Another self defense case, Andrew Coffee found not guilty on 5 counts, including murder, attempted murder
But you won’t hear this on CNN
Friday, Andrew Coffee was found not guilty on all five counts after state prosecutors alleged Coffee fired at officers during an early morning SWAT raid, resulting in the death of Coffee’s girlfriend.
More from WPBF:
VERO BEACH, Fla. — Andrew Coffee was found not guilty on all counts of murder and attempted first degree murder Friday.
Coffee is accused of firing at Indian River County Sheriff’s Deputies during an early morning drug raid at his home back in 2017.
His girlfriend, Alteria Woods was caught in the crossfire, shot 10 times and later died. Coffee was charged with the murder of Woods after a grand jury exonerated two law enforcement officers for her death.
Before the case went to the jury’s hand, Coffee took the stand to defend himself — blaming deputies for his girlfriend’s death.
The defense said Coffee was asleep and thought the flash-bang was gunfire so he fired his gun because he thought the was under attack.
“I was trying to protect me and Alteria and I thought I was doing that, but I feel I didn’t protect her. I can’t sleep with that … they killed her,” Coffee said.
The prosecutors said deputies did announce they were there.
They say coffee fired at deputies and they returned fire.
Coffee was found guilty on a count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, which could have a penalty of up to 30 years in prison. He was also found not guilty in the murder of Woods.
The Indian River County Sheriff, Eric Flowers, released a statement following the verdict:
“It’s dissapointing that this jury did not see the tragic death of Alteria Woods occurred as a direct result of the actions of Andrew Coffee IV. Our hearts go out to the Woods family as they still suffer from a loss of their daughter, but we stand by a statement that she would still be here had Coffee simply complied with law enforcement.
While the media is busy casting spells over the Rittenhouse trial, feverishly trying to make it an issue of race, this trial and it’s verdict have gotten little attention:
I can't get over the fact that a white guy shot 3 other white guys in self defense, and the US media has somehow turned it into a 'black' issue. 🤣
Sorcery.
— ZUBY: (@ZubyMusic) November 20, 2021
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Where is the propaganda machine outrage?? Oh, that’s right he fits their profile.
Blacks can rely on self defense but not whites in their Bizzaro World.
The left’s Zimbabwification of America continues apace.
They have to pretend this acquittl didn’t happen because it undermines their narrative.
I’ve long been concerned over the militarization of the police and their tendency to default to the most violent way to do their jobs. The whole idea that multiple people screaming “POLICE” counts as ‘announcing themselves’ has always worried me. How on earth is somebody supposed to understand that the armed assault they’re facing is (supposedly) legal?
I’m glad Mr. Coffee’s went as well as it did.
The bigger problem is the total corruption of the FBI, and the likes of a corrupt hack like Wray running it, and Merrick “Heinrich Himmler” Garland pulling Wray’s strings.
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/fbi-violent-home-raid-on-americas-mom-founder/
The FBI has been a criminal enterprise since the day J. E. Hoover walked in the door.
Wobbling on high heels
The US constitution authorizes only three federal crimes (or four, depending on how you count them). How can an agency established to prosecute unconstitutional laws be anything other than corrupt?
That’s ridiculous. The constitution in no way limits the number of federal crimes. On the contrary, it authorizes congress to make any number of laws, so long as they are necessary and proper to the exercise of one of its enumerated powers. The first congress, whose actions are regarded as almost the definition of what is constitutional, made numerous laws and created numerous crimes.
The only limit on congress is in the topics on which it can make laws. It has no general police power, so if a topic isn’t on its list it can’t make a law about it. (At least until it discovered that almost anything can be shoehorned into the interstate and international commerce clause.)
What worries me more, is when they are all shouting orders that are countermanding each other.
Obey some person’s order, and get the gun down and shot the pieces for not obeying somebody else’s. I sometimes think they enjoy this.
Sometimes it’s even the same guy.
“The whole idea that multiple people screaming “POLICE” counts as ‘announcing themselves’ has always worried me. How on earth is somebody supposed to understand that the armed assault they’re facing is (supposedly) legal?”
