Man charged for shooting when cops went to wrong house

[ReverendHellh0und]

[h=1]Man charged for shooting when cops went to wrong house[/h]
Man charged for shooting when cops went to wrong house | WAVY-TV

It came out in court last September that police were in the wrong backyard. They were supposed to be in Patricia Brooks yard, which is next door to Watson. She had called 911 because she heard unrelated noises in the downstairs of her home.
Portsmouth Commonwealth’s Attorney Earle Mobley explained how police ended up in the wrong backyard: “When they went around from the front, they started counting 2, 3, 4.” They were counting the number of townhouse units from the end, where Patricia Brooks lived. “Then they see a gate that is open, and that raises suspicion that must be the house,” Mobley said.
Mobley admits Watson did not know police were in his backyard, but prosecutes him anyway for misdemeanor reckless handling of a fire arm.
“You cannot fire indiscriminately through the window,” Mobley said.
And a judge agreed. Watson was found guilty. So he appealed the decision, and a second judge declared a mistrial. At that point, Watson chose to have a jury trial.
“This can’t be doing your job. You come in my backyard, try to open my door, open my window and flash red laser beams on my chest because you thought I was the burglar, and I thought you were the burglar,” Watson said.
The seven-person jury bought that, and found Brandon Watson not guilty, after deliberating only 47 minutes.
“The Commonwealth really didn’t have a case. It wasn’t reckless, so it didn’t’ take a lot of discussion,” said Danny Barnes, a juror and WAVY-TV 10 employee.

Here is another case of a botched raid at the wrong house that almost got someone killed. The gall of the police and the first judge to actually charge the man for the "Crime" of protecting himself from unidentified assailants is part of the problem of the police policing themselves.


It's good to see that a jury of his peers found the police reckless and the man innocent in only 47 minutes.


But it begs the question, If armed men who happened to be police raid your home or trespass without identifying themselves, shine a laser sight on your chest, if you shoot and kill that threat, should you be tried for murder, or should the cops be disciplined for imporper conduct?


What say you?

 

[CRUE CAB]

You are safe in your home, so you fire through a window? Yea, lucky didn't get charged with attempted homicide of a police officer.
I think they charged him pretty low.

 

[notquiteright]

I have a problem with the story on several points... first the cops never opened a door or window so that part of the homeowner story seems a bit much. lasers on his chest seems a bit much too, more like lasers sweeping the room from OUTSIDE a CLOSED window.

Next why did the homeowner elect to forgo a jury trail?

Finally, I'd say there is little excuse for firing on people outside your home- it is a stretch to think a group of bangers would sweep a room with multiple lasers and not fire a single shot... I seem to recall bangers being very quick to expend ammo with little concern over any repercussions.

Charged with a misdemeanor- yes

Found not guilty by a jury- sure

more than that is just anti-cop BS... far better cases to beat your dead horse with where homeowners did shoot or were shot by cops in the wrong house/building.

 

[radcen]

You are safe in your home, so you fire through a window? Yea, lucky didn't get charged with attempted homicide of a police officer.
I think they charged him pretty low.

You consider this...

...come in my backyard, try to open my door, open my window and flash red laser beams on my chest...

...to be "safe"?

Seriously?

 

[WCH]

This is one of the reason we live in a neighborhood where the houses aren't close. [less chance of a mistaken address]

If you've already been targeted with a laser, I wouldn't do anything stupid.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Perhaps the man had attended the Joe Biden school of home defense - firing random "warning" shots is a preferred technique.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Regardless if they were unidentified cops or criminals, I am not entirely comfortable with the idea of shooting someone who isn't in my house yet. But if saw he was outnumbered and it was obvious they were about to break in, it isn't unreasonable.

As for the other question, if cops mistakenly break into your house and don't identify themselves and you kill one of them in the process, you absolutely should NOT be tried. If you get killed in the process the police should be tried for negligent homicide or manslaughter.

But here is a problem. Why does it matter that they identify themselves? Couldn't home invaders yell "POLICE" to make you hesitate or drop your gun? I am tempted to say, whether they identify themselves or not, if they break into your house by accident, which means they didn't have probable cause, you should not be charged for defending yourself. I don't know. There is no easy answer to it.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

You are safe in your home, so you fire through a window? Yea, lucky didn't get charged with attempted homicide of a police officer.
I think they charged him pretty low.

A crew of armed men in his yard who are "flash[ing] red laser beams on his chest" = he is safe

safety is not a foregone conclusion in that situation imho.
I think that a reasonable person could feel in danger for their life at that point.

Obviously, ymmv

 

[CRUE CAB]

You consider this...
...to be "safe"?

