started shouting "Police"? Who shots at only one cop?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Who shots at only one cop?
It’s not a plausible point at which to have a crisis of conscience, is it?
however, the jury, based on the evidence presented to it, concluded that Maye knew it was a police officer he was shooting at.
And there is considereable doubt as to whether he received even remotely competent counsel, and hence whether the jury had the evidence that mattered presented to it.

If it didn’t, he should get a new trial.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
McQ: while you might call it self-defense, the jury concluded otherwise. and I must be slow, for I still don’t see the comparison to the duke case. there’s no question here about Maye’s involvement. he acknowledged killing Ron Jones; by definition this makes him a cop killer. despite your saying so, there isn’t "a little more to it than that". the only issue is whether his actions were reasonable in killing the police officer, and the jury determined they were not. And so far, neither his trial counsel nor the bleeding heart / anti-no-knock types defending him have been able to prove the jury was unreasonable in doing so, or that he received a less-than fair trial.

JWG: who knows why stupid people do stupid things? why do bank robbers use papers with their name and address on it? thankfully the actions of an accused don’t have to make sense to a jury in order to nail a conviction. the issue is what he did, not whether what he did makes sense.

Tom: there are allegations that he didn’t receive competent counsel during the guilt portion of the trial. there were three main issues raised by his new (and presumably competent) counsel, none of which hold water (except of course to those who are so anti-drug war / anti-no-knock raid that they’ve lost all perspective... in much the same way much of the left suffers from BDS).
 
Written By: steve sturm
URL: www.thoughtsonline.blogspot.com
bleeding heart / anti-no-knock types
It’s inconceivable to me that someone can not see anything wrong with cops busting into an innocent household and then call the man defending his home a "cop killer".
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
...and then call the man defending his home a "cop killer"."

He killed a cop, ergo cop killer.

I think there is a significent element of cop hatred among those defending Maye. That’s not to say all of them are cop haters, but let’s face it: libertarians are notoriously anti drug laws/ anti enforcement and libertarians have found their own Mumia in Maye.

He killed a cop. He knew he was shooting at a cop. Do you guys really want to defend people who shoot cops?
 
Written By: mikem
URL: http://
I think there is a significent element of cop hatred
Evidently, Mike is new around here.
Do you guys really want to defend people who shoot cops?
Depending on the situation? Yes.

I suppose Mike thinks 88 year old Kathryn Johnston had no right to defend herself as strange men tried to enter her home. She’s just a potential "cop killer."
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"however, the jury, based on the evidence presented to it,..."

How many cases have we seen in the last few years where the jury, based on the evidence presented to it, convicted a demonstrably innocent man? The jury system is not infallible, just better than the alternatives.


"He killed a cop, ergo cop killer."

That is, literally, true. Like many literally true statements, it is only useful for polemic purposes, and is not useful at all for understanding the actual case.

"That’s not to say all of them are cop haters, but let’s face it: libertarians are notoriously anti drug laws/ anti enforcement and libertarians have found their own Mumia in Maye"

Perhaps you can explain the link between opposing certain laws and hating cops?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
How many cases have we seen in the last few years where the jury, based on the evidence presented to it, convicted a demonstrably innocent man?
Perhaps you’d like to tell us how your comment would apply in this case? Just how are you going to ’demonstrably’ prove Maye is innocent?

The ONLY question that matters here is whether Maye was telling the truth when he testified as to his actions (where he was, what he was doing) and his state of mind (for example, his being unaware he was shooting at a police officer) that night. The jury heard his testimony and decided that Maye, in addition to being a cop killer, was a liar. Period, end of sentence.
 
Written By: steve sturm
URL: www.thoughtsonline.blogspot.com
The jury heard his testimony and decided that Maye, in addition to being a cop killer, was a liar. Period, end of sentence.
And we all know that a jury could never make a mistake.

Locally (for me), David Camm was convicted by a jury for shooting and killing his family while they were in their car in the garage, even though he was playing basketball with many people at the time, including a friend of mine. They also found a palm print on the vehicle along with other evidence that a felon recently released from prison had been in the garage. (The felon was also convicted of shooting and killing the family in a separate trial.)

