A good judgement, but a life ruined: Jury clears homeowner who took cop for intruder

Wildcard

Moderator
Jury clears homeowner who took cop for intruder
A jury took less than 30 minutes to determine a homeowner did no wrong when he shot a police officer two years ago.
BY CHARLES RABIN
crabin@MiamiHerald.com

A little more than two years ago, Mario Barcia Jr. was awakened in the dead of night by banging on his door. Startled -- and shaken from two previous robberies -- he grabbed his gun and ran to the front of the house.

Within a matter of seconds his life would change forever. Seeing what he described only as a bright light shining through his back door, Barcia fired a single shot.

Five shots were returned. Then Barcia fired twice more.

His first shot had hit Miami-Dade County police officer Chad Murphy in the back.

Barcia was arrested and charged with attempted first-degree murder of a law enforcement officer, a crime that could have left him imprisoned for life. Murphy, wearing a flak jacket, survived with a bloody bruise.

On Wednesday, it took a Miami-Dade County jury less than 30 minutes to decide Barcia did nothing wrong in shooting Murphy, who had entered Barcia's property without permission or a warrant.

But the cost to Barcia, a former Miami-Dade County Family Court clerk, and his family has been substantial: In the past two years Barcia has lost his job and his home, and had to serve house arrest while watching his now-19-month-old son grow.

Still, between hugs from family members on the third floor of the county criminal courthouse, Barcia said he holds no grudge against the state for pressing forward on what he considered an unfair case.

''I'm just glad it's behind me,'' he said. ``They were just doing their jobs. I just wish they'd have been honest.''

Barcia's story began well before the early morning of Oct. 24, 2003, when he shot Murphy. Twice, his South Dade home at 11941 SW 208th St., had been vandalized. Fearing for his well-being and that of his then-pregnant wife Mercedes, Barcia bought a gun in August 2003.

Two months later Sgt. David Dominguez and police officer Thomas Wever were driving down 208th Street near Barcia's home when they heard what they thought was a rock hit their car. They decided to search for who did it, and called for back up.

When help arrived, Murphy and Dominguez made their way over a wall and into Barcia's yard. Both had bright flashlights. At one point Murphy entered a screened porch where French doors led into the home, while Dominguez waited outside it.

About the same time, other officers were banging on Barcia's front door. The noise woke him up.

That's where the state's and Barcia's stories differ. The state claims Barcia peeked out the front window, realized there were police officers there, and shot at an officer outside on purpose.

During the fracas, his wife dialed 911. At one point the operator told Barcia he may have shot a cop. Barcia is heard clearly on the tape saying it was a burglar.


Barcia's attorney, Ronald Lowy, told jurors a different version of events: By the time Barcia made his way to the front of the home, the knocking had stopped -- and all he saw was a bright flashlight pointed directly at him through the window.

Lowy highlighted that point during closing arguments, shutting off the lights in Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Rosa Rodriguez's courtroom, then shining the bright light into the eyes of each juror for a few seconds.

It was impossible to see who was behind the flashlight.

''When someone comes into your house, over a 7-foot fence at 12:40 a.m., you don't expect it to be the police,'' said Lowy. ``They were unlawfully there.''

Before the jury left to consider their verdict, Judge Rodriguez explained it is contrary to law for a police officer to enter a private residence without a search warrant or permission from the homeowner unless it's a very unusual circumstance.

If Barcia had a reason to believe a felony was being committed on his property, or that his or others lives were in danger, the judge added, he could legally fend for himself.


http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/13713521.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_local
 
Feel for both sides in this one.

The guy had been burglarized twice, so I know I would be scared. I dont think proper procedure was followed by the Police in this situation. The words were they (heard) a rock hit the car, but did they see a person throw it? No, they didint. I think that pretty much cuts off any argument about hot pursuit.

You need a warrant to enter private property or be in hot pursuit. The police had niether.

its a tragedy all the way around. At least no one died. I hope the police derpartment is giving classes over the policies of entering a home without a warrant ot hot pursuit. In my experience when you fail to follow policy on stuff like this good results do not come form it most of the time.
 
The suggestion that the homeowner's life is ruined is garbage. His life is not ruined. Part of it have been very nasty, no doubt, but not ruined, otherwise, what hope does he have to go on? He is cleared of the charges, so he is not a felon and he can own guns, vote, etc. So his legal statues is returned. Yes, he will need to find a new job and get his affairs in order.

With that in mind, I am guessing that with the testimony from the case, the homeowner has a very good chance for a substantial civil finding on his behalf.

