User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 9:58:18 AM EDT
[#1]
The flashlight is the key here.
It put the homeowner in a position where he couldn't see who was at his door, but that person could see and possibly shoot him. It put him at a serious tactical disadvantage. What he did was reasonable given the circumstances. Man, is a rock chip on your cruiser really that big of a deal? Sheesh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 9:58:37 AM EDT
[#2]
"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."
 anyone else think this whole thing could have been avoided? They thought a rock hit their car? That's it? No shattered glass, bleeding from the head, shots fired at the car. Nothing. Just a couple of bored hyper-sensative cops cruising the beat. Suddenly they think a rock hit the car.How about stop the car and use that uber sized flashlight to look in the bushes. Nope, nobody there. Hmmm must have been something falling from a palm tree. Ahh screw it. Thomas Wever "Hey David?" "Yeah Tom?" "Want to go get some dohnuts?" "Fuggin A right, let's roll" |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 9:59:03 AM EDT
[#3]
Doesn't anyone see a problem w/shooting someone in the back especially if it the first shot and he initiated the shoot? Not familiar w/FL laws but do they require gun owners to attend gun safety courses? Also, it says two previous robberies then further into the story it talks about vandalism. Which one was it because those are two very different things. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:03:18 AM EDT
[#4]
Tom, I think we are confusing the issues a little. I agree with your sentiment that in general, it is not good practice to shoot at an unidentified target. I just would have a very hard time doing that unless this was a running gun battle inside my house. However the requirements for a lawful shoot are not "be in fear of life or bodily harm, and obey the 4 rules of safe gun handling". The standard is what is 'reasonable' for one to be in fear of their life from. It isn't reasonable to make up hypothetical fance leaping pizza guys who fiddle around at the back door. It is reasonable to draw the conclusion that a man who entered your fenced backyard with flashlights and then proceeds to enter your pourch and bang on the entrance to your home is a threatning presence there. Thus the good shoot. It was not that I approve of the shooting through the door, it's that my thoughts if placed in that situation would not be "this must be the police looking to have a chat with me". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:05:41 AM EDT
[#5]
ETH points out the obvious truth and and it leaves a mark LOL 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:06:48 AM EDT
[#6]
Wait a minute. Are you supposed to ID your target before shooting or not? Is this a conditional rule? Sometimes you do and sometimes you don't? In my understanding it's not conditional at all, and firing your weapon at something means a) You know what it is and b). you want to kill it. This guy had no way of knowing what he was shooting at. He made a guess, at best, and he may have done so in a panicked state. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:07:33 AM EDT
[#7]
According to the story that phrase should say: "His first shot ENDED UP hitting Miami-Dade County police officer Chad Murphy in the back" But of course the media doesn't want to make a responsible homeowner look good, especially when exercising his GOD-GIVEN right to defend himself, his property and most of all his family 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:08:16 AM EDT
[#8]
The perp climbed over his 7 foot wall into his back yard and then ENTERED his back screened-in porch and began flashing his light inside the house.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:08:44 AM EDT
[#9]
Definately a good shoot.
Seems most of you that don't agree with this didn't have any problems with the other case a month or 2 ago where a cop shot through his front door killing the guy that was kicking at it, he never identified his target, didn't look to see what was behind the target, etc.. also didn't have to face any charges from the DA either being a cop all and always getting the benefit of the doubt. Don't want to get shot by homeowners? Don't do stupid shit like these idiots did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:08:48 AM EDT
[#10]
I concur completely. However on a possibly sad note, I wonder how things might have gone had the judge not made that statement?
Did the Jury vote to acquit because they thought it was the right thing to do, or were they sheep and just did what they might have thought the judge was telling them too. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:11:45 AM EDT
[#11]
+1 plus the person with the flashlight is already in his home, beating on a door, after climbing a 7' high wall. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:11:58 AM EDT
[#12]
They are meaningless except to show his state of mind. Why they broke in before and what they were doing before are not at issue, just that he had twice had his house broken into which would obviously place a person on a much higher alert. We don't know how the officers were positioned and if his first shot simply hit the wrong guy. Somebody was facing forward to shine the flashlight in the window. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:12:34 AM EDT
[#13]
No training required. I remember reading about this when it happened. Glad to see it worked out for the guy. Those cops will be more careful next time they decide to trespass and illegally enter someone's residence shining lights around I bet. All this over what they thought could have been a rock hitting their car ? That's the part that I really see a problem with. Shooting the guy in the back doesn't factor in here because it was through the door anyway. Might not be what I would have done but he didn't violate the law by doing what he did. Now the city needs to compensate the guy for their mistakes. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:13:10 AM EDT
[#14]
That one fucker almost lost his life over that one, hell it could have ended up with two dead including the homeowner. Some officers seem to be willing to throw thier lives away over the most trivial shit. Oh noes a rock hit my car, lets engage in some life threatning antics to solve this felony. Oh noes someone is smoking weed in thier house lets do a dynamic entry, its for the children. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:15:44 AM EDT
