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

[joab]

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.

How have I contradicted myself. It would be relatively easy to bust out the glass and inner frames with a 8" flash light which is what at least one of the intruders were carrying. I am assuming this because they are glass but I have never actually tried to bust out the glass of my own windows. But then again they stood up to gunfire admirably.
These are steel framed doors with a vertical lock extending into the header at the top and into the concrete floor at the bottom on one door and secured with a deadbolt on the other which extends into the door with the vertical locks.
You are not going to kick them in without effort

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

And that sounds like a better tactic than the home owner shooting at a perceived threat that he actually COULD see

 

[joab]

My only beef with this issue is the guy was clearly OUTSIDE,

No they were admittedly on the porch which is generally considered to be in the legal defense zone

and they had been banging on the door for several minutes, loudly.

That has not been established the only time frame discussed in regards to the police presence at the front door was about 30 seconds

The guy comes downstairs, sees a shadowy figure OUTSIDE with a flashlight, and makes a decision to FIRE A WARNING SHOT.

Wrong he comes down stairs and sees an identifiable threat to the point that he can ID an object in his hands and can readily ID it as a person ON HIS PORCH NOT OUTSIDE IN THE YARD

How can you justify that as a good shoot? Or even being reasonably safe with a firearm?

On my porch trying to enter the living quarters, easily an legitimate target. And as I have stated many times I don't believe in warning shots. He should be charged for any damage any errant bullet caused.
I don't necessarily believe that he did fire a warning shot, I believe it is possible that he thought it sounded better after the fact
I guess he didn't realize that we were going to be critiquing his actions

But this guy needs some serious firearms safety training before he kills somebody.

Agreed he needs to be taught the theory of COM. If a target is worth shooting it's worth hitting

 

[Edison Carter]

Steve, "contrary to law" is different from "unlawful" in what way?!

That is positively Clintonian.

Seems that most of us are considered to be acting illegally, unlawfully
and criminally when we behave "contrary to law"....

EC

 

[steve154]

E.C.

Steve, "contrary to law" is different from "unlawful" in what way?!

It differs in no way and I know what the definition of is is.

"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."

He is instructing them. Before a jury goes to deliberations the judge gives a ton of instructions and clarifies points of law that are pertinent. He is not saying that these police officers did that or didn't do that. If he would have said anything remotely resembling what you think he is saying there would have been a problem. Those are instructions to the jury on a point of law, not an opinion of wrong doing. IMO the person that wrote the article intentionally put that in there to be interpreted the way you did.

 

[Wildcard]

This incident happened because the LEO's involved screwed the pooch. Its their fault, being on someone's property, entering a residence (yes, if you enter my screened in porch, you entered my residence), no warrant, appearing to be home invaders. The fault, the catalyst for this incident is the LEO's. Their actions started the whole thing. Fault goes to them. The home owner is in the right.

 

[steve154]

2) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether such building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, together with the curtilage thereof. However, during the time of a state of emergency declared by executive order or proclamation of the Governor under chapter 252 and within the area covered by such executive order or proclamation and for purposes of ss. 810.02 and 810.08 only, the term includes such portions or remnants thereof as exist at the original site, regardless of absence of a wall or roof.

I hate to argue with myself here, but it seems that Florida law does in fact make an enclosed porch part of the "Dwelling". I stand corrected from my view that the porch was not "the dwelling".

 

[joab]

I hate to argue with myself here, but it seems that Florida law does in fact make an enclosed porch part of the "Dwelling". I stand corrected from my view that the porch was not "the dwelling".

A very common mistake. Most states will recognize the porch as a part of the home. Colorodo calls the front porch part of the home in it's Make My Day law.
My feeling has always been if you have to go through a door, locked or not , open or not, to get there you are inside my home

Ans I also stand corrected
The jury found that if not for the officers actions there would have been no action by the homeowner they did not validate the homeowners actions. They were not tasked with deliberating on a crime that would have been appropriate for his actions.
Had the charge been reckless dicharge he might not have gotten off.
That is a matter of opinion but even those of us that disagree with his actions do not believe them to be murdurous

 

[Derius_T]

Okay joab, its clear that we don't agree on the issue, but its not a matter of right or wrong here, its a matter of opinion, so its kinda pointless to continue debating it.

