Man found 'not guilty' for firing warning shot at police

oldbanger · Aug 4, 2014

A homeowner in Portsmouth, Virginia, has been found "not guilty" after firing a warning shot at what turned out to be police officers jiggling the handle on his back door.

Portsmouth Commonwealth's Attorney Earle Mobley said: "You (the homeowner inside) cannot fire indiscriminately through the window,"

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.

Righteous ?

http://www.nbc12.com/story/26065815/portsmouth-man-charged-for-firing-on-cops-who-entered-wrong-home

MAC702 · Aug 4, 2014

It should never have gone to trial the first time.

article 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.

He did not fire "indiscriminately," you arrogant ass! He fired at intruders who were aiming weapons at him! Kudos to the jury. Why did he not have a jury the first time?

davidmcbeth · Aug 4, 2014

Who was on who's land?

That's the only ? I need to understand.

Also: "There was agreement if there had been more than one bullet hole, had he sprayed the wall with bullets, bang, bang, bang, that would have been reckless," Barnes said.

Now we can only shoot one shot? These people are brainwashed. I would shoot hundreds of rounds to insure that the intruders were DEAD DEAD DEAD. Any yelling of "police" would not stop my actions, anyone can yell "police!" ...

Police want to play soldier and bust into people's houses at night then they can expect casualties. Burglars that operate at night are the most dangerous.

This is why the laws should be changed to make it perfectly clear: stay off people's land

HPmatt · Aug 5, 2014

Hope Watson wins a huge settlement from the city and the stupid DA(appropriately named) for prosecuting this case. Cops had wrong address....

OC for ME · Aug 5, 2014

MAC702 said:
... Why did he not have a jury the first time?

Just a guess on my part, but I think, if it were me in that situation, that it would be a slam dunk given the facts that the cops apparently admitted to. That POS prosecutor obviously don't like armed citizens defending themselves against unknown threats who point laser sights, attached to evil black guns, at homeowners.

I would've said..."I did not fire indiscriminately at anything or anyone. I was intentionally aiming to shoot those POS intruders trying to enter my home, with guns, in the hopes of killing me. What would you think if you were in my place...you POS prosecutor."

We-the-People · Sep 7, 2014

oc for me said:
just a guess on my part, but i think, if it were me in that situation, that it would be a slam dunk given the facts that the cops apparently admitted to. That pos prosecutor obviously don't like armed citizens defending themselves against unknown threats who point laser sights, attached to evil black guns, at homeowners.

I would've said..."i did not fire indiscriminately at anything or anyone. I was intentionally aiming to shoot those pos intruders trying to enter my home, with guns, in the hopes of killing me. What would you think if you were in my place...you pos prosecutor."

^^^^^^^ that

Fallschirjmäger · Sep 8, 2014

oldbanger said:
Righteous ?

MAC702 said:
It should never have gone to trial the first time.

Absolutely righteous and agreed in whole and in part.

skidmark · Sep 8, 2014

The Watson case has helped change Portsmouth police policy with the use of red gun laser sights.

Will they be going to alternating red and blue, just like on their squadcars?:uhoh:

And would someone please explain something to me, 'cause I seem to be real slow about this -

You are concentrating on looking for/at a threat in front of you. You "notice" laser dots on your chest. How? Why? Seems to me you would need to divert your attention away from the threat to look down at your chest.

Do folks regularly stop to check their chests to see if there are laser dots there?

(Yes, if he laser beams were coming through a window I suppose one could see them on the window glass. But I'd just use that as an aid to locating an aiming point. YMMV.)

stay safe.

OC for ME · Sep 8, 2014

skidmark said:
Will they be going to alternating red and blue, just like on their squadcars?:uhoh:

And would someone please explain something to me, 'cause I seem to be real slow about this -

You are concentrating on looking for/at a threat in front of you. You "notice" laser dots on your chest. How? Why? Seems to me you would need to divert your attention away from the threat to look down at your chest.

Do folks regularly stop to check their chests to see if there are laser dots there?

(Yes, if he laser beams were coming through a window I suppose one could see them on the window glass. But I'd just use that as an aid to locating an aiming point. YMMV.)

stay safe.

Well, if you think someone(s) with gun are near and you think he/they are pointing them in your general direction, I would like to think that you would take a quick moment to check. Not saying you have to check, but I think it may be a good idea at that time.

YMMV

skidmark · Sep 8, 2014

OC for ME said:
Well, if you think someone(s) with gun are near and you think he/they are pointing them in your general direction, I would like to think that you would take a quick moment to check. Not saying you have to check, but I think it may be a good idea at that time.

YMMV

If I think someone is pointing a gun at me my first thought is going to be locate and utilize cover. From there I will check. The cover should block those deadly laser dots as well as any bullets that follow them.

While I know that anecdote is not data, that process has worked pretty darned well for untold numbers of folks. I'm not able to say the same for looking down to see if there are dots on one's chest.

If you need/want to prove it to yourself, go to a force-on-force range and try each tactic.

stay safe.