The jury heard Camm’s testimony and decided that he was a liar (along with all the basketball witnesses) and that he murdered his own family.

Juries may be the system we use to determine justice, but that doesn’t make them infallible.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
JWG: are you obtuse or just trying to cloud things up? What’s the parallel between this and the case you cite? In your example, there (obviously) was a question of who did the shooting, of where the accused was at the time, of evidence ignored. There’s no question that Maye shot the police officer; Maye himself admitted doing so. There was no issue of Maye having an alibi for that night, nor of witnesses mistakenly identifying Maye as the shooter.

Sure, the jury could have made a mistake in choosing to not believe Maye when he testified he didn’t know he was shooting at a cop and as to where he was in the room when he opened fire. But at the same time, you (and the other cop-killer defenders) have nothing, I repeat nothing, to prove the jury got it wrong. It came down to a question of whether the jury believed him and they unanimously decided they didn’t... and you all, because you hate no-knock raids so much, just can’t accept that.

Balko et. al. throw out much ado about problems with the warrant and the informant being racists and the neighbor being ’allowed’ to leave the state and the lawyer being incompetent and ’a man’s home is his castle’ and so on... but none of it is relevant and nothing he offers up comes close to proving that the jury got it wrong.

And, as much as the cop-killer’s defenders would like this to not be the case, at least in this case, our system is built around the premise that one needs real evidence to overturn a jury verdict... a lot more than what the cop-killer’s defenders have to offer. Prove the jury got it wrong and there’s something to talk about. Until then...
 
Written By: steve sturm
URL: www.thoughtsonline.blogspot.com
What’s the parallel between this and the case you cite?
That just because a jury says a man is guilty doesn’t mean it’s true. I wonder if you refer to that 88 year old woman as an aspiring cop killer?

I can guarantee you that if I hear someone breaking into my house I’m going to assume they’re bad men and I’m going to respond with deadly force. Guaranteed. (I have no reason to assume the police would be attacking me.)
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
JWG: There’s nothing wrong with assuming that someone breaking into your house is evil... but you don’t get to fire away if you know it’s the police. If you do shoot, you deserve to end up dead or on death row.

as for juries getting it wrong, I’m sure the cop-killer’s attorneys would love any evidence you - or any of the other folk crying over Maye - can give them that the jury got it wrong. until you come up with something, you have nothing.
 
Written By: steve sturm
URL: www.thoughtsonline.blogspot.com
"(I have no reason to assume the police would be attacking me.)"

See, this is how cop haters talk. They throw a fit at calling Maye a cop killer, but consider cops serving a warrant to be "attacking" them. The whole purpose of this line of arguement is to paint cops as jack booted thugs getting what they deserve when they are murdered by people like Mayes, and JWG as he warns in advance.

I just hope nobody comes home late at night without a key and tries to sneak in. They might be mistaken for a cop.
 
Written By: mikem
URL: http://
See, this is how cop haters talk.
Seriously, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re making a fool out of yourself.
consider cops serving a warrant to be "attacking" them
If they are crashing into the house without knocking, that is an attack.
I just hope nobody comes home late at night without a key and tries to sneak in.
Knowing there’s a plan for various natural disasters AND for home invasion, no one who lives in my home is dumb enough to break in.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"...no one who lives in my home is dumb enough to break in."

Oh, I was sure of that. We get the picture, Bubba.


 
Written By: mikem
URL: http://
We get the picture, Bubba.
You really have embarrassed yourself in this thread. Please come back and play again in another post. You may actually learn a few things about the people who frequent this site and their views beyond your ridiculous caricatures.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"Do you guys really want to defend people who shoot cops"? Well, yes, if the shooter was acting in self-defense, as Mr. Maye appears to have done. I have no particular dislike of cops (I like them when they defend me against aggression; dislike them when they are the aggressors); but simply wearing a badge and a uniform does not magically convey some right not to be shot at when they unjustifiably attack people.
 