Seriously?

"try" to open a door? Not quite shootin' time.

 

[CRUE CAB]

A crew of armed men in his yard who are "flash[ing] red laser beams on his chest" = he is safe

safety is not a foregone conclusion in that situation imho.
I think that a reasonable person could feel in danger for their life at that point.

Obviously, ymmv

He cant arm himself and dial 911? He is going to shoot it out with a "crew"?
Quit the hyperbole.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Regardless if they were unidentified cops or criminals, I am not entirely comfortable with the idea of shooting someone who isn't in my house yet. But if saw he was outnumbered and it was obvious they were about to break in, it isn't unreasonable.

The people in his yard were armed, targeting him with their weapons and attempting to enter his house.
How is that not enough for a reasonable person to fear for their life?

As for the other question, if cops mistakenly break into your house and don't identify themselves and you kill one of them in the process, you absolutely should NOT be tried. If you get killed in the process the police should be tried for negligent homicide or manslaughter.

That'd be nice.
But it seems that the cops just have to say, "Oops. My bad," and they get a mullligan.

 

[radcen]

"try" to open a door? Not quite shootin' time.

If a red dot makes it to your chest, you're in shooting range. Way to gloss over that part. :roll:

 

[Simon W. Moon]

He cant arm himself and dial 911? He is going to shoot it out with a "crew"?
Quit the hyperbole.

It is a hyperbole to say that a crew of armed men in your yard at night targeting you with their weapons is cause to fear for your life?

imho, it seems that the hyperbole would be equating that situation with safety.

You obviously have a much different view of safety [and possibly of the meaning of the word hyperbole].

 

[Skeptic Bob]

He cant arm himself and dial 911? He is going to shoot it out with a "crew"?
Quit the hyperbole.

If the group of armed guys out your window are criminals then what is most likely going to happen when you open fire is they will run away. There isn't going to be a shootout.

 

[CRUE CAB]

If the group of armed guys out your window are criminals then what is most likely going to happen when you open fire is they will run away. There isn't going to be a shootout.

You know this for fact?

 

[CRUE CAB]

It is a hyperbole to say that a crew of armed men in your yard at night targeting you with their weapons is cause to fear for your life?

imho, it seems that the hyperbole would be equating that situation with safety.

You obviously have a much different view of safety [and possibly of the meaning of the word hyperbole].

So he couldn't take cover, prepare to fire from a vantage point? He has to stand in the middle of a room where clearly they can target him with laser sights?

 

[Lutherf]

You are safe in your home, so you fire through a window? Yea, lucky didn't get charged with attempted homicide of a police officer.
I think they charged him pretty low.

That was my first thought but then I kept reading. It seems that the cops rattled his door and then the homeowner announced himself. When the cops heard that they targeted him which is when he shot. That sounds pretty doggone legit to me.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

You know this for fact?

Nope. Which is why I said "most likely" and not "definitely".

 

[radcen]

So he couldn't take cover, prepare to fire from a vantage point? He has to stand in the middle of a room where clearly they can target him with laser sights?

Yes, because everybody is a ninja-like Navy Seal Ranger Rambo type combat warrior. :roll:

And before you say it, police are trained. The average citizen is not.

 

[Lutherf]

"try" to open a door? Not quite shootin' time.

You have to look at the totality of the circumstances. Rattling the door was only part of what happened. The laser dots were the other part. That's a damned good bit of evidence that the person on the other end of that beam has hostile intent and IS a threat.

 

[CRUE CAB]

You have to look at the totality of the circumstances. Rattling the door was only part of what happened. The laser dots were the other part. That's a damned good bit of evidence that the person on the other end of that beam has hostile intent and IS a threat.

In no defensive shooting class will they tell you to shoot through a door or window. That sounds like Joe Biden's advice.

 

[CRUE CAB]

If a red dot makes it to your chest, you're in shooting range. Way to gloss over that part. :roll:

A red dot does not freeze you. Freaking move.

 

[Lutherf]

In no defensive shooting class will they tell you to shoot through a door or window. That sounds like Joe Biden's advice.

I understand that.

I also understand that it's perfectly reasonable for the guy to be in fear for his life at that point and, as such, justified in pulling the trigger. Maybe it wasn't the best idea but it definitely wasn't reckless.

 

[radcen]

A red dot does not freeze you. Freaking move.

Right, because it won't follow you.

*double facepalm*

ETA: Oh, and bullets go through sheetrock, btw.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Right, because it won't follow you.

*double facepalm*

ETA: Oh, and bullet go through sheetrock, btw.

OK, so freeze and start shooting. Don't move, don't take cover, don't take a defensive position. SMGDH