[#15]
But he did have an idea.... Someone who climed over his 7 foot wall in his backyard and illegally entered his back porch. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:17:07 AM EDT
[#16]
What level of ID do you want? Do you want to get a drivers liscense before you open fire on an obvious intruder? Isnt the fact that someone appears to be attempting to break into your back door armed with a flashlight and a gun ID enough? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:20:55 AM EDT
[#17]
No, it is not. even if you are taking fire you must still have positive target idenfication. you do not blindly fire into the night hoping to hit the threat, or in this case, an imagined threat. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:21:56 AM EDT
[#18]
It is for me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:21:56 AM EDT
[#19]
+1 If a person, at 12:30 AM, scales my back fence, enters my screened in porch, and is shining a light into my home, while another party is pounding on my front door, it is very reasonable to assume they are up to no good. Under NC law one can use deadly force to against an inruder to prevent attempted forcible entry. Was it reasonable to belive the person on the back porch intended to do so? Lets see.... The homeowner knew that: The person had scaled his high backyard fence. The person had entered his home already (In NC as well the porch is considered a part of the home and is defendable) The person was shining a light into his home in attempt to see what was inside (sorry, pizza guys and stranded motorists don't shine a light in your windows, nor climb your back fence) A second party was beating on his front door at the same time. It was 00:30, well after the time when well intentioned people come calling. His home was the location of previous burglaries. He was not a criminal, so the police had no reson to be attempting entry to his home, or approaching in a manner such as that. I probably would have hesitated until some sort of entry was further attempted, but knowing you had intruders at both front and rear doors changes the situation somewhat. I can easily see, however, how the jury reached its conclusion. In NC scale a fence, come inside a screened back porch and start shining your light inside, while a partner beats on the front door, and odds are you will get shot also. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:22:16 AM EDT
[#20]
Yep, and that has nothing to do with what i posted. My statement stands alone. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:23:31 AM EDT
[#21]
So police who attempt to break and enter just because they think someone threw a rock at them are an "imagined threat." Do you think that those police were imaginary and that no shots were fired? What is so imagined about that threat? Armed fucktards, be them police officers or not a definately a fucking threat. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:23:57 AM EDT
[#22]
Why were the cops on his back porch? Did they make up the story about chasing a rock throwing criminal?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:24:34 AM EDT
[#23]
I did. I posted he should have taken cover, trained a long arm on the door and fired only if he saw a weapon or if the door failed. its reckless to fire at targets that you cannot see, have no idea who they are, why they are there, or if they are armed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:26:52 AM EDT
[#24]
Exactly. I was watching Dallas S.W.A.T. last night and these guys pulled up in 2 armored vehicles after using chopper surveillance and real time surveillance. They bust out at 5:30 a.m. and bust down the doors and windows, flashbangs deployed, and what do they get for their costly "operation"? About 5 bucks worth of weed. SCORE! They thought that they were gonna take these "coke" dealers by surprise by getting their at 5:30am. They were surprised that these "coke" dealers were up at that time. Hello! McFly! To quote Dave Chapells character in his response to his aunts allegations that the cops found him in her stolen car asleep, high on crack..."Impossible..everyone knows you cant sleep when you are high on crack!" |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:27:46 AM EDT
[#25]
He saw the target, he knew where it was, knew it was a criminal albeit a different one that he thought it was (BTW a police officer who trespasses is a criminal), figured they were armed (was right, but an unarmed criminal is no less of a danger). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:30:33 AM EDT
[#26]
+1 This Barcia guy shouldn't have been charged with attempted murder but perhaps assault with a deadly weapon. Shok |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:30:56 AM EDT
[#27]
Man, woman or child? Neighbor, relative or stranger? Clothing: police uniform? dressed like a banger or burglar? Halloween costume? Objective signs of intoixication: is he coked/tweaked out? Drunk? Physical & emotional state: Injured? Fearfull? Crying? enraged? All of those things can be instantly assessed in a fraction of a second and are what tells you if its your child sneaking back in, your drunk neighbor at the wrong house, your brother trying to crash on the couch becuasue he fought with his wide, the cops checking on a false burglar alarm, the pizza guy at the wrong house, a car crash victim looking for help, or someone there with malicious intent. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:32:07 AM EDT
[#28]
This news article obviously did not cover all of the facts presented in the trial. If a jury reached a decision in 30min then their was a glaring reason for the verdict.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:32:52 AM EDT
[#29]
When I hear banging on my door and see bright flashlights, the first thing I think of is a burglar because they always knock and they like a lot of light when they are working. Of course, my normal response to this is to shoot through the door.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:33:46 AM EDT
[#30]
So you belive the police were there to cause death or GBI to the homeowner? I dont. I think they were looking for the suspect who through something at thier car. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:35:42 AM EDT
[#31]
I was thinking the same thing.