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
Woe is me. My anti cop killer remarks are all for naught, for a hunkered down, waiting for the end of the world survivalist has informed me that I am embarrassing myself. Boy, my tail is between my legs, for sure.

Bilwick: As SS pointed out, the jury determined, based on evidence, that Maye knew that he was shooting at cops. Additionally, he was the one that attacked, he was the one who shot.
You make it sound as if the cops were shooting at him and he shot back.

Maybe Maye thought like some of the commenters here do: that he should be allowed to kill a cop if they enter his home without permission.
 
Written By: mikem
URL: http://
a hunkered down, waiting for the end of the world survivalist
WTF are you talking about? I’m a middle school science and technology teacher outside of Louisville. I’m a veteran, and some of my close friends and family members are in law enforcement. I used to be a firefighter. You’re a complete moron, and the regular visitors to this site know it.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Earlier
Me: "I just hope nobody comes home late at night without a key and tries to sneak in."

Your response: "Knowing there’s a plan for various natural disasters AND for home invasion, no one who lives in my home is dumb enough to break in."

That is what I’m talking about. You think bragging about a kill-all (friend or foe) attitude or security system at your home makes you normal, regardless of what job you have? That and your other remarks makes it sound as if you are salivating at the chance to kill someone, albeit legally if possible. I don’t know your location or lifestory, but I do recognize your way of thinking, since you have been "macho" enough to make it clear.



 
Written By: mikem
URL: http://
Knowing there’s a plan for various natural disasters AND for home invasion
If you’re so unprepared that your kids don’t have a plan about where to go and who to communicate with in the event of a tornado, fire, etc. then God help you in the event of an emergency.

As far as home invasion, my family knows about gun ownership and my children know where to hide in the remote chance that someone breaks in. They know I’m going to have a gun while they go to their "safe" place.

You sound like a victim. Good luck with that.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Maybe Maye thought like some of the commenters here do: that he should be allowed to kill a cop if they enter his home without permission.
It’s called the 4th amendment. You haven’t heard of it, clearly. The police aren’t allowed to commit an armed violent felony, like breaking in without a valid warrant competently executed.

Maye wasn’t shooting to kill, he was shooting to stop the armed violent felony he was witnessing. If the cop had lived, I have no doubt Maye and everyone here would be fine with that.

Funny how you keep on obsessing about how the jury heard the evidence...when there isn’t reasonably any question that they didn’t hear all the evidence or an explication of its relevance (re bullet hole angles and placement) and that Maye’s counsel was in that regard not competent.

That part must not mean much to you.

Bottom line, the burden and physical and legal risk of breaking into a house while armed to serve a warrant should fall on the police. If that means a hammer falls on them when they screw up, that’s better than the alternative...where the burden doesn’t fall on them.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
"You sound like a victim. Good luck with that."

Indeed, I’ld rather die myself than chance killing a child of mine sneaking in past curfew. But at least you’ll be safe, and that’s what a real man does, right?
 
Written By: mikem
URL: http://
chance killing a child of mine sneaking in past curfew
You’ll be in bed asleep before your children come home? Is that what a real man does? Get over yourself.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"Get over yourself."

Rich words coming from a man who places his own safety above that of his children, who would rather shoot his own child than chance allowing a home invader to harm him.
But, then again, you have already warned your kids, so it’s all legal and proper.

Good luck with that, indeed.
 
Written By: mikem
URL: http://
who would rather shoot his own child than chance allowing a home invader to harm him
Keep proving yourself a moron...It’s entertaining.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"Knowing there’s a plan for various natural disasters AND for home invasion, no one who lives in my home is dumb enough to break in."

Your words. Your bragging. Now I’m a moron for pointing out the pride you take in a shooot first, weep later security system?

Oh well.
 
Written By: mikem
URL: http://
I said my family has a plan. I didn’t say it included "shoot first." But you’ve made a habit of making things up since you started posting here.

I also wonder why you assume my family is going to try to break in when I already bragged that they are too smart for that. I’ve also wondered why you think I would be asleep while they are out past curfew.

