I don't believe that I insulted anyone, ignorantly or otherwise, with my post. My comments were of a general nature and not directed towards anyone specific and are an opinion based on my perceptions. I mentioned your name specifc to the home invasion issue only. It was an apparent high crime area and you keep bringing up home invasions. That is exactly one of reasons they had a duty to investigate further. How is understanding and looking at a situation with the perspective of years of personal experience make me a wagon circler? I don't agree with you so I am a wagon circler? The only one who can't see both sides of this issue is you. I have looked at it all and said that I don't believe Barcia intentionally tried to kill the cops. I said he was reckless for shooting and would have that opinion no matter who was on that porch. I started my original reply with the premise that it could have been any number of people back there and that had nothing to do with the police. You refuse to look at evidence and see that Barcia was lying when he told his side of the story to the 911 operator. It just didn't happen the way that he said it did and there is a guy shot in the back to prove it. Looking at the totality of the circumstances I really don't think that the police did anything that I wouldn't do myself. As I said, my comments are based on years of experience under the hindsight microscope. I have been damned if I did and damned if I didn't more times than I care to think about. I can't see the other side of the story becasue I refuse to believe that someone should shoot another human being because they thought they might be doing something. Sorry, I am just funny like that. Your kow tow comments are unnecessary and I do not have that attitude and never did. I am and always will be just another guy trying to make a living and take care of my family. That is all and we are indeed done.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A good judgement, but a life ruined: Jury clears homeowner who took cop for intruder
- Thread starter Wildcard
- Start date
I don't believe that I insulted anyone, ignorantly or otherwise, with my post. My comments were of a general nature and not directed towards anyone specific and are an opinion based on my perceptions. I mentioned your name specifc to the home invasion issue only. It was an apparent high crime area and you keep bringing up home invasions. That is exactly one of reasons they had a duty to investigate further. How is understanding and looking at a situation with the perspective of years of personal experience make me a wagon circler? I don't agree with you so I am a wagon circler? The only one who can't see both sides of this issue is you. I have looked at it all and said that I don't believe Barcia intentionally tried to kill the cops. I said he was reckless for shooting and would have that opinion no matter who was on that porch. I started my original reply with the premise that it could have been any number of people back there and that had nothing to do with the police. You refuse to look at evidence and see that Barcia was lying when he told his side of the story to the 911 operator. It just didn't happen the way that he said it did and there is a guy shot in the back to prove it. Looking at the totality of the circumstances I really don't think that the police did anything that I wouldn't do myself. As I said, my comments are based on years of experience under the hindsight microscope. I have been damned if I did and damned if I didn't more times than I care to think about. I can't see the other side of the story becasue I refuse to believe that someone should shoot another human being because they thought they might be doing something. Sorry, I am just funny like that. Your kow tow comments are unnecessary and I do not have that attitude and never did. I am and always will be just another guy trying to make a living and take care of my family. That is all and we are indeed done.
Then this wasn't sarcasm?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.
What does this pity party have to do with cops illegally in someones back yard trying to enter their home, actually already had enter the home.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.
There was no split second decision making that put them illegally in the Barcia's home it was an admittedly bad plan that they formulated and all four minds never stopped to think about the legality of their actions. Call that Monday morning quarter backing if you want I'll call it expecting the police to follow the laws that they are sworn to enforceIt gets a little old being Monday morning quarterbacked on decisions 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...
Nice try but what legal rights do you have to perform your own home invasion because you think there might maybe possibly have been another home invasion going on, what evidence even remotely supports that theory, an now who's Monday morning it.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.
A clue gives you the right to invade someones home without warrants? Let me guess if he had done nothing wrong he shouldn't have minded the illegal entryThey 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.
What is obvious is that the police officers did use the back yard to gain illegally gain entry to the property.After all, it was obvious that the homeowner didn't use the back yard to get in/out of his property.
The open door on the porch and the BBQ grill in the yard should be a clue that they did at least sometimes use the yard.
And why no pictures of this overwhelming evidence on the dog house?
