Speaking of incorrect Sunrise is the time in the morning when the sun appears or full daylight arrives, whereas dawn is the first appearance of light in the sky before sunrise and is recognized by the presence of weak sunlight.
Depends on the term you're using, I guess. I'm not a meteorologist, so I don't know what definition they use, but you can find two different definitions for sunrise. One is the full daylight definition you reference, and the other is when the upper edge of the sun first appears over the eastern horizon.
However, considering that it takes about 3 minutes for the sun to rise so that it's fully visible after first peeking over the horizon, it could not have been daylight at 5:30AM in Killeen, TX if the sunrise (either definition) does not occur for another hour.
Again, I wasn't there but I know we aren't allowed to serve search warrants in the dark and I think that's a SCOTUS thing rather than agency policy.
Arrest warrants are allowed to be served at any time; only search warrants are limited to daytime. But there are a couple of things to note here.
The first is that this was a search warrant (at least according to the article), and as mentioned above, it's not daylight in any way at 5:30AM in Killeen, TX.
The second is that the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, a branch of Homeland Security, actually defines "daytime" for search warrants as between 6:00AM and 10:00PM. So a 5:30AM execution of a search warrant goes against that federal policy, which I would assume applies to local enforcement agencies as well.
And you can say that in self defense laws identifying your target isn't a stated requirement BUT many a man had been convicted for not properly identifying the target. Perhaps the law makers of most states simply assume that knowing what you're killing is an obvious criteria.
Nothing is assumed in law. It's either codified clearly in the statute, or it has been expounded upon by a court of competent jurisdiction. If neither of those are present, then a court has a case of first impression, and it must create precedent that expounds upon the statute. But we never rely upon an assumption that lawmakers meant something that's not in the statute in the slightest.
Aside from that, I'm not aware of any self defense cases in which someone was convicted because they didn't identify their target. If that was the sole reason for conviction, then they should have appealed and probably would have won on appeal, because self defense laws typically only require that you have a reasonable fear for your life or that a forcible felony will occur.
111 Replies
18913 Views