Jury acquits man who shot police officer
- Thread starter Ian
- Start date
- Status
Molon Labe
Member
Thanks GruntII.
Your type is a rarity nowadays. It seems so many LEOs have an "us-against-them" mentality, and it shows in the way they carry themselves.
I know many more ex-LEOs than active LEOs. From what they tell me, it's a pretty depressing job.
Here's what they tell me:
Before becoming a police officer, they naïvely believed an LEO's primary duty was to help and protect citizens. After becoming an LEO they learned the ugly truth: they felt they were nothing more than revenue collectors. Their job was to make enough money to support the department and any pet-projects of the mayor & city council members. And to make matters worse, they were forced to work with other LEOs who were JBTs. There was no good mechanism for filing a complaint... police departments are very political, and anyone making "waves" will never move up the ladder.
So I applaud your attitude. We need more like you.
Deanimator
Member
"Texas in general seems like a good place to avoid... (by the posts on here)"
It certainly is for wouldbe home invaders. You probably ought to avoid Ohio too.
It certainly is for wouldbe home invaders. You probably ought to avoid Ohio too.
Daniel T
Member
Brilliant!
For your next feat, please tell us how to determine whether or not an immediate threat is posed by someone who is in your home and is blinding you with a flash light.
"Please sir, tell me if you are armed or not so that I might take appropriate measures...?"
ebd10
Member
Amazing, a jury is presented with the facts and acquits a man who defended himself from what he thought was a threat to his life. And people are complaining about this? I think those that disagree with this outcome are overlooking the obvious; the person responsible for this cop getting shot, is the cop that got shot! He was the one that chose to invade this man's property, e was the one that entered his home illegally, he was the one that was banging on the door, he was the one that made the decisions to do all of the above, whereupon he discovered that there are consequences for your actions, even if you're intentions are good. This is a good shoot, and a good decision.
My only hope is that the shooter manages to recoup his losses.
My only hope is that the shooter manages to recoup his losses.
Brilliant??
Daniel,
If you think its brilliant shooting through a closed door and I assume locked (story did not indicate) then you are indeed not to brilliant. If thats the case then fire away but don't whine about it when you get prosecuted.
Let look at some inconsistences:
In the beginning the story it states he was "shaken from two previous robberies". Then later down the page it indicates: " Twice, his South Dade home at 11941 SW 208th St., had been vandalized". Are these one in the same? Makes a big difference as to his mindset.
Irregardless of the above, his own Attorney states, " and all he saw was a bright flashlight pointed directly at him through the window". So he feared for his life and shot through a closed (locked?) glass door. If that is the truth, then why was the cop shot in the back? Was he shinning the flashlight over his shoulder with his back turned? I doubt it. Or did the officer turn to walk away and was shot. Seems to me the homeowner knew he F'd up and his attorney got his story set for him.
Speaking of brilliant: "For your next feat, please tell us how to determine whether or not an immediate threat is posed by someone who is in your home and is blinding you with a flash light."
I guess I have to repeat the above quote, but that is not suprising: "and all he saw was a bright flashlight pointed directly at him through the window." If the cop was in your words, "who is in your home" what is the guys own attorney talking about? He was on the other side of a glass door, in other words he was not inside the house he, "entered a screened porch where French doors led into the home".
Even better: "Please sir, tell me if you are armed or not so that I might take appropriate measures...?"
You do not shoot through a door at somebody, is that not clear enough? If he breached the door by opening it (unlocked) or breaking it down then that is a different story. Plain and simple, that did not happen. He shot through a door at an unidentified target.
If you want to break it down real easy: He did what you think was proper action with a gun and look what happened !! He violated one of the cardinal rules of shooting and the almost worst possible result (cop was dead is #1) occcured.
All other things aside:
It's unfortunate the guy went through what he did. It's fortunate the cop is okay.
Daniel,
If you think its brilliant shooting through a closed door and I assume locked (story did not indicate) then you are indeed not to brilliant. If thats the case then fire away but don't whine about it when you get prosecuted.
Let look at some inconsistences:
In the beginning the story it states he was "shaken from two previous robberies". Then later down the page it indicates: " Twice, his South Dade home at 11941 SW 208th St., had been vandalized". Are these one in the same? Makes a big difference as to his mindset.
Irregardless of the above, his own Attorney states, " and all he saw was a bright flashlight pointed directly at him through the window". So he feared for his life and shot through a closed (locked?) glass door. If that is the truth, then why was the cop shot in the back? Was he shinning the flashlight over his shoulder with his back turned? I doubt it. Or did the officer turn to walk away and was shot. Seems to me the homeowner knew he F'd up and his attorney got his story set for him.