+1 |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:35:44 AM EDT
[#32]
How do we know that? Are there no gates? Were they all closed and locked. Most people here think cops are fat and lazy yets these cops scaled a 7 foot wall to look for a vandal? Isnt it more likely they walked through the gate? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:37:39 AM EDT
[#33]
See your above quote, then sit back and think exactly what the officers in this case did..... they had no positive target ID and fired back through a still closed door. Or is it a double standard????? He did have positive ID. He was able to ID a person whom had illegally entered his dwelling and was shining a flashlight further into the dwelling in an attempt to see what was inside. He was obviously able to reasonably determine the the officers position, since he hit him. Did he know name, DOB, job? No, and he did not have to know. Irony of it is he had a better idea of what his target was than the oficers who returned fire and hit nothing, and were shooting at a person who had, in fact, not broken the law as at least one of them had by entering his porch (sorry, I think a rock hit my car is not exigent circumstances). He thought he was shooting someone who had broken the law and was in fear of his life, and so did the officers. Except in this case the officer was the one who had broken the law, and not the homeowner. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:37:40 AM EDT
[#34]
Yeah but just to find a "criminal" who threw a damn rock? They should have opened the gate looked for any movement then moved on. why surround the house unless they saw someone go inside? It just makes no since. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:38:44 AM EDT
[#35]
At my house we use the front door exclusively, but at my parents and grandparents they use the back doors because they have detached garages and the back doors are closer. Did the cop enter the unlocked porch to knock on the entry door to the house? Was there a door bell on the porch door frame? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:41:22 AM EDT
[#36]
I'm not saying he should be charged with anything. I just think he should get some training so he's less jittery. If i was as quick onthe trigger as this guy i would be shooting people on the job every single night. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:44:03 AM EDT
[#37]
I dont know the laws of the state this occured in. But in my state throwing an object at a moving vehicle can be a felony. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:44:27 AM EDT
[#38]
I'm glad the dude didn't get time but he is really lucky that the cop/s didn't shoot back and kill him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:46:28 AM EDT
[#39]
Well, the article says:
Was there a gate? I have no doubt. Is it reasonable to assume that it was locked, since this appears to be a high crime nieghborhood an this family had been the victim of criminal acts recently? I was say yes, and coupled with the two statements in the article, that don't seem to be disputed, that the officers climbed over I would say it more than likely was locked. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:46:40 AM EDT
[#40]
I guess this could have all been avoided if the cops identified themselves when they were knocking on the door.
<KNOCK> <KNOCK> "THIS IS THE POLICE" "OPEN THE DOOR" |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:49:58 AM EDT
[#41]
+1 and lets make that bigger This news article obviously did not cover all of the facts presented in the trial. If a jury reached a decision in 30min then their was a glaring reason for the verdict. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:51:14 AM EDT
[#42]
Read closer, the two went to the back door and were shining a light in while another cop was pounding on the front door. So either way one party or the other was not at the main entrance.... I would say the one surrounded by a high fence was not it. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:53:54 AM EDT
[#43]
What you or I think does not matter.... it is only what the homeowner could reasonably be expected to believe. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:56:36 AM EDT
[#44]
If they had gone to the FRONT door...this may not have happened. Pizza guys don't usually scale walls in the customers back yard to deliver a pizza. Nor do people who break down, usually in the street not the alley. I hope the officer who illegally entered the man's home is held accountable for his actions. I have nothing against LEOs, but some of the 'police appologists' on this board REALLY stretch things to vindicate their fellow LEOs. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 10:57:03 AM EDT
[#45]
No doubt, it usually takes that long just to select the jury foreman. Hell, the last jury I was on (capital murder) took us 3 hours to deliberate and come back with the guilty verdict even though it was completely obvious the guy did it (witnesses, video tape, blood & DNA evidence). The DA should be caned for even bringing charges on this guy. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 11:01:06 AM EDT
[#46]
Wow...how hard is THAT? Pretty easy if you ask me! About as easy as a home invasion asshat identifying answering with "It's the Police".
|
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 11:03:58 AM EDT
[#47]
It's too bad the cop didn't die for his stupidity. Anyone is banging on my door in the middle of the night will be warned that I am armed and if they don't leave, I will shoot them. Cop or not, I'm not a criminal, they're 100% wrong and without a warrant they have no business on my property.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 11:07:00 AM EDT
[#48]
There you have it. Let's just call it like it is. Some of you are glad a cop was shot. And some even wanted him to die. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 11:10:08 AM EDT
[#49]
Thanks for the clarification. Other than the night property law in TX I wasn't aware of any other state that had a law that would permit you to shoot through a door. I know here for example they have to be physically entering your home. That would explain the DA's pressing the murder 1 charge instead of a lessor charge based entirely on the "He knew they were cops." theory which obviously the jury didn't buy. I would guess since that is the law there that this issue, criminally anyway, will go away. This also means the officer made a tragic mistake that almost cost him his life and the shooter a tragic mistake that cost him all this hassle by not indentifying his target. I'm glad the shooter got off but also realize that this was indeed a tragic accident that has ruined two famillies lives. There's no winners here at all for though justice may have prevailed it sure was served cold. Tj |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 11:11:05 AM EDT
[#50]
I never want to see someone die unless they deserve it. His level of stupidity did not rise that high. But a sad fact is it is officer deaths that the LE community seems to pay the most attention to and change habits because of. Lessons learned the hard way. |
||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