You don’t have to assume that. There is firm and unassailable precedent. The constitution requires presentation of a warrant.
Of course a warrant must be presented – but how is one supposed to see a warrant if he starts shooting at the noise of people coming in and announcing their presence?
Absolutely. What amazes me is that this case was flying totally under radar for four years. I live in the area and this is the first time I’ve heard about it.
Not enough information for me to form a logical opinion but he is already a convicted felon and the police were there for a reason so it’s not exactly the same thing as the Rittenhouse case.
Also, anyone can knock on your door “early morning” and announce they are the police. I don’t understand why they always have to come in the “early morning” in the first place. Wouldn’t it be safer for everyone if they waited for him to exit and nab him then?
I would like to see how the jury ruled self-defense while exonerating the police too. Someone is to blame for something here. Was the prosecution just over-charging?
The police don’t want it safer. They want to have the same situation as what happened to the poor veteran down in Texas. People beating all his doors knocking them in shouting and screaming and he defended himself. And as soon as he got that gun out from under his bed, they shot him to pieces. It made for very good headlines.
Such behavior goes at back at least to the case of Donald Scott (1992) and surely beyond that.
“The sheriff’s department still maintained its deputies had done nothing wrong.”
And that is why they would rather it were illegal to defend yourself.
” would like to see how the jury ruled self-defense while exonerating the police too.”
The police were likely cleared in the totally fair and impartial investigation conducted by the police …
Like the one that “cleared” the intentional killing of the unarmed female veteran protester, Ashli Babbitt, that the “authorities” refuse to release..
“it’s not exactly the same thing as the Rittenhouse case.”
No… in so many ways it’s so much better.
1. Self-defender was black. Shuts the Joy Reid Fan Club up before they can even get their mouths open.
2. Defense was against police. Total exoneration. The uniform is not a perfect legal shield.
3. Defender was a felon. Still had a recognized right to self-defense. Wow, how about that?
4. Defender got tapped for the gun. Well, that’s the rules… but note that it didn’t neutralize his claim to lethal force self-defense.
5. Who arrived at all these results? “The systemic white supremacist system.”
This verdict was 100% right for all the right reasons.
The jury didn’t exonerate the police. The police were not charged, so the jury didn’t get to say anything about them.
Not to be nitpicky but I’d like to say that a felon, having served his time, has as much right to be secure in his person and home as any of us.
But I also never understood why they don’t do these things when the suspect goes out for food.
So let’s say that you’re at the grocery store or a restaurant and police try to apprehend someone on a warrant. Do you want to be caught in that crossfire? Or let’s say they try to pull him over on the side of the road and he runs. Doing it in the home contains it to their home.
Excessive, perhaps. Uncontrolled, yes. To be fair, both parties were armed and had abortive intentions. Certainly not a plausible cause and handmade tale of a Capital Hill ‘hero”. Not the case of an FBI sniper and man in the middle of nowhere. That would be Waco.
“The prosecutors said deputies did announce they were there.”
Where’s the video? Oh, there isn’t any.
All raids, but most especially no knock raids, should be recorded from beginning to end.
How about those videos starting with a screen shot of the search warrant? We’re here at 7734 Upside down street to raid K. Kaye, a well known disinformationist*, peddling truth and justice and beauty.
Miss Kaye. Please excuse me making an example with your name. But I did invent a word in your honor… disinformationist…
I would define disinformationist for you, but in the modern Queen of Hearts era words mean whatever the writer or listener wants them to mean.
Dude. You did define disinformationist—one who peddles, pushes, and promotes truth, beauty, and justice.
Alliteration is obvious, overt, and optional.
When a commenter replies to their own comments, is that akin to laughing at their own jokes? Just asking for a friend.
Can other people… see this friend?
I am not sure if the original warrant was for Coffee IV or for his father Coffee III. The search warrant issued after the shooting mentions his father’s extensive criminal history. Here is a link to that warrant,
https://court.indian-river.org/BenchmarkWeb/Image.aspx/PDFViewer2?cid=13321340&digest=VO2vmbC/Lep+8y7VT5te8Q
I have not located the original search warrant for the property but I did find the arrest affidavit for Coffee Jr (III) so it appears the search warrant was in regards to him and not to Coffee IV.
https://court.indian-river.org/BenchmarkWeb/Image.aspx/PDFViewer2?cid=12455062&digest=wm2EnjN+/qW3cALX2r+Tkg
Well, this aged well.