I agree that the police were in the wrong. I do agree that the guy was seriously afraid, and had the right to defend himself. I just feel that he was wrong to fire shots at an unidentified target, period. I mean that is one of the first rules we ever learned in any gun safety class. Even hunters safety class as a 9 year old kid. To me he acted rashly and irresponsibly.....

 

[joab]

I agree that the police were in the wrong. I do agree that the guy was seriously afraid, and had the right to defend himself. I just feel that he was wrong to fire shots at an unidentified target, period. I mean that is one of the first rules we ever learned in any gun safety class. Even hunters safety class as a 9 year old kid. To me he acted rashly and irresponsibly.....

Where we part company is on the unidentified target issue. If it was unidentified how did he know that he was shooting to the right of the target, if you believe his warning shot.
Which is possibly supported if Barcia is claiming to have shot to the right of the target who moved to the right when he attempted to evade the shot.
If you don't believe that he made a warning shot then he made an on target shot which would kinda support that he was able to ID his target.
Just because he could not have picked his target out of a police lineup doe not mean it was an unidentified target.
Home owners who put up fences put them up for security reasons, if you breech that security you are a legitimate target.
It doesn't matter what the extenuating circumstances may be and the home owner is not bound to determine them.
This is the reason they say an armed society is a polite society. Most people will not impolitely enter through your back door when they are going to be faced with armed resistance. Anyone in Fla that does not expect armed resistance is either an idiot or a brazen criminal

Were the police not also taught to ID their target. Did the officer not violate that rule when he fired blindly at where he thought the home owner maybe might have been?

My problem with his actions is the warning shot.
Even if he safely fired into a berm he told the invaders that he was armed and where he was and made himself a target. And just like the cop did a criminal could have fired back killing him and leaving his family unprotected.

He was tactically negligent from the time he started prancing around with his gun in the lighted room for all the outside world to see.
And see-through doors on the backside of a house that is protected from the view of passersby is stupid idea

 

[Derius_T]

Well, I can see where the police would have fired back, if one of the officers had just been shot.

He saw an outline of a person behind a bright light. Yes, obviously it is a person, but that is the only ID he had. A PERSON HOLDING A LIGHT. PERIOD.
How does that justify being in fear for your life? I don't care if they repelled in from a helicopter.....he had no real idea who the hell he was shooting at.

That is not something you shoot at. (and the warning shot thing is completely absurd) He just missed and hit the other guy due to nerves, and throught it sounded better when he realized he had hit an officer.

 

[jcoiii]

Can't find a reason to convict this guy of anything. Unless what the state "stipulated" as in "he peaked out the front window.

I'd like everyone to read the first article and tell me which door the officers went to. The article says the front door. It also does not say "BACKyard" but only "yard." Which begs the question, why did the officers jump a fence in the front yard? If there's a fence in the front yard, it usually has a door, right? I realize this is trivial to the actual case, but I thought it might be worth pointing out.

If this guy actually believed that there were burglers and attempting to enter his house, then he's ok in the law. The jury believed that this guy actually thought that the two guys were invading his home. Good enough for me.

 

[joab]

Well, I can see where the police would have fired back, if one of the officers had just been shot.

So police are allowed to shoot blindly at shadows if they feel threatened but a homeowner is not allowed to shoot at what he can actually see as a threat

He saw an outline of a person behind a bright light. Yes, obviously it is a person, but that is the only ID he had. A PERSON HOLDING A LIGHT. PERIOD

.A person IN HIS HOME TRYING TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE LIVING QUARTERS WHERE HIS FAMILY WAS that is the only ID he needed

How does that justify being in fear for your life? I don't care if they repelled in from a helicopter.....he had no real idea who the hell he was shooting at.