Who is going to get the last word? You got it Joab. You are right. I am having a pity party, the police are all screwed up, they were breaking into his house and in fact actually did invade his home by entering a porch that consisted of nothing more than some bug screen and an aluminum roof. It was attached to the house and florida makes that part of the house so fire away, they had no right to be where they were cause god knows that no reasonable person of normal intelligence would suspect that something more could be going on in the high crime neighborhood in which they should have figured someone would shoot them for knocking on the door becasue it is a high crime area, and the footprint didn't exist. Couldn't be that the author of the story chose not to include it because it was counter to his slant of making Barcia a victim. He's very responsible ya know. Always takes the "clip" out after shooting someone for something he thinks they might be doing. There is proof that Barcia is a liar but it is OK to completely and conveniently ignore that fact. It's really the police who are lying and the guy shot himself in the back to cover up the home invasion that they had just done. The use of sarcasm is condescending, but it's OK for you to use inflamatory rhetoric. I fully understand what you are all about. I will steer clear of you and you do the same of me and we will have no further misunderstandings.
You keep saying that he shot someone for merely knocking on his door.
OK will play that line.
Why would a mere somebody be knocking on his BACK door at 1am ?
Why would a mere somebody scale a fence that was put up to keep somebodies from merely getting to his back door to knock on it.
You also point out that Fla law decrees a porch to be part of the home
Should we not expect Fla Law enforcement to be aware of that law ans not to violate it.
Would we even be having this discussion if an ununiformed citizen had breeched his security and entered his home claiming to be looking for a lost dog and using footprints as his reasoning
Footprints on a homeowners property do not supersede the laws against unlawful search and seizure.
OK will play that line.
Why would a mere somebody be knocking on his BACK door at 1am ?
Why would a mere somebody scale a fence that was put up to keep somebodies from merely getting to his back door to knock on it.
You also point out that Fla law decrees a porch to be part of the home
Should we not expect Fla Law enforcement to be aware of that law ans not to violate it.
Would we even be having this discussion if an ununiformed citizen had breeched his security and entered his home claiming to be looking for a lost dog and using footprints as his reasoning
Footprints on a homeowners property do not supersede the laws against unlawful search and seizure.
What evidence do you have that the jury did not get to hear?You refuse to look at evidence and see that Barcia was lying when he told his side of the story to the 911 operator.
What inflammatory rhetoric. You mean repeating what the jury said?but it's OK for you to use inflamatory rhetoric
You keep saying that he shot someone for merely knocking on his door.
OK will play that line.
Why would a mere somebody be knocking on his BACK door at 1am ?
Let me count the ways...a fire or any thousands of possibilities. They were trying at the front and could get no response. The neighbor heard the commotion, came out and had a conversation with the police. He says that they continued the knocking when he went back in. No response at the front.
Why would a mere somebody scale a fence that was put up to keep somebodies from merely getting to his back door to knock on it.
If you are giving weight to the barricaded fence doors then my opinion about acting with the information that they had at the time goes into effect. From where they were they had no idea that the backyard was barricaded. The fence is a privacy fence and has absolutley zero security value. In fact the fence is a detriment to actual security by providing a real burglar with concealment at the back of the house. There are no motion lights(visable), no nothing. That fence is intended to keep things in and eyes out. Nothing more. The horizontal slats are on the outside providing a ladder for anyone who wished to climb it. Hardly a line of secuity to be "breached". That is not to say that anybody has the right to jump the fence whenever they feel like it. There is a trespass there if someone did that with intent to enter or remain unlawfully.
You also point out that Fla law decrees a porch to be part of the home. Should we not expect Fla Law enforcement to be aware of that law ans not to violate it.
Yes we should expect law enforcement to be aware of the laws and not violate them. For a violation of any law to ouccur there has to be one of four "mind sets": Intenionally, knowingly, Recklessly, or Negligently did whatever. For the police to have been breaking the law the by entering the backyard they would have had to have been doing it with one or more of the above. I think that they believed, based on the information that they had at the time, that they had reason to be where they were and if they did in fact(I was not there) have all of the circumstances listed I believe that I would have done the exact same thing.
Would we even be having this discussion if an ununiformed citizen had breeched his security and entered his home claiming to be looking for a lost dog and using footprints as his reasoning
Nope. Mr. Barcia would be in jail for recklessly shooting someone who was trespassing at best. No one entered his "home". Florida does in fact say that a porch is part of the home. Laws, thank God, are not intended to be looked at and enforced to the absolute letter. Somewhere along the line common sense has to come into play. When talking about the use of deadly force a bug screen does not cut it in the common sense department. It would when talking about what to charge if someone entered and stole something from that porch. It would not if you decided to shoot that someone for stealing something from that porch. I would not and don't think twice about walking up to a porch and knocking on the interior door. The mailman, paperboy,ups guy, friends and salesman do it at my own home all the time. I have never, not once, ever considered them to be entering my "home". I have doors designed and properly installed to keep intruders out long enough for a proper defense to be set up should they actually breach the door. (NO residential door is absolutely burglar proof and with a determined attacker all you can expect is a delay)
.Footprints on a homeowners property do not supersede the laws against unlawful search and seizure
unlawful search and seizure of what? If they would have gone into the shed and found a pound of cocaine hidden under the lawnmower where a person could not possibly be hiding then it would be an illegal search and seizure. Slam dunk. They believed they were doing the right thing. There were burglars and gang members operating in the area, hence the anti burglary patrol. The only person I saw in the article that is saying the police did anything wrong was his lawyer. Of course he is going to say that. It is his job and he would be derilect in his duty if he didn't maintain that. It doesn't make it the truth though. Even Barcia himself says that they were just doing their jobs(but adds that they were not being truthful)
What evidence do you have that the jury did not get to hear?
The odd thing is that I am sitting here wondering the same thing about you. I really don't know how I could have made my point clearer that I don't believe Barcia to have been intentionally trying to kill the police. The jury ruled on that fact and they rightfully found him innocent of those charges. Where does it say that the jury believed the police to have been in the midst of a home invasion? Where does it say that the jury believed anything other than Barcia did not INTENTIONALLY try to kill two police officers? I have maintained throughout that I felt he was reckless and I would have that opinion if it were anybody. This entire thing started becasue of that and my opinion had nothing to do with the police. It had everything to do with guns, use of force and common sense. I don't believe in killing people because they crossed a bug screen line in the sand.
What inflammatory rhetoric. You mean repeating what the jury said?
Again, there is one thing and one thing only that any of us can determine that the jury said. Everything else is inflamatory rhetoric...saying yourself and saying that the jury said the police were performing a home invasion and were in the wrong and completely at fault is inflamatory rhetoric. As with most situations there were a number of things that could have been done differently when looking at things in hind sight. If everyone would have had all the information that they had after the fact there would not have been a shooting. Barcia could have been standing there asking what the hell the police were doing in his yard and they could have explained themselves. He could have accepted that and thought it was alright, or he could have thought it was B.S. and filed a complaint and gotten a lawyer/filed a lawsuit. Simple. Nobody is shot.
One last thing and I really am done with this. The original article says that the police ID'd Barcia as the one who looked out the window. The second article and the statements say that none of them could ID who looked out the window. A "circling of the wagons" would surely have included the positive ID of Barcia as knowing it was the police outside. They did not lie about that and certainly would have if they were so inclined and any circling was going on. They told the truth about a critical absolutely vital piece of the case brought against him and he got off. There is no reaon to believe that they were less than truthful on anything else.
You keep saying that he shot someone for merely knocking on his door.
OK will play that line.
Why would a mere somebody be knocking on his BACK door at 1am ?
Let me count the ways...a fire or any thousands of possibilities. They were trying at the front and could get no response. The neighbor heard the commotion, came out and had a conversation with the police. He says that they continued the knocking when he went back in. No response at the front.
Why would a mere somebody scale a fence that was put up to keep somebodies from merely getting to his back door to knock on it.
If you are giving weight to the barricaded fence doors then my opinion about acting with the information that they had at the time goes into effect. From where they were they had no idea that the backyard was barricaded. The fence is a privacy fence and has absolutley zero security value. In fact the fence is a detriment to actual security by providing a real burglar with concealment at the back of the house. There are no motion lights(visable), no nothing. That fence is intended to keep things in and eyes out. Nothing more. The horizontal slats are on the outside providing a ladder for anyone who wished to climb it. Hardly a line of secuity to be "breached". That is not to say that anybody has the right to jump the fence whenever they feel like it. There is a trespass there if someone did that with intent to enter or remain unlawfully.
