A good judgement, but a life ruined: Jury clears homeowner who took cop for intruder
- Thread starter Wildcard
- Start date
If that had been the case I would agree, but according to the account that the jury believed he was not shooting at a flashlight in the back yard he was shooting at one of two men with a flashlight, in his screen room which is considered part of his home, trying to come through the back glass door.
Two men who are not readily identifiable as police behaving in a non police like manner trying to come through my glass back door are getting shot before they are able to enter the house and take cover amongst my family.
If someone, as the police say but Barcia disputes, is beating on my front door while someone else is trying to come through my back door, which is a common home invasion diversionary technique, I'm shooting COM and then turning my attention to the more secure front entrance
These cops screwed up plain and simple circling wagons does not change that
Cops should take into consideration the nature of the environment that they are in. In gangland they should expect that a citizen who has erected a seven foot fence in addition to the common fence plus set many other crime deterrent devices would also have a gun and be ready and willing to defend his home.
They could have called their dispatch and run a check on the occupants of the house and seen that they were not wanted or active criminals.They could have used reverse 911 to call the home before they trespassed instead of after.
He may not have beaten this ride, but his next ride will be a brand new silver Mercedes.
And $10 says the house guest is the one who threw the rock
Nope, you got all the parts you wanted.
We agree on something!
Gee, I thought we were talking about just this incident. I didn't realize that we were really talking about all the times that coppers have screwed up and that this is just retribution for all those transgressions. Being human beings the police make mistakes and sometimes use poor judgement. Sometimes they are little mistakes and sometimes they are gigantic ones. The last thing on the face of the earth I want to do is have to shoot someone. I am mentally prepared and trained to do so, but I shudder at the thought of having to tell my children that I killed someone. The thought of mistakenly killing someone is unbearable to me. Lethal force is an absolute last resort to save your life, or the life another. Once you pull that trigger that is it. No take backs or appologies. You own every round you fire and will have to live with the consequences forever. If a flashlight and banging on your back door at midnight are enough for you to kill a man then you can live with it. I do appologize for the way that this digressed and should have chosen some words more carefully, but I stand by my opinion that this was an unwarranted use of deadly force.
Wow. Remind me what neighborhood you shooters live in. Because I would hate to be out of gas, have a broken down car in the middle of the night, or God forbid be in an accident, hurt, looking for help at the closest house, anywhere NEAR your neighborhoods.
They "KNOCKED ON A DOOR, and HAD A FLASHLIGHT". Look out little trick-or-treaters on halloween night around there........:barf:
They "KNOCKED ON A DOOR, and HAD A FLASHLIGHT". Look out little trick-or-treaters on halloween night around there........:barf:
stephen426
New member
If someone was pounding on my back door which they had to jump a 7 foot fence to get to, I would consider that a serious threat. Barcia had been burglerized several times before and there was gang activity in his neighborhood. If I was the police officer, I would have knocked on the front door and announced that I was an officer. I would not jump somebody's fence and pound on the back door. I'm glad the jury agrees with the way I see it.
As for shooting before identifying the target, Barcia is in the wrong. Although there is no legal obligation to do so, I would have yelled that I am armed, the intruders will be shot if they enter, and tell them that the police have already been called. The police would have then identified themselves (if they were not total idiots) and this whole messy situation would have been resolved. Rather than shoot first, I would take a postion with cover and shoot if someone comes through after my warning. If I were Barcia, I would consider suing the state for damages. The guy got arrested, lost 2 years of his life, lost 2 years worth of income, and had to pay a ton of legal fees because the cops screwed up first. That isn't fair by my book.
All I can say is anyone pounding on my back door had better not get through or else they will be met by a hail of double O buck! If its the cops they had better knock politely on my front door first!