Yes...you are a proven moron. And everytime you post it gets worse. Keep it up.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"I also wonder why you assume my family is going to try to break in when I already bragged that they are too smart for that."

And again, you are bragging. Bragging that your kids know you will shoot anyone, even if it could turn out to be one of them sneaking in. Yeah, they are smart, smart enough to not trust you to identify your target. Smart enough to not give Dad an excuse to shoot.

You just don’t get it, do you? It’s a pity, really. Kids should NEVER have to worry about their own father shooting them, in their own home at that.

"Yes...you are a proven moron. And everytime you post it gets worse. Keep it up."

Oh, bravo, Bubba. Did you find that in "100 Winning Ways to Debating"?
 
Written By: mikem
URL: http://
You just don’t get it, do you?
Keep making Sh** up. Where have I said anything about shooting blindly and/or not identifying a target? You are battling quite a strawman there.
Kids should NEVER have to worry about their own father shooting them, in their own home at that.
EVERYONE should worry about being shot when they break into a home.

My kids are smart enough to know that breaking into our home will set off an alarm and cause everyone at home to carry out a preset plan. They also know that my wife and I wait up for them if they are out past curfew.

I’m not sure why you equate be prepared for an emergency, including a home invasion, to shooting wildly and blindly into the night, but I’m not sure how many morons work out their own personal logic either.

I also find it interesting that you’re so confident that Maye knew his target was a cop, but you’re sure I’m going to unknowingly kill my own children, even though I am a trained soldier and Maye was just a 20 year old with a handgun. But you’re no moron...no sir-ee!

Feel free to battle anymore ridiculous strawmen your mind can construct. It amuses me and the other gun supporting home owners around here.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Now your own words are those of a strawman, eh? I love it. At least you’re moving in the right direction. People really don’t admire the any excuse to shoot mentality, even gun rights activists. Most gun rights activists consider police to be on our side. Then you have the Maye supporters.
"It amuses me and the other gun supporting home owners around here."
LMAO. This is about the tenth time you have "spoken for everyone else". Over and over again you state that everyone else thinks this and that about me, while I’m laughing my ass off noting that no one else is commenting but you. I guess there is a feverish email exchange going on about me in the background, eh, everyone agreeing with you and just not bothering to say so. How sad. I guess you better break out the sockpuppets, Bubba, so that you can turn this around too.
Meanwhile, keep in mind that cops die by the hundreds defending people like you. That is professionalism.

 
Written By: mikem
URL: http://
Now your own words are those of a strawman
You have repeatedly failed to show where I said anything about
kill-all (friend or foe)
rather shoot his own child than chance allowing a home invader to harm him
etc.

But that’s why you’re a moron. You like to make sh** up and pretend it means something.
keep in mind that cops die by the hundreds defending people like you
Actually, about 50 die each year from gun shots. About as many die in car accidents. Our society is diminished with each death.

I would have felt that way even if it had included any of the three cops who wrongly attacked and killed that 88 year old woman in Atlanta.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
In case you can’t access the article, it states
An Atlanta police narcotics officer has told federal investigators at least one member of his unit lied about making a drug buy at the home of an elderly woman killed in a subsequent raid
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
There are over 1 million legal incidents of guns being used in self-defense every year. Luckily, none of those people would ever listen to a person like you.

Unfortunately for the family of my neighbor (and babysitter of my youngest), they weren’t prepared for a home invasion and were murdered (less than two miles away) a few years ago in their home by a recently released felon. But since no police were harmed in the non-defense of their home, I’m sure it’s of little consequence to you.

Your distortions have been comical, but are no longer interesting. Take your moronic fantasies and victimology elsewhere.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"Knowing there’s a plan for various natural disasters AND for home invasion, no one who lives in my home is dumb enough to break in."

The entire post is about a cop being killed entering a house (with a warrant). Given that context and your support for Maye, you swagger in with the above remark. Now, you laughably claim that your remarks had nothing to do with the use of deadly force nor that "...is dumb enough to break in" refers to any danger that they may face breaking in from being mistaken for a home invader.

You have a lot of nerve.

 
Written By: mikem
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider