Man charged for shooting when cops went to wrong house

[CRUE CAB]

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.

Yea, it was reckless. Spraying and praying wildly is exactly what ever anti gunner things a gun owning home owner would do. And there is no excuse for it. You are responsible for every round you fire.

 

[radcen]

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

I can't tell if your obtuseness is intentional or unavoidably natural.

Anyway, carry on.

 

[CRUE CAB]

I can't tell if your obtuseness is intentional or unavoidably natural.

Anyway, carry on.

People in your back yard, or rattling your door, or aiming a laser is does not reach the level of return fire. Sorry.
I don't blame the guy, but I think (from the story) he was too quick on the trigger.
He was inside his home. He was armed, there was no quick forced entry. There was no flash bangs, there was no ninjas.
He needed to grow a pair and access the situation. Not go into wild fire mode.

 

[Lutherf]

Yea, it was reckless. Spraying and praying wildly is exactly what ever anti gunner things a gun owning home owner would do. And there is no excuse for it. You are responsible for every round you fire.

That's thinking about it philosophically. When the thing is going down you don't have that much time to ponder the consequences. This guy had:
1. Noises in the yard = threat
2. Someone rattling his door = more threat
3. He announces himself to deter the threat
4. After he announces himself he's lit up with a laser = more threat AND a good indication that the threat is likely deadly (not "could be" but "likely)

At that point he's justified in shooting. You don't have to like his decision but it was made in consideration of an increasing threat and addressed that threat with equivalent force to what he could have reasonably expected. That isn't reckless.

 

[Fearandloathing]

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? [/FONT][/COLOR]

I don't see anywhere where the police announced themselves as police.

Based on a similar case here some years ago, that would make the difference. It hinges on police procedure not the man's activities at that point. They failed to properly identify a threat, properly identify the location and properly identify the suspect.

In a similar case here, wrong unit in a building, a man was beaten, rather savagely and the police were cleared of wrongdoing, because they had and were heard to identify themselves as police. The suspect, and Asian immigrant claimed not to understand "police", a virtual universal word.

Police have the greater onus on all counts, and I would suggest that with US rights on weapons, they maybe need to be a lot more careful.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

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?

He would only need to take cover if he were not safe.
Have you changed your mind about his relative safety?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

That's thinking about it philosophically. When the thing is going down you don't have that much time to ponder the consequences. This guy had:
1. Noises in the yard = threat
2. Someone rattling his door = more threat
3. He announces himself to deter the threat
4. After he announces himself he's lit up with a laser = more threat AND a good indication that the threat is likely deadly (not "could be" but "likely)

At that point he's justified in shooting. You don't have to like his decision but it was made in consideration of an increasing threat and addressed that threat with equivalent force to what he could have reasonably expected. That isn't reckless.

I am at a loss for understanding the finding that a reasonable person would not fear for his life and well being.

I am glad that I am not the only one who finds the situation as described to be a perilous one.

Perhaps the word "reasonable" is the pertinent condition here.

 

[radcen]

He would only need to take cover if he were not safe.
Have you changed your mind about his relative safety?

Good catch.

 

[CRUE CAB]

He would only need to take cover if he were not safe.
Have you changed your mind about his relative safety?

Nope, not at all. Firing wildly at who knows what and no clue where the rounds are going to land is not bright.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Good catch.

On what planet?

 

[CRUE CAB]

I am at a loss for understanding the finding that a reasonable person would not fear for his life and well being.

I am glad that I am not the only one who finds the situation as described to be a perilous one.

Perhaps the word "reasonable" is the pertinent condition here.

Noise in yard is a "threat"? LOL.
Clearly you have never been a shoot don't shoot situation and if you own a gun. Please sell it.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

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.

So you would be ok with strangers "Sweeping" your house with lasers?

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

Probably on advise of his attorney.

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...

Speculating on the state of mind of people pointing guns at you as other than nefarious is hazardous to your health.

I seem to recall bangers being very quick to expend ammo with little concern over any repercussions.

uhm ok

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.

True, there are LITERALLY thousands to choose from.

Botched Paramilitary Police Raids | Cato Institute


This isn't anti-cop. it's anti-bad cop, and anti-warrior cop, anti-modern policing tactics.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Noise in yard is a "threat"? LOL.
Clearly you have never been a shoot don't shoot situation and if you own a gun. Please sell it.

So a "laser on your chest" is a "no shoot" situation?

How about if that laser was on your daughters head?

 

[CRUE CAB]

So a "laser on your chest" is a "no shoot" situation?

How about if that laser was on your daughters head?

Don't have a daughter, I put stems on all my apples.
I don't really care for hyperbole.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Don't have a daughter, I put stems on all my apples.
I don't really care for hyperbole.

It's not hyperbole, he saw laser targeting on his chest. How would you handle laser targeting by unknown people on your chest?

 

[CRUE CAB]

It's not hyperbole, he saw laser targeting on his chest. How would you handle laser targeting by unknown people on your chest?

Um, move first. To my left. Find cover, call 911 announce that I am armed in case they ID themselves as PD. Go from there as things arise or mitigate.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Um, move first. To my left. Find cover, call 911 announce that I am armed in case they ID themselves as PD. Go from there as things arise or mitigate.

They tried to open the door, didn't identify themselves, how much closer will you let the unknown threat get?

 

[Ikari]

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? [/FONT][/COLOR]

If they do not announce themselves as police, there's no reason to think they are any different than any other home invader.

 

[Ikari]

Yea, it was reckless. Spraying and praying wildly is exactly what ever anti gunner things a gun owning home owner would do. And there is no excuse for it. You are responsible for every round you fire.

Don't be breaking into people's property. Guess you're against all those castle doctrine laws, huh?

 

[CRUE CAB]

Don't be breaking into people's property. Guess you're against all those castle doctrine laws, huh?

Not at all, but you also have to use your head.

 

[CRUE CAB]

They tried to open the door, didn't identify themselves, how much closer will you let the unknown threat get?

So you are all about breaking one of the most important rules of gun ownership and safety. Firing at an un known object, unknown back stop, through a barrier.
Good to know. You don't happen to live in Florida do you?

 

[Ikari]

Not at all, but you also have to use your head.

Castle doctrines allow for deadly force if there is legitimate concern for safety. People trying to get into your house and shining lasers on your chest qualify as exactly this. I feel your contention is only that in this case it turned out to be cops. But if it were some ghetto thug, dollars to donuts your argument 180's.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Castle doctrines allow for deadly force if there is legitimate concern for safety. People trying to get into your house and shining lasers on your chest qualify as exactly this. I feel your contention is only that in this case it turned out to be cops. But if it were some ghetto thug, dollars to donuts your argument 180's.

I have never proposed shooting out blindly from a window. I think you really need to go back over my posts on home and self defense before you attempt to put words in my mouth.
Jiggling a handle is a far cry from kicking in a door.
Red dot? For god sakes move out of aim. Use your brain.
People in my yard? Arm and call 911.
Home owner in this case did none of that and started panic firing. He is lucky he didn't get lit up right then and there.

 

[Ikari]

I have never proposed shooting out blindly from a window. I think you really need to go back over my posts on home and self defense before you attempt to put words in my mouth.
Jiggling a handle is a far cry from kicking in a door.
Red dot? For god sakes move out of aim. Use your brain.
People in my yard? Arm and call 911.
Home owner in this case did none of that and started panic firing. He is lucky he didn't get lit up right then and there.

Red dot can still be interpreted as immediate threat, if you're OK with castle doctrines, then this is an action you'd have to accept. But you're a statist, you defend the state at neigh all times; at least from the posts I've seen.

Well I suppose time will tell on this one. We'll see your arguments when it's not cops on the other side of the door, or when its cops shooting through the door. I suspect you'll reverse course. Particularly for the latter.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Red dot can still be interpreted as immediate threat, if you're OK with castle doctrines, then this is an action you'd have to accept. But you're a statist, you defend the state at neigh all times; at least from the posts I've seen.

Well I suppose time will tell on this one. We'll see your arguments when it's not cops on the other side of the door, or when its cops shooting through the door. I suspect you'll reverse course. Particularly for the latter.

Again, you are attempting to put words in my mouth.
Castle Doctrines do not give you free reign to blast away with out due diligence.