As for shooting before identifying the target, Barcia is in the wrong. Although there is no legal obligation to do so, I would have yelled that I am armed, the intruders will be shot if they enter, and tell them that the police have already been called. The police would have then identified themselves (if they were not total idiots) and this whole messy situation would have been resolved. Rather than shoot first, I would take a postion with cover and shoot if someone comes through after my warning. If I were Barcia, I would consider suing the state for damages. The guy got arrested, lost 2 years of his life, lost 2 years worth of income, and had to pay a ton of legal fees because the cops screwed up first. That isn't fair by my book.
All I can say is anyone pounding on my back door had better not get through or else they will be met by a hail of double O buck! If its the cops they had better knock politely on my front door first!
Why in the world would you be trying to come through my back door if all you needed was some gas.?
If you were injured how would you scale a seven foot fence?
Look out any trick or treaters dumb enough to try to break into my back door and determined enough to negotiate any and all anti trespassing devices I have in order to get there.
Note to all home invaders
CARRY A FLASHLIGHT so the less aware will welcome you to their wife and possessions.
Everything these cops did were also tactics employed by home invaders, in a neighbor hood where home invasions are areal possibility.
Simply turning on their overheads and parking in front of the house they were actually trying to enter would have done much to bolster their case and position.
Read the article again.
Barcia did ID his target, the man with the flashlight and he shot to the right of him, which is the only thing I disagree with him on.
Joab,
I am not circling the wagons. My opinion is not based on an us v them mentality. I started out proposing that it could have been anyone on that porch for any number of reasons. I also said that someone in that area and especially under the circumstances would certainly be reason for high alert and arming yourslef. I would do the same thing and think you would be a fool to not do so. You have said several times that they were back there trying to bust in. Do you believe that they were really trying to get in? Please look at the doors in the picture. French doors are notoriously easy to breach. One half assed kick and you are in.
Along with what you posted here are some pertinent points that I gleaned from the article:
Joab, you said yourself that you believed the roommate to have thrown the rock. We both believe they had the right house. I don't know what throwing a rock and damaging a vehicle would be in Florida, but it would be a Felony in NY.(Depending on amount of damage) They were searching for a possible felon that had JUST committed the crime. Couple that with the below and I believe that they had reason to enter that yard. (I concede that the guys in back never said in their statements that they were aware of the situation out front with the Jeep. I don't know if they knew that information or not, but really can't imagine the guys out front not telling them.)
It is certainly not illegal to have KKK and Satan is here on your vehicle, but under the circumstances I would certainly be thinking that something a little more might be going on in the house and if I could not get anyone at the front door I would absolutely jump the fence to check the back yard and look into the house.
Lee testifies that the commotion out front gained his attention enough to bring him outside form next door, but it wasn't enough to alert the occupants of the actual house? He says that when he went back in that the pounding out front continued yet Barcia claims that he heard it for only a short period and then it stopped. I think it is absolutley possible that the Bracias believed the pounding out front to be coming from the back and when he saw the guys out back he made a mistake in the confusion and stress of the situation.
[
I just don't believe Barcia on this and the evidence points to the police version as being more accurate. The guy was shot square in the back as he ran for cover.
"Kept like coming at me?" How did he do that through french doors? Nobody was ever coming at him in the first place. They were running for cover when they saw the gun and that is absolutley supported by the fact that the uniformed cop was shot in the back. Barcia just shot a guy when he apparently didn't mean to. He is naturally going to spin it in his favor.
I say again that I don't believe that Barcia shot with the intention of killing a cop. He probably did not realize that it was the police back there and had no idea of the circumstances behind the presence of whoever was there and that is EXACTLY why I believe he was reckless.
Steve
I am not circling the wagons. My opinion is not based on an us v them mentality. I started out proposing that it could have been anyone on that porch for any number of reasons. I also said that someone in that area and especially under the circumstances would certainly be reason for high alert and arming yourslef. I would do the same thing and think you would be a fool to not do so. You have said several times that they were back there trying to bust in. Do you believe that they were really trying to get in? Please look at the doors in the picture. French doors are notoriously easy to breach. One half assed kick and you are in.
Along with what you posted here are some pertinent points that I gleaned from the article:
Joab, you said yourself that you believed the roommate to have thrown the rock. We both believe they had the right house. I don't know what throwing a rock and damaging a vehicle would be in Florida, but it would be a Felony in NY.(Depending on amount of damage) They were searching for a possible felon that had JUST committed the crime. Couple that with the below and I believe that they had reason to enter that yard. (I concede that the guys in back never said in their statements that they were aware of the situation out front with the Jeep. I don't know if they knew that information or not, but really can't imagine the guys out front not telling them.)
It is certainly not illegal to have KKK and Satan is here on your vehicle, but under the circumstances I would certainly be thinking that something a little more might be going on in the house and if I could not get anyone at the front door I would absolutely jump the fence to check the back yard and look into the house.
Lee testifies that the commotion out front gained his attention enough to bring him outside form next door, but it wasn't enough to alert the occupants of the actual house? He says that when he went back in that the pounding out front continued yet Barcia claims that he heard it for only a short period and then it stopped. I think it is absolutley possible that the Bracias believed the pounding out front to be coming from the back and when he saw the guys out back he made a mistake in the confusion and stress of the situation.
[
I just don't believe Barcia on this and the evidence points to the police version as being more accurate. The guy was shot square in the back as he ran for cover.
[/QUOTE]
"Kept like coming at me?" How did he do that through french doors? Nobody was ever coming at him in the first place. They were running for cover when they saw the gun and that is absolutley supported by the fact that the uniformed cop was shot in the back. Barcia just shot a guy when he apparently didn't mean to. He is naturally going to spin it in his favor.
I say again that I don't believe that Barcia shot with the intention of killing a cop. He probably did not realize that it was the police back there and had no idea of the circumstances behind the presence of whoever was there and that is EXACTLY why I believe he was reckless.
Steve
I went through all ten pages and saw no pics, am I looking at the wrong article?
But anyway
I have steel framed french doors with positive vertical and horizontal locks no half assed kick is going to push them in and unless you open them or are very small you are not coming through the center until you break out the middle.
Which would not be all that hard it would only require a tool such as an large flashlight
Also I would point out
The doors were installed as a security measure, Whether true or not Barcia considered them to be a deterrent and probably stronger than a halfassed kick
A foot print in an area where footprints are permissible is not evidence of a crime.
How "fresh" was it? When did it rain last? Are footprints on residential property all that suspect?
Would the investigation been less successful if they had turned their overheads on and made reasonable contact with the home owners?
And my suspicion of the roomate comesfrom the personal information given in the story, information that the police were not privy to that night.
But is that what they did witnesses say no.
If they were concerned with the homeowners well being why would they not turn on their overheads so that the owners would know that they were indeed cops, they obviously weren't trying to be covert at this point, I hope
With all the collateral damage you have to wonder if our hero properly IDed his target or just fired in the direction of th presumed threat. GooseyGoosey Gander
If he is dumb enough to fire a scaring shot he is dumb enough to think he is a good shot without bothering to actually train
And cops would never spin anything in their favor, like footprints on private property
I hesitate to mention this because it will fuel your cop hating assumptions of me, but then simple research on your part here and at THR will show how wrong you are.
!3 years ago when I was arrested, the cop used a pair of footprints on the trunk of my car as evidence that I was standing on my car spying on my newly ex-wife.
This was in spite of the four independent witnesses that told him that I had removed my rain soaked boots and set them on the trunk as I changed into sneakers that were in my car.
Also in spite of the fact that I knew that she was sixty miles away and gave then the phone number of where she was, that she had given me.
In spite of the fact that my claim that my car was broken down was substantiated by the homeowner of the house I stopped in front of.
And mostly in site of the fact that unless I was about ten feet taller I could not possibly have seen her house from that angle.
But in his report he placed alot of emphasis on those footprint, because he couldn't put that the only real evidence he had was that I told him to STFU and may have implied that he had a very close relationship with his mother who may possibly have been a less than virtuous woman..