Speaking of brilliant: "For your next feat, please tell us how to determine whether or not an immediate threat is posed by someone who is in your home and is blinding you with a flash light."
I guess I have to repeat the above quote, but that is not suprising: "and all he saw was a bright flashlight pointed directly at him through the window." If the cop was in your words, "who is in your home" what is the guys own attorney talking about? He was on the other side of a glass door, in other words he was not inside the house he, "entered a screened porch where French doors led into the home".
Even better: "Please sir, tell me if you are armed or not so that I might take appropriate measures...?"
You do not shoot through a door at somebody, is that not clear enough? If he breached the door by opening it (unlocked) or breaking it down then that is a different story. Plain and simple, that did not happen. He shot through a door at an unidentified target.
If you want to break it down real easy: He did what you think was proper action with a gun and look what happened !! He violated one of the cardinal rules of shooting and the almost worst possible result (cop was dead is #1) occcured.
All other things aside:
It's unfortunate the guy went through what he did. It's fortunate the cop is okay.
Kodiaz
member
Sam59 I'm glad you weren't on the jury.
Trespass get shot nothing more to it than that. It's how it ought to be.
Trespass get shot nothing more to it than that. It's how it ought to be.
American By Blood
Member
sam59-
Read the thread.
Points that have already been covered:
-It was a french door. French doors are made primarily of thin glass. Assuming you're not being blinded with a tactical flashlight, you can see a person from head to toe through one. Shooting through one is not a tactical blunder. Plus, they don't make for good barriers. They can be forced with ease.
-Establishing a legal precedent or tactical SOP of not shooting at attackers who have taken measures to impair your sight might not be such a good idea. There's a world of difference between firing at a hostile light source and blazing away in all directions when completely blind.
-According to both Flordia law and local architectural conventions the police officer was inside the house. Houses in that part of Florida usually have enclosed back porches. These are basically extra rooms. Hence the precendent from previous cases establishing them as part of the house proper.
All that said, this incident is a prime example of why we have the Second Amendment in the first place. A bunch of cops start randomly entering homes because they thought they might have heard a rock hit their car? Jack booted thuggery at its finest. Cases like this remind LEOs that they're CIVILIANS operating on domestic soil and are bound by the same laws that the rest of us are (FL is a castle doctrine state, mind you). When the jury rendered this verdict Jefferson, Washington, Henry, and the rest might have stopped spinning in their graves for a few seconds.
Read the thread.
Points that have already been covered:
-It was a french door. French doors are made primarily of thin glass. Assuming you're not being blinded with a tactical flashlight, you can see a person from head to toe through one. Shooting through one is not a tactical blunder. Plus, they don't make for good barriers. They can be forced with ease.
-Establishing a legal precedent or tactical SOP of not shooting at attackers who have taken measures to impair your sight might not be such a good idea. There's a world of difference between firing at a hostile light source and blazing away in all directions when completely blind.
-According to both Flordia law and local architectural conventions the police officer was inside the house. Houses in that part of Florida usually have enclosed back porches. These are basically extra rooms. Hence the precendent from previous cases establishing them as part of the house proper.
All that said, this incident is a prime example of why we have the Second Amendment in the first place. A bunch of cops start randomly entering homes because they thought they might have heard a rock hit their car? Jack booted thuggery at its finest. Cases like this remind LEOs that they're CIVILIANS operating on domestic soil and are bound by the same laws that the rest of us are (FL is a castle doctrine state, mind you). When the jury rendered this verdict Jefferson, Washington, Henry, and the rest might have stopped spinning in their graves for a few seconds.
Thread Change!
It never fails, thease always turn into cop bashing threads.
-It was a french door. French doors are made primarily of thin glass. Assuming you're not being blinded with a tactical flashlight, you can see a person from head to toe through one. Shooting through one is not a tactical blunder. Plus, they don't make for good barriers. They can be forced with ease.
Thank you for helping me back up my point. I agree, they can be forced with ease. But that was not the case.
I have a glass sliding back door. I would not dream of shooting through it without knowing what I was shooting at. IF they breach it that is a different story, but that did not happen.
-Establishing a legal precedent or tactical SOP of not shooting at attackers who have taken measures to impair your sight might not be such a good idea. There's a world of difference between firing at a hostile light source and blazing away in all directions when completely blind.
Thank you for making my point again. There was NO ATTACKER, get it? Firing at a hostile light source??? Are you kidding. There was no hostile light source??He shot before he knew who was there. That is the entire point.