Fallschirjmäger · Sep 8, 2014

When I worked in at the LGS for awhile, we'd demonstrate the worth of laser sights as a deterrence by taking one of the pencil lasers and pointing it at an unsuspecting co-worker or customer. They would notice about 1% of the time unless the laser was flashed across the eyes or refracted from something nearby. Needless to say, aiming at the eyes or something nearby defeats the purpose of using the laser to aim at an assailant's center-of-mass.

Even at night a laser is next to useless as a deterrent unless there is some humidity, dust, or other material in the atmosphere for the beam to refract off of and become noticeable; a tiny red light somewhere ahead just isn't a real 'danger signal'.

OC for ME · Sep 8, 2014

skidmark said:
If I think someone is pointing a gun at me my first thought is going to be locate and utilize cover. From there I will check. The cover should block those deadly laser dots as well as any bullets that follow them.

While I know that anecdote is not data, that process has worked pretty darned well for untold numbers of folks. I'm not able to say the same for looking down to see if there are dots on one's chest.

If you need/want to prove it to yourself, go to a force-on-force range and try each tactic.

stay safe.

Typically, and I could be wrong, being behind a closed door can be, is considered, pretty good cover.

Watson remembers, "We ran upstairs very quickly … she saw guys in all black from right here in this window looking down." Watson said he couldn't immediately find his cell phone to call 911 so he ran downstairs with his firearm and stood at the foot of the stairs, shielded by a wall.

But, I'm a hoosier (Midwesterner for redneck) living in flyover country, what the hell do we know, let alone read.

OC for ME · Sep 8, 2014

OC for ME said:
Typically, and I could be wrong, being behind a closed door can be, is considered, pretty good cover.But, I'm a hoosier (Midwesterner for redneck) living in flyover country, what the hell do we know, let alone read.

Wait? What?

"As far as the officers response, I support their response 100 percent," said Portsmouth Police Chief Ed Hargis, who claims his men never heard Watson say he had a gun or say anything. "Anytime the police hear there is a firearm, they start giving verbal commands, and they start yelling police."

Until then we are just gunna go around and point their rifle lights at folks while at the same time pointing their rifles at the ground.

https://www.google.com/shopping/pro....5&ei=_u0NVNPzLZTnoATsx4GwAQ&ved=0CLABEKkrMAI

I must commend those cops for one thing, not ventilating the citizen, thus the citizen ain't room temperature. Always look at the bright side of every situation.

Another example of cops doing what cops do best.

It would have been, back in the day, one or two cops knock on the front door like cops used to do, and some more cops keeping a eye on things. Nope gotta use them thar assault rifles with laser sights.

Is 47 minutes some kind of record. And the nitwit prosecutor:

When asked about the juror's comment that the Commonwealth failed to prove Watson was reckless, he said, "I just disagree with that point."

You folks in VA are sure patient, I'd be getting that fella run outta town on a rail.

Fallschirjmäger · Sep 8, 2014

Residential doors (even steel clad entrance doors) aren't what I'd consider 'cover'.

JoeSparky · Sep 8, 2014

Fallschirmjäger said:
Residential doors (even steel clad entrance doors) aren't what I'd consider 'cover'.

Concealment Yes, Cover? HELL NO!

skidmark · Sep 9, 2014

Spam post #16 reported.

Really, it was post #16. Some moderator came along and removed the spam.

stay safe.

rightwinglibertarian · Sep 9, 2014

MAC702 said:
It should never have gone to trial the first time.

Actually i'm going to disagree there. This may be a step in the right direction for an affirmation that using deadly force on a police officer is legal whether they break and enter into your property, try to rob you or make threats to kill or other major offence. Now many states seem to elevate LEOs as above the law and they are not. They are to be in submission to both the law and the People

Primus · Sep 9, 2014

rightwinglibertarian said:
Actually i'm going to disagree there. This may be a step in the right direction for an affirmation that using deadly force on a police officer is legal whether they break and enter into your property, try to rob you or make threats to kill or other major offence. Now many states seem to elevate LEOs as above the law and they are not. They are to be in submission to both the law and the People

Its offense..

Can you cite this whole "submission" thing? Massa...if it pleases you...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

SFCRetired · Sep 9, 2014

Primus said:
Its offense..

Can you cite this whole "submission" thing? Massa...if it pleases you...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I believe that, since we are supposed to be a government "of the people, by the people" and law enforcement agencies work for the government; then, by extension, the police work for the people and are to be submissive to the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives.

There is your "submission".

rightwinglibertarian · Sep 9, 2014

Primus said:
Its offense..

Can you cite this whole "submission" thing? Massa...if it pleases you...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

wipe the sarcastic drool from your face first

Right, well as an LEO you are a public servant, funded by the tax payer. Therefore you must comply with any lawful demands by the People. Likewise we must comply with lawful demands by LEOs. However we are perfectly without our rights to refuse to follow unlawful commands or be abused, threatened, have our rights denied and stolen and many of us can and will defend ourselves against these crimes. It's like the Youtube video i saw of a Michigan LEO threatening an open carrier from across the road with his firearm. That officer was lucky he wasn't shot himself for making totally unwarranted threats to kill and his victim could very very easily have considered his life in danger. I've seen time and time again LEOs committing crimes and getting away with it. They are simply peace officers and should do that job. Keep the peace and keep to within the Constitution.

Man found 'not guilty' for firing warning shot at police

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Active member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Centurion

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member