Cops are people too no better and no worse. They screw up just like the rest of us and will sometimes (usually) submit to natural instinct and try to cover their assets
I don't totally believe his account either but I do believe that the police were tactically wrong and malfeasant in their actions and that Barcia was within his rights to protect his family in any way that he saw fit within the law.The jury agreed
that his actions were within that law.
He most defineitly did not know that those were police back there(IMO) and that could have been solved by overheads lighting up the neighborhood and/or a reverse 911 call.
And yes he had no way of knowing the circumstances behind the presence of whoever was there and that is EXACTLY why I think the police were reckless
Go to the article and then where all the pages are listed by number click on "show all" When you scroll down to the bottom there is a bunch of extra stuff listed including pictures.
Quote:
It is certainly not illegal to have KKK and Satan is here on your vehicle, but under the circumstances I would certainly be thinking that something a little more might be going on in the house and if I could not get anyone at the front door I would absolutely jump the fence to check the back yard and look into the house.
But is that what they did witnesses say no.
The were making such a rucus out front that the next door neighbor came outside to see what was going on. They had a thirty second conversation that had to be loud enough to communicate between yards. The witness says that they continued pounding on the front door when he went back in.
After pounding on the door for an extended period of time they did contact dispatch to attempt to make phone contact. Barcia shot one of them before the call could be made.
Since you mentioed it....
I don't really understand what happened. You were broken down and Mr. Copper comes along and sees footprints on your trunk and you got arrested? There was no complaint, no restraining order, nothing else?
Quote:
It is certainly not illegal to have KKK and Satan is here on your vehicle, but under the circumstances I would certainly be thinking that something a little more might be going on in the house and if I could not get anyone at the front door I would absolutely jump the fence to check the back yard and look into the house.
But is that what they did witnesses say no.
The were making such a rucus out front that the next door neighbor came outside to see what was going on. They had a thirty second conversation that had to be loud enough to communicate between yards. The witness says that they continued pounding on the front door when he went back in.
After pounding on the door for an extended period of time they did contact dispatch to attempt to make phone contact. Barcia shot one of them before the call could be made.
Since you mentioed it....
I don't really understand what happened. You were broken down and Mr. Copper comes along and sees footprints on your trunk and you got arrested? There was no complaint, no restraining order, nothing else?
Joab:
There are no ways through the fence other than to scale it? No gates? They were all locked? We don't know. Maybe I wondered around in a daze from being injured and found the back door. Maybe I tried the front door, got no response, and tried around back? Some people don't even use their front entrances....
I know these things sound a bit far fetched and unrealistic, but so does shooting at an unidentified person, CLEARLY KNOCKING LOUDLY on your door.
A burglar would.....knock? Or would the loud sound be from them actually breaking it down and comming in?
Any criminal, especially a B&E guy, it seems would rely on stealth and silence to get in or out WITHOUT BEING DETECTED. Not by constant knocking to alert the whole house. They might make an unintenional sound, or one bump that wakes the house, but would they continue to BEAT ON THE DOOR? To me that says, HEY! I'm beating on both your doors to draw attention to my presence. I am here! SEE WHO I AM BEFORE YOU SHOOT ME.....
There are no ways through the fence other than to scale it? No gates? They were all locked? We don't know. Maybe I wondered around in a daze from being injured and found the back door. Maybe I tried the front door, got no response, and tried around back? Some people don't even use their front entrances....
I know these things sound a bit far fetched and unrealistic, but so does shooting at an unidentified person, CLEARLY KNOCKING LOUDLY on your door.
A burglar would.....knock? Or would the loud sound be from them actually breaking it down and comming in?
Any criminal, especially a B&E guy, it seems would rely on stealth and silence to get in or out WITHOUT BEING DETECTED. Not by constant knocking to alert the whole house. They might make an unintenional sound, or one bump that wakes the house, but would they continue to BEAT ON THE DOOR? To me that says, HEY! I'm beating on both your doors to draw attention to my presence. I am here! SEE WHO I AM BEFORE YOU SHOOT ME.....