On the good side, he probably ended up with an experience he would not otherwise have had. As he was under house arrest, he did get to spend considerable time with his new baby that he otherwise would not have been able to do as he would have been working.
 
I'm glad he's cleared of having to serve the rest of his life in prison, but I find it a very poor shoot to simply fire at a flashlight through the window. While the police procedure was certainly at fault, the man behind the gun is not without fault here, too.

The good news here is that no one died.

Life goes on.
 
LongPath: I do not intend for this to be anything but a serious question, so please take it that way. What alternative do you see for the homeowner in the same situation? Should he wait until he feels the pain of a gunshot or sees a muzzle flash? I guess I'd have done the same thing that the homeowner did. It's terrible that the police officer was shot. It's equally terrible that the homeowner lost his job and is in financial ruin. Hopefully, he'll recover enough in a civil action to more-than-adequately compensate him for his grief.

Sadly, for every case like this one, there are probably 20 cases or more where the homeowner is the one who got shot by the police.
 
You know there's something VERY important missing from this article...

At what point did the police identify themselves?

While banging on the door?

Or after the shots had been fired?
 
I'm glad he's cleared of having to serve the rest of his life in prison, but I find it a very poor shoot to simply fire at a flashlight through the window. While the police procedure was certainly at fault, the man behind the gun is not without fault here, too.

Longpath, frankly I would have shot at the flashlight too. That flashlight and the man holding it didn't belong there and could very likely have been someone with hostile intent. I'm sorry for the policeman getting shot, but those officers, regardless of their intent, did not legally belong there and brought it upon themselves. They were investigating a rock being thrown at a car.

Might even be said that after Barcia fired the first shot the officer, instead of returning fire into a dark house, should have jumped back away and identified himself and the fact that he and other policeman were around the house.

Barcia's castle was invaded and he defended it. I'm sorry he lost his job and home and 2 years of his life for it.
 
Seeing what he described only as a bright light shining through his back door, Barcia fired a single shot.

I find it absolutely incredible that any responsible and reasonable person would advocate shooting at a bright light shining THROUGH your door from the outside. I don't know, but I really thought that one of the cardinal rules of shooting and self defense was to ID your target before pulling the trigger. The light could just as easily have been held by the dopy neighbor kid looking for his dog, a fireman or good samaritan trying to alert the homeowner that his garage was on fire, or any number of things that you probably shouldn't be popping rounds at someone for. In a situation like this you absolutely have to wait. Take cover, get on the phone with 911 and cover the perceived threat. When and if the threat escalates into an actual attempt to bust down the door and you believe that your life is in danger then the shooting can commence. A light shining through your back door at 12:40am is certainly cause for high alert, but shooting at it is absolutely insane and ridiculous. This guy initiated a firefight and endangered his family in the process. I also find it incredible that the police should have used better judgement by 1. not being there and 2. taking cover after one of them is shot and not firing into a darkened house. Anyone remember the the "blinding" light that they had the house illuminated with? But everyone thinks it's cool to shoot at nothing more than that light, WHICH WAS OUTSIDE THE HOUSE.

The jury taking 30 minutes to deliberate shows only that they did not buy the charge of attempted murder of a police officer and does not vindicate or justify this guys actions. He most likely really did think it was a burglar and the jury believed that he thought that and so do I from the information provided. The prosecution dropped the ball on this and should have charged him with some lesser crime that covered negligence, not intent to kill a cop. If they would have done that it would have been a slam dunk that my 9 year old could have prosecuted. The jury would have deliberated 30 minutes for a conviction.

It really doesn't matter who was standing at that door. It was irresponsible and negligent to shoot in this situation. What if it were the kid next door? OOPS!!! "Joe, I'm really sorry for putting one in Joe Jr's ten ring, but I really thought he was a burglar. Sorry, but he shouldn't have been on my back porch." The possibilities are endless and that is exactly why this is ridiculous.

A civil action is certainly a great possibility. However, that action may well be against Mr. homeowner and on behalf of the copper. I have a feeling that his legal troubles are not over.

Added: How did the cop get shot in the back when he was pointing the flashlight directly at the homeowner? Must be some new reverse tactical flashlight hold using mirrors and such. The more I think about this the more ridiculous it gets. Also note that I commonly enter unlocked enclosed porches to knock on the actual entrance door to a residence. They were not "in" his residence.
 