Knowing what your shooting at is hardly a Tactical SOP. It's a common firearm safety rule.
If we are going to change the facts to fit the argument then I guess this discussion is a waste of time.
It never fails, thease always turn into cop bashing threads.
-It was a french door. French doors are made primarily of thin glass. Assuming you're not being blinded with a tactical flashlight, you can see a person from head to toe through one. Shooting through one is not a tactical blunder. Plus, they don't make for good barriers. They can be forced with ease.
Thank you for helping me back up my point. I agree, they can be forced with ease. But that was not the case.
I have a glass sliding back door. I would not dream of shooting through it without knowing what I was shooting at. IF they breach it that is a different story, but that did not happen.
-Establishing a legal precedent or tactical SOP of not shooting at attackers who have taken measures to impair your sight might not be such a good idea. There's a world of difference between firing at a hostile light source and blazing away in all directions when completely blind.
Thank you for making my point again. There was NO ATTACKER, get it? Firing at a hostile light source??? Are you kidding. There was no hostile light source??He shot before he knew who was there. That is the entire point.
Knowing what your shooting at is hardly a Tactical SOP. It's a common firearm safety rule.
If we are going to change the facts to fit the argument then I guess this discussion is a waste of time.
Kodiaz
member
Never fails when a LEO makes a goof up and it is pointed out it is cop bashing.
BostonGeorge
Member
This is an old thread that I've previously discussed so I'll try to keep it short and to the point.
Don't tresspass, don't get shot.
Don't break and enter, don't get shot.
Simple as that.
Don't tresspass, don't get shot.
Don't break and enter, don't get shot.
Simple as that.
NineseveN
member
And if they breach it with bullets? Not so smart-sounding now, is it?
If that's the dice you want to roll your life on, that's your choice. Let the rest of us make our own choices according to the law, which is exactly what the citizen in this story did, and the jury agreed. Justified shoot, case closed, next.
ebd10
Member
As has been pointed out, the cop was within the confines of a closed porch. Florida law defines an enclosed porch as part of the interior of a house. That means that BY LAW, the cop had already breached the exterior boundary. The shooter had past experience with people who had violated his premises and no doubt thought that someone shining a flashlight into his house was up to no good. The fact is that the cop got shot because he did something stupid and possibly illegal. He was shot because of the decisions HE made, not because the homeowner decided to shoot him.
Tresspass
"Don't tresspass, don't get shot."
Now we can shoot tresspassers.
"And if they breach it with bullets? Not so smart-sounding now, is it?"
As I said to before, if your going to change the story to fit your argument then dont waste your time. They did not breach with bullets. He shot an unknown target.
"If that's the dice you want to roll your life on, that's your choice. Let the rest of us make our own choices according to the law, which is exactly what the citizen in this story did, and the jury agreed. Justified shoot, case closed, next".
I agree with you 100% that you can make your own decision. That does not make shooting through a window without knowing what your shooting at a safe thing to do. As I posted earlier dont complain how the prosecutor is out to get you when they come after you for shooting at an unknown target.
I have not even addressed the second part of knowing what your target is and that is what is beyond it. But I guess since most are so dead set on firing through a window at a flashlight is fine then forget about gun safety all together.
EBD10,
"As has been pointed out, the cop was within the confines of a closed porch. Florida law defines an enclosed porch as part of the interior of a house"
I never said the cop was in the right for being there, I dont know where you came up with this, except to somehow change the scenario.
"The shooter had past experience with people who had violated his premises and no doubt thought that someone shining a flashlight into his house was up to no good."
It is a good assumption that the person with the flashlight was up to no good. So the answer is shoot through the door without confiriming it?? You don't shoot on assumptions. But apparently quite a few have no problem with that.
"He was shot because of the decisions HE made, not because the homeowner decided to shoot him"
The cop was shot in the back! Nobody has giving a logical explanation to how he was shot in the back while shinning a flashlight throught the window. If you dont see something wrong with that picture then fire away.
"Don't tresspass, don't get shot."
Now we can shoot tresspassers.
"And if they breach it with bullets? Not so smart-sounding now, is it?"
As I said to before, if your going to change the story to fit your argument then dont waste your time. They did not breach with bullets. He shot an unknown target.
"If that's the dice you want to roll your life on, that's your choice. Let the rest of us make our own choices according to the law, which is exactly what the citizen in this story did, and the jury agreed. Justified shoot, case closed, next".
I agree with you 100% that you can make your own decision. That does not make shooting through a window without knowing what your shooting at a safe thing to do. As I posted earlier dont complain how the prosecutor is out to get you when they come after you for shooting at an unknown target.
I have not even addressed the second part of knowing what your target is and that is what is beyond it. But I guess since most are so dead set on firing through a window at a flashlight is fine then forget about gun safety all together.
EBD10,
"As has been pointed out, the cop was within the confines of a closed porch. Florida law defines an enclosed porch as part of the interior of a house"
I never said the cop was in the right for being there, I dont know where you came up with this, except to somehow change the scenario.
"The shooter had past experience with people who had violated his premises and no doubt thought that someone shining a flashlight into his house was up to no good."
It is a good assumption that the person with the flashlight was up to no good. So the answer is shoot through the door without confiriming it?? You don't shoot on assumptions. But apparently quite a few have no problem with that.
"He was shot because of the decisions HE made, not because the homeowner decided to shoot him"
The cop was shot in the back! Nobody has giving a logical explanation to how he was shot in the back while shinning a flashlight throught the window. If you dont see something wrong with that picture then fire away.
WOW...we live in a great country.
We can legally shoot someone for shining a flashlight at them.
I guess when I brief with my squad I better tell them not to use their spotlights or takedown lights when responding to calls for service, because someone may think we are the bad guys and may start taking shots at us during our response.
Yeah, that makes sense!
Better yet, the next time we hear of a Police Officer who shoots an unarmed subject or innocent bystander, I hope some piece of SXXT lawyer comes to the aid of the Police Officer with the New Flashlight Defense. Will this group come to the aid of Police Officer?... or...is the Cop always wrong in this forum?
Next time we have a group of Recruits in training we'll use the "Flashlight Back-Turned" target for qualification too, that way when the Cop shoots the unarmed innocent bystander we can refer to our training to justify the shoot.
BOTTOM LINE!!
YOU DON'T SHOOT SOMEONE FOR SHINING A FLASHLIGHT!!!!!!!
Doesn't matter what state your in!!!!!
We can legally shoot someone for shining a flashlight at them.
I guess when I brief with my squad I better tell them not to use their spotlights or takedown lights when responding to calls for service, because someone may think we are the bad guys and may start taking shots at us during our response.
Yeah, that makes sense!
Better yet, the next time we hear of a Police Officer who shoots an unarmed subject or innocent bystander, I hope some piece of SXXT lawyer comes to the aid of the Police Officer with the New Flashlight Defense. Will this group come to the aid of Police Officer?... or...is the Cop always wrong in this forum?
Next time we have a group of Recruits in training we'll use the "Flashlight Back-Turned" target for qualification too, that way when the Cop shoots the unarmed innocent bystander we can refer to our training to justify the shoot.
BOTTOM LINE!!
YOU DON'T SHOOT SOMEONE FOR SHINING A FLASHLIGHT!!!!!!!
Doesn't matter what state your in!!!!!
ebd10
Member
Looking at the subject from the safety of your keyboard, it's easy to criticize. Just like all of the accusations of MMQB-ing that get thrown around on other forums when someone takes issue with the actions of an LEO, I think the same thing could be said about all of us regarding this issue. Having said that, I will point out that someone who has been the victim of multiple crimes, that also has no reason to believe that the police would want to have any contact with him, is RIGHT to believe that someone that is shining a flashlight into his home is up to no good. Moreover, with regard to being shot in the back, no less than Massad Ayoob has testified that it is possible for an individual to turn his back towards the shooter in the time it takes to acquire a target and fire the shot.
I'm not changing the scenario, that IS the scenario. Nice backpedal though.
asiparks
Member
I'm going to guess that you didn't read the entire thread X 72 . If you did, then I sincerely hope that you're not really in a position of command, but perhaps when you do "brief your squad" you might suggest that they don't illegally and randomly enter the back of someones property, and if they feel a compelling need to wake a person at 12:40 for the heinous crime of rock chucking, that they at least stay around the front, perhaps ring the bell and announce themselves as PO's.
If I'm woken by banging in the night, and someone, in my house (that's what the porch is), is shining a blinding light in my eyes, I should probably wait to see if they fire on me first I suppose.....
If I'm woken by banging in the night, and someone, in my house (that's what the porch is), is shining a blinding light in my eyes, I should probably wait to see if they fire on me first I suppose.....
ebd10
It still doesn't justify shooting someone for shining a flashlight!!!!
If that was the case Security Guards, Hikers, Joggers, Newspaper Boys...all who use flashlights at night, would be open season for inadvertantly shining a light in a doorway or window.
The shooting was not Justified!
Like sam59, I don't believe attempted murder was a proper charge to brought up either. There are other charges that would have applied!