Gary Conner
New member
Quote:
"As far as needing a search warrant, do you know where that begins in your state? At your property line? At your front door? At your screened porch?"
Well, if you were having your house appraised for sale, would you want to include everything under roof in the appraised value? I bet you would, and I bet the cop would too.
I can't understand why anyone would think it wouldn't also be part of the guys house when going inside in the middle of the night shining a flashlight on the occupents.
And with someone else beating on the door on the other side of the house, it seems to me almost anyone would expect that the owner might try and defend themselves. (Even if you yelled Police! We are curious about something, and we are coming inside!)
That D.A. had to withold a lot of information from the Grand Jury in order to indict that home owner. If I was on the Grand Jury, I'd sure have asked a bunch of questions before indicting the guy, that is for sure.
What is strange is seeing on another thread numerous folks saying the LEO that shot that Airman three times should not be indicted due to making a mistake, but not many are saying this home owner shouldn't have been indicted for a mistake.
"As far as needing a search warrant, do you know where that begins in your state? At your property line? At your front door? At your screened porch?"
Well, if you were having your house appraised for sale, would you want to include everything under roof in the appraised value? I bet you would, and I bet the cop would too.
I can't understand why anyone would think it wouldn't also be part of the guys house when going inside in the middle of the night shining a flashlight on the occupents.
And with someone else beating on the door on the other side of the house, it seems to me almost anyone would expect that the owner might try and defend themselves. (Even if you yelled Police! We are curious about something, and we are coming inside!)
That D.A. had to withold a lot of information from the Grand Jury in order to indict that home owner. If I was on the Grand Jury, I'd sure have asked a bunch of questions before indicting the guy, that is for sure.
What is strange is seeing on another thread numerous folks saying the LEO that shot that Airman three times should not be indicted due to making a mistake, but not many are saying this home owner shouldn't have been indicted for a mistake.
Gary,
Where is the thread on the other incident? I haven't talked to anyone that doesn't think the cop in that incident shouldn't be indicted. Some quotes from last night: "Did you see that shooting video today?" You mean the one of the cop that is going to jail?" "What is *ucking wrong with these people, don't they teach use of force and weapons safety?" "That was ugly, he's done. Atleast the guy isn't serioulsy hurt and will be able to enjoy the money."
From what I saw it looks horrible. OOPS don't cut it there and he should be punished.
Where is the thread on the other incident? I haven't talked to anyone that doesn't think the cop in that incident shouldn't be indicted. Some quotes from last night: "Did you see that shooting video today?" You mean the one of the cop that is going to jail?" "What is *ucking wrong with these people, don't they teach use of force and weapons safety?" "That was ugly, he's done. Atleast the guy isn't serioulsy hurt and will be able to enjoy the money."
From what I saw it looks horrible. OOPS don't cut it there and he should be punished.
If there was another way wouldn't the cops have chosen that route.
Maybe you are a home invader who has breeched my first line of security and is now trying to open the doors to my home.
Common sense dictates that you do not enter through somebody's gate, locked or not, and enter their fenced in private property. If you do you are guilty of illegal entry and trespassing.
r.No more far fetched than aliens from the planet Ukibuty coming down and breaking into your house to bestow the gift of supreme situational awareness on you.
But far more far fetched than supposing SOMEONE TRYING TO FORCE OPEN YOUR BACK DOOR is there for some non benevolent reason
Ever heard of a push in robbery or how about a home invasion where on member knocks on the front door while others come through the back door.
Or how about dumb crooks that think a half assed kick will make doors surrender just because they are French and find more resistance than anticipated?
How much personal interaction have you had with crime and criminals? Not much it seems.
You blissfully assume that everything is A OK because the after action report, in a newspaper, disputes the split second decisions that have to be made during the event.
Had he known that they were cops he would not have shot, it was up to the police who were invading the territory that he was permitted to defend to insure that their identity was known.
OK I looked at the photos
Those are the same french doors I have and no "half assed" kick is going to open them.
Also notice the single hole and the glass , although shattered, still in place despite the so called barrage of shots that Murphy claims went through it.