I don't care if they miraculously appeared with a mandate from Christ they were illegally on his property trying to gain access to his family, if that is not JUSTIFIABLE FEAR then what is. He knew exactly who he was shooting at, the guys trying to invade his home, that's all the ID any thinking person should need, unless you depend on the kindness of strangers

That is not something you shoot at.

Then nothing is

I'd like everyone to read the first article and tell me which door the officers went to. The article says the front door. It also does not say "BACKyard" but only "yard." Which begs the question, why did the officers jump a fence in the front yard? If there's a fence in the front yard, it usually has a door, right? I realize this is trivial to the actual case, but I thought it might be worth pointing out.

The second and more informative article repeatedly refers to the back door, The pictures show the backdoor and the porch door that they went through to get to the backdoor. the wife asks the question of the 911 operator "If they were cops why wouldn't they have gone to the front door" The officers statements are of being shot through the back door

It is pretty well established that the officers that were shot through the back door were shot through the back door due to the fact that they were at the back door

 

[jcoiii]

K. Backdoor it is then. (I think the guy was fine even if it was the front, but I think the back increases his reasons to suspect B&E)

Quote:
Well, I can see where the police would have fired back, if one of the officers had just been shot.

So police are allowed to shoot blindly at shadows if they feel threatened but a homeowner is not allowed to shoot at what he can actually see as a threat

Easy. All he said is that he understands why the police shot back.

 

[joab]

Easy. All he said is that he understands why the police shot back.

And has repeatedly criticized the home owner for violating safe gun handling rules by not IDing his target and what is beyond. How did the officer ID his target and what is beyond by admittedly firing into the place where he thought the threat HAD been.If one is to be expected to shoot at adequately IDed targets then all should be held to the same standard

 

[Gary Conner]

Quote:
"(yes, if you enter my screened in porch, you entered my residence),"

Boy that is sure the truth. If you look on the County Tax Appraisal District web site in your county, you will see that the city, county, and school district taxing authorities certainly charge you tax for that square footage, and that square footage is included in the "legal description" of the property. If you don't believe it, and have no screened in porch, just add one on and wait a year. You definitely will get assessed additional property value, so the tax revenue will rise for them.

So why would it be legally taxable by a government agency on one hand as part of the house, and not held as part of the house by another department of the same county or city?

It is really simple, the cops did something totally stupid, and the homeowner should never have been indicted. He should sue the DA that brought him in front of the Grand Jury for harrassment in civil court.

 

[Derius_T]

How did the officer ID his target and what is beyond by admittedly firing into the place where he thought the threat HAD been.If one is to be expected to shoot at adequately IDed targets then all should be held to the same standard

I'll concede that point. But I simply meant that once an officer was fired upon and HIT, I could understand returning fire out of reasonable fear for his life at that point. After all, he just got shot.....

I say we drop the issue. We agree on all points but one. You go ahead and shoot somebody through your door, not knowing who they are because you were scared. Let me know how that works out for you. For me, I'll take adequate cover, gun drawn, and wait for an ID. He can't see me, I have the upper hand here. If he comes through the door, different story. He can do jumping jacks on the porch for all I care. How is he a threat to me?

 

[joab]

After all, he just got shot

No he didn't. Did you even read the article?

He can't see me, I have the upper hand here.

Oh, I see you did not read the article

You go ahead and shoot somebody through your door, not knowing who they are because you were scared. Let me know how that works out for you.

We already have a good idea of how it would work out by reading the article

For me, I'll take adequate cover, gun drawn, and wait for an ID.If he comes through the door, different story. He can do jumping jacks on the porch for all I care. How is he a threat to me?

If he's doing jumping jacks he can stay out there till he tires himself out, if he's trying to come through the door he gets shot.

Honestly did you even do more than just scan the article?

 

[jcoiii]

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........<snip>

Quote:
After all, he just got shot

No he didn't. Did you even read the article?

