An interesting outcome to say the least. On one hand, the accused claims he was just defending his home.  And that certainly can be a reasonable statement.  While I am pro cop in general, I am not so naive as to believe there aren’t occasions where shortcuts are taken or mistakes made with deadly consequences.

“He was protecting his house, he was protecting Ms. Flores and he was protecting Savannah,” he said, referencing the 3-year-old granddaughter of Flores who also was at the home the night of the October 2010 raid.

 

via Man who shot at cops acquitted – Houston Chronicle.

But there are always at least two sides to every story. It is, quite honestly, rare for police to kick in the wrong door. Let alone do it for no reason. But juries and the general public don’t always get to hear the whole story.

Though jurors never heard about the reasons for or results of the search warrant, police at the time reported finding methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia and firearms in the home.

 

via Man who shot at cops acquitted – Houston Chronicle.

 

I am all for a man defending his home. And there’s no nice way to say that I’m OK with a the fact that might potentially lead to deadly force being lawfully used against cops if they’ve busted into the wrong house. But in this case, it seems the police clearly had the right house.

I don’t know that the jury would have come to the same conclusion if they’d heard the police had conducted a buy at that same house 24 hours prior to serving the warrant.  Or that the lawfully obtained warrant did in fact produce evidence supporting charges of criminal possession and distribution of drugs. Of course, one could argue that some times, even that, isn’t always the best use of police resources. This just seems like one of those times there is no “good” outcome no matter how it shakes out.

-GM