Is one day a record?
I don’t know about this wannabe-president Castro, but what I know damned well is that if Rittenhouse had been black he would never have been arrested or charged in the first place.
“3. Defender was a felon. Still had a recognized right to self-defense. Wow, how about that?”
It is even legal, under limited circumstances, for a felon to possess a firearm while using it for self-defense or for the defense of others.
It’s a case from my hometown that went all the way to the SCOTUS. I am so proud of my hometown which made its reputation on bad pro sports teams and kick@$$ violent gangs.
An ex-con was partying with friends when rival gang members tried to bust into the party. During the shootout somebody handed dude a gun. He used it, then gave it back after the shootout was over. And he caught a myriad of charges including felon in possession.
The SCOTUS ruled that:
1. A felon may lose his/her gun rights but still has the right to self-defense.
2. As long as the felon doesn’t have some prior plan in place for somebody to hand him/her a gun if the SHTF, the felon may use a gun that fortuitously falls into his/her hands for as long as necessary but only as long as necessary.
Yup, aware of that. The key is that the felon has to “happen across” the gun in some manner in the instant… not have “owned” it beforehand. There have also been cases where a felon struggles with an armed attacker who drops his gun, then the felon picks it up and uses it. Also ruled acceptable.
Lest I be misunderstood, I entirely agree that the felon had a right to self-defense. The gun law is simply an unfortunate aberration. If he had used a black powder firearm, or throwing stars, or even one of these, he would have walked away clean.
I’m one of those fringe people who believes that the right way to handle felonies is the way we did originally — when a guy gets out, he has paid his debt to society and gets all his rights back. Anything less is one, unenforceable, and two, encourages more and more “shortcuts” by authorities which turn our streets into “extension prisons,” which leads in turn to law-abiding people having to continually prove their status and their possession of all their rights to authorities because just being out on the streets is no longer enough.
I’m a firm believer in the truth of Codrea’s Law. Again, “radical” in the original definition of the word.
This is pretty local to me. One county north of us. Though I confess to not following it. As far as the current case I have no trouble believing that he thought he was being robbed. Criminals are often targets of other criminals.
You should also know that Gifford is the Black area of Indian River County. Even if segregation is no longer the law areas that were formerly legally segregated often remain so because of family ties and such. It should be no surprise that this is also a high crime area. With both perpetrators and victims making their homes there.
Florida is a open records state. I did a clerk of court search for this person. Seems his family is quite the criminal enterprise. I found Andrew Jeff Coffee, and Coffee JR (III) and Coffee IV all with extensive court cases. The majority at first glance coming under the description of CF. criminal felony
The community will be a lot safer if IV gets the maximum sentence for the gun possession charge.
In 2017 Coffee’s grandfather was found guilty of (in 2015) “attempted first degree murder of a law enforcement officer by discharging a firearm”.
I have not done a search for Coffee, Andrew in St. Lucie County records but I bet they proves just as revealing.
I simply do not understand how after hours police raids are not 4th amendment violations to begin with. It seems a no-brainer that it’s unreasonable to be woken up by screaming people with guns storming your home during hours when reasonable people are sleeping.
That is just an extension of the no knock raid. You will remember, that the no knock raid was brought to us by republican president Richard M Nixon. All part of the war on drugs, you know!
And who doesn’t favor a war on drugs? /must I?
This is largely a problem of the judges, police chiefs, etc. who issue n0-knock warrants and authorize SWAT raids. There may be instances where these things are necessary, but they’ve become a regular thing in circumstances where they create problems worse than the supposed crimes that instigated them.
There’s no reason they couldn’t have arrested this guy on the street, at a traffic stop, etc., and searched his place while he was in jail. A violent raid during hours of darkness can be expected to provoke a violent response — police should simply not be doing this (nor, should judges issue warrants allowing it), except in circumstances where there’s no less violent practical alternative.