Also note that the officer that shot back acknowledges that he did not see the target he was shooting at only that he shot where he thought it might be.
Shouldn't he be held to the same standard of target identification that others here want to impose on the home owner?. At least he could pinpoint where his targets were.
But after reading the roommates account in his mind the knocking did not go on as long as the officers are claiming so there is some discrepancy, although being barely coherent makes affects his credibility. But the same could be said about , you know, about officer Murphy to some extent
They could just as easily held back from the back door while they made contact. They were not in hot pursuit they were simply following a hunch
I have not seen where it is established that the knocking went on "for an extended period" that is still in dispute between the two parties. And I have seen no witness statement either way
Common place mutual restraining order initiated by my lawyer
Dropped son of from visitation
Car broke down around the corner and down the block.
Did not take the common route out of the neighborhood, took a locals shortcut around traffic patterns
Soon to be ex BIL drove by and commented on my crappy car, I commented back on his swishy walk
He told mom
Mom misinformed police that I was violating a restraint order.
Police came
Barney Fife decides to play detective and assumes the role of Bad Cop
I tell Barney to STFU while I talk to less stupid partner
I get arrested
Officers reports conflict
Case dismissed with no charges filed after 20 days in county.
Lesson learned...
Heed the advice that I gave Officer Fife
Those are the same french doors I have and no "half assed" kick is going to open them.
Also notice the single hole and the glass , although shattered, still in place despite the so called barrage of shots that Murphy claims went through it.
Also note that the officer that shot back acknowledges that he did not see the target he was shooting at only that he shot where he thought it might be.
Shouldn't he be held to the same standard of target identification that others here want to impose on the home owner?. At least he could pinpoint where his targets were.
You are correct I meant to edit that to point out the inconsistencies in whether they verbally IDed them selves.
But after reading the roommates account in his mind the knocking did not go on as long as the officers are claiming so there is some discrepancy, although being barely coherent makes affects his credibility. But the same could be said about , you know, about officer Murphy to some extent
They should have called before they invaded his home.
They could just as easily held back from the back door while they made contact. They were not in hot pursuit they were simply following a hunch
I have not seen where it is established that the knocking went on "for an extended period" that is still in dispute between the two parties. And I have seen no witness statement either way
Long story shortened
Common place mutual restraining order initiated by my lawyer
Dropped son of from visitation
Car broke down around the corner and down the block.
Did not take the common route out of the neighborhood, took a locals shortcut around traffic patterns
Soon to be ex BIL drove by and commented on my crappy car, I commented back on his swishy walk
He told mom
Mom misinformed police that I was violating a restraint order.
Police came
Barney Fife decides to play detective and assumes the role of Bad Cop
I tell Barney to STFU while I talk to less stupid partner
I get arrested
Officers reports conflict
Case dismissed with no charges filed after 20 days in county.
Lesson learned...
Heed the advice that I gave Officer Fife
Edison Carter
New member
I live in New Mexico; not a week goes by that the TV news
doesn't cover a home invasion somewhere in the state.
When I answer the front door, even in the daytime, visitors
ALWAYS have stepped back 3-4 feet. It seems the common etiquette
here. If someone does NOT step back in that fashion.... well that
is why I have my pistol behind my back.
I talked with a rep from the lawn care service, who had looked over the
front yard, and asked him if he ever went around to the back, without
notice, permission, etc. "NEVER!" he said.
Around these parts, surprising people and skulking around their back
yards is a real good way to get a shotgun in your belly, and maybe
shot before people notice your lawn service uniform.
Some of the postings here are really reaching to justify the police behavior here.
What if it's the neighborhood retarded kid?
What if it's a woman who has been raped?
What if it's a motorist who dragged himself from a car crash, vaulted a
7 ft wall snuck into the back porch with a shotgun, and blinded the homeowner with a tactical flashlight?
Yea, sure.... what if it's Bigfoot floating in with a hang glider?