I've cut and pasted the first part of the OP article, joab. care to read it again? The officer was shot as he was running/diving/whatever for cover.

 

[steve154]

If he's doing jumping jacks he can stay out there till he tires himself out, if he's trying to come through the door he gets shot.

I asked before. Do you honestly believe that the police were trying to come through the door?

These guys were in a developing situation and were probably doing what they believed was right based on the information that they had at the time. We can argue about the police right to be where they were til our faces turn blue. Irrelevant. When I knock on someones door I do not expect a reasonable person to start shooting at me. I have been in so many similar situations that it is scary to even think about the possibility that someone could start shooting because they thought I might possibly be a burglar. In almost ten years I have not even ever heard of anyone even considering turning overheads on when they are trying to make contact with the occupants of a building. These guys should have though? The cops say they were back there, see a guy appear with a gun and run for cover. One of them is shot in the back as he was running away and is down in the kill zone. This in itself impeaches what Barcia says about walking up to the door and trying to scare them away and them continuing to try to kick the door and "kinda kept" coming at him. He came around the corner and opened fire without trying to ID anything and the evidence of a guy shot in the back fully supports that. That is somehow reasonable and prudent and the cops deserve to be shot for some alleged poor judgement. His partner shoots back and is now criticized for not having a clear target and being irresponsible. If I am down in the same situation my partner better be providing some cover fire for me. What would you do in the same situation? I hope that I would be able to act with the same courage it must have taken to expose himslef to fire and attempt to save his partner. Pretty selfless in my opinion.

This is a no win for everyone. In every single situation that I go to that involves two opposing view points atleast 50% of those involved are not going be happy with the outcome. Think about this now...HALF of those involved will say I am corrupt, a nazi, racist, or just a pig that was too lazy to do my job and couldn't wait to get to the pastry display. It gets a little old being monday morning quarterbacked on decsions that are made using the information available at the time and with only seconds to formulate. Shoulda done that and shoulda done this blah blah blah... The cops in this situation are in the same boat. Joab keeps bringing up home invasions. If they had not investigated and there would have been something like that going on the same people on here blaming them now would be blaming them then. I can just hear the comments about how incompetent they were because they should have known that the homeowner threw the rock to get their attention. They couldn't get anyone at the front door and then saw evidence that someone may have stood on the dog house to get in/out of the back yard, or toss a rock. I'm no detective, but that sounds like a clue to me. After all, it was obvious that the homeowner didn't use the back yard to get in/out of his property. They should have known and investigated more. They didn't because they were too lazy and these poor people were victimized becasue of the lazy pigs. Toss in the KKK and Satan stuff and you have the makings of a great police incompetency mini series. "The Mario Barcia Story". I have reserved myself to the fact I will never win and will continue to do what I believe is right, just like 99.99% of the other coppers out there and just like the cops in this story.

 

[joab]

I've cut and pasted the first part of the OP article, joab. care to read it again? The officer was shot as he was running/diving/whatever for cover.

No, you read it again the officer that was shot was n0not the one who returned fire. The rookie did, while the shot officer was laying on the ground trying to figure out if he was dead

I asked before. Do you honestly believe that the police were trying to come through the door?

I believe that they were at least giving Barcia the impression that they were trying to come through the back door. They also gave his terrified wife that impression

The police put themselves in a position to be legally shot at by the home owner. The home owner legally defended himself.
Court documents prove that.

They should have known and investigated more. They didn't because they were too lazy and these poor people were victimized becasue of the lazy pigs. Toss in the KKK and Satan stuff and you have the makings of a great police incompetency mini series. "The Mario Barcia Story". I have reserved myself to the fact I will never win and will continue to do what I believe is right, just like 99.99% of the other coppers out there and just like the cops in this story.

One of your previous posts accused me of backing "my guy" from the above quote I can see that you are indeed just a wagon circler ignorantly insulting and and making accusations that anyone that does not kow tow to the police as gods vilifies them as demons.
My record here and at THR shows that I see both sides, your post above shows that you do not.
We're done