Last edited:
Wait a minute, this guy fires one round, the cop emediately returns with five rounds, and the homeowner is out of line? If I had been burglurized twice before I likely wouldn't wait for a gunshot, or until the would be suspect is inside my house with an unknown number of accomplices. This guy was wrong to not challenge the cop verbally first, but I see way more fault with the cop. He was not following the law in being there. He returned fire instead of identifying himself, and then to make matters worse, it sounds like the cops tried to make the guy out to be a maddog cop killer to cover their own blunders.JMHO E
 
Ruger, for one minute lets forget that it was the police on the back porch. How in the world can you justify shooting at an unknown perceived threat that is outside your house? Absolutely it could be a burglar, the boogie man, Osama, or the next Charles Manson. It could also have been the neighbor like I mentioned earlier. You just don't know and that is why you don't open up because you thought it might be a threat. You have to know it was a threat. If this story did not involve the police and it was a kid or someone that turned out to not be a burglar I believe that we would all be agreeing that the guy is an idiot. If they had entered the guys residence under the same circumsatnces and were coming at him while blinding him with a flashligt I would be calling them idiots and asking what in the hell they expected. That is not the case. Take the cop out of the equation and put an innocent person in his place. Think for a minute.....tell me this guy acted reasonably. I also assume that you are a gun owner and are prepared to defend yourself if necessary. If someone shoots you are you going to return only one round because they only shot you once? Hell no you aren't. The guy got shot. I think they used great restraint in only shooting 5 times. Just my opinion.
 
I agree with Long Path. I don't feel shooting at an unknown threat through a door is justified. I also don't think it was reasonable to believe a felony was being committed on his property.

IMO, the proper action would have been to arm himself, gather his family together and call the police (nothing like calling the police on the police). Let them deal with whatever is happening outside. Only if they had tried to gain entry into his house should he have fired.
 
IMO, the proper action would have been to arm himself, gather his family together and call the police (nothing like calling the police on the police). Let them deal with whatever is happening outside. Only if they had tried to gain entry into his house should he have fired.

There you go,common sense. Once you decide to pull that trigger life
is changed forever, be positive why and what you shoot.
 
I think the homeowner was a little premature too

But with that said, I wasn't there. Yes, common gun safety says you don't shoot at a bright flash light shining in your window... but that light was in the BACK yard, not in the front.. it was 12:30 in the morning ..... there had been loud noises that woke the guy up.... he was already in fear for his family from previous crimes...

I think the first fault was with the cops... any 'crime' or wrong doing after that is on them. That's the way felony law works for average citizens.
 
I agree that the homeowner did jump the gun but at the same time he was probably in "fear for his life" and emotions certainly were high from both sides.the police also shouldnt have been there without a warrant and should have identified themselves clearly,which wasnt done,hence,a mix up.

on the other thing...his life wasnt TOTALLY ruined, he lost his job and perhaps those of you thinking its not a big issue, it is when youre left jobless for defending what you may believe was the correct decision,all things considered.Im sure that thought will stick in his mind and the minds of the officers involved. nobody wants to be a victim and under the same circumstances, my response would have been similiar if only an actual entering had occured.outside is one thing but inside, its a new ballgame.
 
Well my 2 cents is this...
If it was me I would have grabed my Shotgun and stood about 10 feet from the door and ducked down yelled "Who is it? What do you want?" giving any none threating person a chance to identify there selfs. I think shooting at a light without first asking the "Light" who they are and what they want is rude. If at that time the light didn't respond or shot into my home I would send buckshot into the light.....
 
Steve, I did not say this man was reasonable. I said he should have challenged the cop first. I also believe the cop should have id'd himself before returning fire. He should have known that he was there illegally. If he didn't he was trained poorly. I agree the homeowner jumped the gun, but the cop caused the problem to begin with. E
 
I also believe the cop should have id'd himself before returning fire. He should have known that he was there illegally. If he didn't he was trained poorly.
Are you really serious? You get shot in the back, and you are going to yell "Police" before turning and returning fire?
Also, what if they were searching for a rapist? What difference does it really matter why you are searching. Can you tell, as the homeowner, what the nefarious flashlights are looking for? Rapists or rock thrower. Hot pursuit suspect or lost puppy? Really.
Had that been a officer initiated shot, this place would be in uproar. I'm not saying things were handled in the best way. But some of these comments are getting out of hand. Shooting at flashlights b/c you are in fear of your life. No way. Take that gun away from the clown. Too many lights in this world that might set him off. If a cop had shot at a flashlight in those circumstances, he should have a hard time explaining that one to a DA.
 
If a cop had shot at a flashlight in those circumstances, he should have a hard time explaining that one to a DA.

But he would not have faced the same justice a non badge wearing citizen would have.

kudos to the jury here.

At one point Murphy entered a screened porch where French doors led into the home, while Dominguez waited outside it.

Thats entry in the house to me.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top