I am very familar with the Back turning cases, there is a Professor that has presented many scenarios that show how you can shoot someone in the back who was facing forward, I agree with you 100%. I put that comment in to show how ridiculous this discussion has become.
It still doesn't justify shooting someone for shining a flashlight!!!!
If that was the case Security Guards, Hikers, Joggers, Newspaper Boys...all who use flashlights at night, would be open season for inadvertantly shining a light in a doorway or window.
The shooting was not Justified!
Like sam59, I don't believe attempted murder was a proper charge to brought up either. There are other charges that would have applied!
I am very familar with the Back turning cases, there is a Professor that has presented many scenarios that show how you can shoot someone in the back who was facing forward, I agree with you 100%. I put that comment in to show how ridiculous this discussion has become.
asiparks
I did read the entire thread, it doesn't change ridiculous justification for shooting an unidentified target through a closed door, because of a light. BOTTOM LINE!!
No further discussion is needed!
But, I guess based on your Use of Force Policy shoot first and ask questions later. Please if I ever get into a shooting I want you on my Review Board, because based on your belief system existence with a flashlight after dark is a capital offense!!!!
__________________
“It is true that great thinkers and innovators and Bringers of Light tend to piss people off. But that doesn't mean that, just because you piss people off, you are a great thinker and innovator and Bringer of Light. You might just be a huge a**hole..”
-Mary Withers
Good quote!
I did read the entire thread, it doesn't change ridiculous justification for shooting an unidentified target through a closed door, because of a light. BOTTOM LINE!!
No further discussion is needed!
But, I guess based on your Use of Force Policy shoot first and ask questions later. Please if I ever get into a shooting I want you on my Review Board, because based on your belief system existence with a flashlight after dark is a capital offense!!!!
__________________
“It is true that great thinkers and innovators and Bringers of Light tend to piss people off. But that doesn't mean that, just because you piss people off, you are a great thinker and innovator and Bringer of Light. You might just be a huge a**hole..”
-Mary Withers
Good quote!
Matthew Courtney
Member
There are a lot of people here with reading comprehension issues. The armed criminal intruder was not shot for shining a flashlight. He was shot because he broke into a citizen's home and behaved in a way that caused the citizen to reasonably believe that he was in danger.
The fact that the criminal intruder is a cop is irrelevant with respect to the residents culpability.
The fact that the criminal intruder is a cop is irrelevant with respect to the residents culpability.
NineseveN
member
Then I expect you to do the same, the facts of the story are these:
The cop was in the home illegally
The shooter had legal justification to shoot
The jury found in favor of the shooter
End of story.
There’s something you need to understand in order for you to grasp the arguments that are coming against you.
The shooter did identify his target, as someone who had no lawful business being inside his home and thus in the commission of a crime. “knowing your target” does not require one to get on a first name basis with the person inside their home after dark, it requires that, to the best of your ability, you identify that the target is not there on legal business. The shooter did that, because the police officer was not lawfully there. This is a far cry from the guy that shoots his teenaged daughter that has a habit of sneaking out and coming home at odd hours; the resident of the property had no reasonable expectation that anyone would lawfully be on his property, after dark, without notice or his consent.
The shining of the light into his face is not the act that justified the shoot, in fact, it’s what nearly cost the LEO his life (aside from him scaling a wall and breaking and entering into the shooter’s private home) because it made it near impossible for the shooter to positively identify his target beyond: they are not lawfully here, they have broken into my home and are in my doorway. “Knowing your target” does not require one to assume all intruders are legally there, nor does it require that one ask the person what they are doing inside the home before resorting to the option of self-defense because the time it takes to do that can (and often has) get one killed. As a private citizen inside of his or her own home, they are not required to potentially risk their own safety in order to double-check that a person that is reasonably presumed to be in the home illegally is actually there with ill intent.
Likewise, if a plain-clothes LEO pulls a gun on someone but does not identify themselves as a police officer, and that LEO gets shot, the shooter is in the right. We are under no legal obligation to do a background check or ask twice before shooting. The legal requirement is on the law enforcement officer (or in the original case, the intruder of the home) to identify themselves and declare that their actions are legal and they are on official legal business.
The shooter fired multiple shots, the LEO was running for cover and returning fire. If there was anything sinister involved, the jury would have not acquitted the shooter. Next.
NineseveN
member
No, we can shoot them for committing a crime and invading the sanctity of our homes.
I think the lesson learned here should be to tell your squad not to violate the law and break into people’s homes.
Nope, but you can shoot them for breaking into your home in Florida and other states.
- Status