The homeowner was not just firing upon "some light" coming in through
the window, but responding to aggressive UNIDENTIFIED pounding at
front and back door, and a blinding light from an ARMED man who
had already unlawfully entered the house. Quibble all you like but
an enclosed porch is legally your house.
The judge instructed the jury that the police were acting unlawfully,
so I think the postings defending the police are utterly specious.
EC
doesn't cover a home invasion somewhere in the state.
When I answer the front door, even in the daytime, visitors
ALWAYS have stepped back 3-4 feet. It seems the common etiquette
here. If someone does NOT step back in that fashion.... well that
is why I have my pistol behind my back.
I talked with a rep from the lawn care service, who had looked over the
front yard, and asked him if he ever went around to the back, without
notice, permission, etc. "NEVER!" he said.
Around these parts, surprising people and skulking around their back
yards is a real good way to get a shotgun in your belly, and maybe
shot before people notice your lawn service uniform.
Some of the postings here are really reaching to justify the police behavior here.
What if it's the neighborhood retarded kid?
What if it's a woman who has been raped?
What if it's a motorist who dragged himself from a car crash, vaulted a
7 ft wall snuck into the back porch with a shotgun, and blinded the homeowner with a tactical flashlight?
Yea, sure.... what if it's Bigfoot floating in with a hang glider?
The homeowner was not just firing upon "some light" coming in through
the window, but responding to aggressive UNIDENTIFIED pounding at
front and back door, and a blinding light from an ARMED man who
had already unlawfully entered the house. Quibble all you like but
an enclosed porch is legally your house.
The judge instructed the jury that the police were acting unlawfully,
so I think the postings defending the police are utterly specious.
EC
This is what the judge really said(according to the original article:
I really don't see anywhere in there that he told them the police were there unlawfully. He told them when a police officer can enter a private residence and when they can't. Where does it say that the judge said "the police were there illegally"? There is an obvious point of contention here on whether they could be where they were. The charge was for attempted murder of two police officers. That is what the jury decided on. They didn't believe that Barcia attempted to murder two cops and no one here really does either. It was an apparent bad charge. What is utterly specious is to say that the jury some how sanctioned the actions of Barcia and condemned the police. They decided that the state did not prove it's case of attempted murder of police officers. End of story.
You contradict yourself here. If someone was making a concerted effort to get in would the doors be easily breached, or not? You say it would be easy using a tool like a flashlight? I have seen dozens of doors breached and can only remember two that took great effort. One was barricaded with 2X4's and the other was a steel frame security door that opened out.
His buddy was lying on the floor after being shot and was still in the kill zone. He did what he thought was right to provide some cover for his partner. All he knew was that he was hit. I can't say what I would do under the same circumstances.
Joab Wrote:
I never once disputed that the police were in serious error, and that they were unlawful, and acted in a spectacularly boneheaded manner. That is a given.
My only beef with this issue is the guy was clearly OUTSIDE, and they had been banging on the door for several minutes, loudly. The guy comes downstairs, sees a shadowy figure OUTSIDE with a flashlight, and makes a decision to FIRE A WARNING SHOT. How can you jusify that as a good shoot? Or even being reasonably safe with a firearm? It was boneheaded on BOTH parties.
I'm glad the guy got off, and I'm extremely glad no one was hurt. But this guy needs some serious firearms safety training before he kills somebody.
(and the leos involved need some SOP training also IMHO)
I never once disputed that the police were in serious error, and that they were unlawful, and acted in a spectacularly boneheaded manner. That is a given.
My only beef with this issue is the guy was clearly OUTSIDE, and they had been banging on the door for several minutes, loudly. The guy comes downstairs, sees a shadowy figure OUTSIDE with a flashlight, and makes a decision to FIRE A WARNING SHOT. How can you jusify that as a good shoot? Or even being reasonably safe with a firearm? It was boneheaded on BOTH parties.
I'm glad the guy got off, and I'm extremely glad no one was hurt. But this guy needs some serious firearms safety training before he kills somebody.
(and the leos involved need some SOP training also IMHO)