You also point out that Fla law decrees a porch to be part of the home. Should we not expect Fla Law enforcement to be aware of that law ans not to violate it.
Yes we should expect law enforcement to be aware of the laws and not violate them. For a violation of any law to ouccur there has to be one of four "mind sets": Intenionally, knowingly, Recklessly, or Negligently did whatever. For the police to have been breaking the law the by entering the backyard they would have had to have been doing it with one or more of the above. I think that they believed, based on the information that they had at the time, that they had reason to be where they were and if they did in fact(I was not there) have all of the circumstances listed I believe that I would have done the exact same thing.
Would we even be having this discussion if an ununiformed citizen had breeched his security and entered his home claiming to be looking for a lost dog and using footprints as his reasoning
Nope. Mr. Barcia would be in jail for recklessly shooting someone who was trespassing at best. No one entered his "home". Florida does in fact say that a porch is part of the home. Laws, thank God, are not intended to be looked at and enforced to the absolute letter. Somewhere along the line common sense has to come into play. When talking about the use of deadly force a bug screen does not cut it in the common sense department. It would when talking about what to charge if someone entered and stole something from that porch. It would not if you decided to shoot that someone for stealing something from that porch. I would not and don't think twice about walking up to a porch and knocking on the interior door. The mailman, paperboy,ups guy, friends and salesman do it at my own home all the time. I have never, not once, ever considered them to be entering my "home". I have doors designed and properly installed to keep intruders out long enough for a proper defense to be set up should they actually breach the door. (NO residential door is absolutely burglar proof and with a determined attacker all you can expect is a delay)
.Footprints on a homeowners property do not supersede the laws against unlawful search and seizure
unlawful search and seizure of what? If they would have gone into the shed and found a pound of cocaine hidden under the lawnmower where a person could not possibly be hiding then it would be an illegal search and seizure. Slam dunk. They believed they were doing the right thing. There were burglars and gang members operating in the area, hence the anti burglary patrol. The only person I saw in the article that is saying the police did anything wrong was his lawyer. Of course he is going to say that. It is his job and he would be derilect in his duty if he didn't maintain that. It doesn't make it the truth though. Even Barcia himself says that they were just doing their jobs(but adds that they were not being truthful)
What evidence do you have that the jury did not get to hear?
The odd thing is that I am sitting here wondering the same thing about you. I really don't know how I could have made my point clearer that I don't believe Barcia to have been intentionally trying to kill the police. The jury ruled on that fact and they rightfully found him innocent of those charges. Where does it say that the jury believed the police to have been in the midst of a home invasion? Where does it say that the jury believed anything other than Barcia did not INTENTIONALLY try to kill two police officers? I have maintained throughout that I felt he was reckless and I would have that opinion if it were anybody. This entire thing started becasue of that and my opinion had nothing to do with the police. It had everything to do with guns, use of force and common sense. I don't believe in killing people because they crossed a bug screen line in the sand.
What inflammatory rhetoric. You mean repeating what the jury said?
Again, there is one thing and one thing only that any of us can determine that the jury said. Everything else is inflamatory rhetoric...saying yourself and saying that the jury said the police were performing a home invasion and were in the wrong and completely at fault is inflamatory rhetoric. As with most situations there were a number of things that could have been done differently when looking at things in hind sight. If everyone would have had all the information that they had after the fact there would not have been a shooting. Barcia could have been standing there asking what the hell the police were doing in his yard and they could have explained themselves. He could have accepted that and thought it was alright, or he could have thought it was B.S. and filed a complaint and gotten a lawyer/filed a lawsuit. Simple. Nobody is shot.
One last thing and I really am done with this. The original article says that the police ID'd Barcia as the one who looked out the window. The second article and the statements say that none of them could ID who looked out the window. A "circling of the wagons" would surely have included the positive ID of Barcia as knowing it was the police outside. They did not lie about that and certainly would have if they were so inclined and any circling was going on. They told the truth about a critical absolutely vital piece of the case brought against him and he got off. There is no reaon to believe that they were less than truthful on anything else.