An answer to "Just had a knock at the door... "

[Titanium_Frost]

I think that in the official release it states that the home owner pointed his gun at the deputies. Make all of your assumptions you want, I think that I know what I would do in their place. I know that it sucks what happened but he was pointing a gun. I know that a lot of this doesn't make sense. Departments usually only gives ot small pieces of info to make the news media happy.

Look at it this way:

This guy is minding his own business and has a loud knock at the front door and two people are shining lights at him and not identifying themselves while THEY ARE POINTING GUNS AT HIM.

If there were two dead cops instead of one dead innocent man would you feel the same way?

 

[lrahm]

Look at it this way:

This guy is minding his own business and has a loud knock at the front door and two people are shining lights at him and not identifying themselves while THEY ARE POINTING GUNS AT HIM.

If there were two dead cops instead of one dead innocent man would you feel the same way?

We can "what if" this to death. I am very sorry that this happened and pray that this doesn't happen again. Be it officers or a civilian, the death was a tragic thing to happen. Once again, we were not there and neither of us have an accurate description of what actually happened.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

We can "what if" this to death. I am very sorry that this happened and pray that this doesn't happen again. Be it officers or a civilian, the death was a tragic thing to happen. Once again, we were not there and neither of us have an accurate description of what actually happened.

I agree but lessons should be learned on BOTH sides so this crap STOPS. I am very tired of cops getting the wrong houses and wrong people and I am tired of people's ignorance of the law, their surroundings or a lack of basic sense getting them hurt, in trouble or dead.

The flip side of the coin is, was this guy defending his home under SB1?

ETA: I am not basing this on the story but the "What If" of this happening in Ind with different results.

 

[Ted]

Look at it this way:

This guy is minding his own business and has a loud knock at the front door and two people are shining lights at him and not identifying themselves while THEY ARE POINTING GUNS AT HIM.

If there were two dead cops instead of one dead innocent man would you feel the same way?

Then the homeowner would have been more than justified in firing.

 

[Ted]

Give that a try. Let me know how it works out for ya. ......

You're stating that nobody is justified in shooting through a door, even if the person on the other side of it is pointing the business end of a firearm at them?

Come to my house and point your firearm at my non-bullet resistant front door while I'm still behind it. I'll let you know how it goes at the police department......providing you're still around.

 

[jd4320t]

Look at it this way:

This guy is minding his own business and has a loud knock at the front door and two people are shining lights at him and not identifying themselves while THEY ARE POINTING GUNS AT HIM.

If there were two dead cops instead of one dead innocent man would you feel the same way?

Would you automatically assume the man is lying like you are with cops???

 

[foszoe]

Ok time to jump into the pile.

One sided stories, I scrutinize with a healthy dose of skepticism. Especially when the one side i get to hear has a lot to gain and little to lose.

Didn't see this discussed but might have missed....

How was the lighting outside?

The cops could be telling the "truth" because the guy saw armed unidentified men outside his door when he opened it. At 0130 instinct would dictate pointing the weapon prior to firing in self defense. Police see this motion and fire

end of life, end of story

 

[foszoe]

I'm not disputing that the media is less than reliable in too many cases, but too many here take the opposite extreme, even when multiple, independent sources report that a cop is 100% in the right.

for this thread and this story that is not the case though. Perhaps that discussion would be worthy of a different thread. In this instance barring any witnesses coming forward, there are only sources from one side of the story.

 

[Justin Case]

for this thread and this story that is not the case though. Perhaps that discussion would be worthy of a different thread. In this instance barring any witnesses coming forward, there are only sources from one side of the story.

According to reports, the deceased's girl friend was in the apartment with him and was heard screaming immediately after the shots rang out. It will be interesting to hear her side of the story.

 

[Hotdoger]

Hope she has a lawyer before giving her statement to the cops.

 

[ckcollins2003]

You're stating that nobody is justified in shooting through a door, even if the person on the other side of it is pointing the business end of a firearm at them?

Come to my house and point your firearm at my non-bullet resistant front door while I'm still behind it. I'll let you know how it goes at the police department......providing you're still around.

You're justified to shoot through the door if they shoot first and you are a LEO with a search warrant. Until then, no, you cannot go shooting through people's doorways because you walked up to their house with a firearm pointed at them first and they point a gun at you. Ask a lawyer if he really thinks you can walk up to anyone's house brandishing a firearm right off of the bat and get away with shooting the homeowner.

This is my point exactly. You'd shoot at someone who comes to your door pointing a firearm at you, which is exactly what the victim in this story apparently was about to do. Yet somehow you think he was the one in the wrong and the person on the outside of the doorway (officer) who was pointing the gun at the homeowner was in the right.

The only thing that makes a difference in your mind is whether or not the victim is you or the other person. As long as you're not the victim, it's completely justified and legal, but God forbid you have to be on the other side.

ETA: Not even sure why I replied one more time. Your ignorance is retardedly outstanding and you'll never be able to see it from someone else's point of view. If someone comes to your doorway at night and shoots you while you have a gun in your hand I don't want to see any cries about murder. In your mind it's completely legal and justified. Have a good one there Eastwood.

 

[Valvestate]

On a side note from the who was wrong talk, did they get the guy they were looking for?

 

[Ted]

You're justified to shoot through the door if they shoot first and you are a LEO with a search warrant. Until then, no, you cannot go shooting through people's doorways because you walked up to their house with a firearm pointed at them first and they point a gun at you. Ask a lawyer if he really thinks you can walk up to anyone's house brandishing a firearm right off of the bat and get away with shooting the homeowner.

This is my point exactly. You'd shoot at someone who comes to your door pointing a firearm at you, which is exactly what the victim in this story apparently was about to do. Yet somehow you think he was the one in the wrong and the person on the outside of the doorway (officer) who was pointing the gun at the homeowner was in the right.

The only thing that makes a difference in your mind is whether or not the victim is you or the other person. As long as you're not the victim, it's completely justified and legal, but God forbid you have to be on the other side.

ETA: Not even sure why I replied one more time. Your ignorance is retardedly outstanding and you'll never be able to see it from someone else's point of view. If someone comes to your doorway at night and shoots you while you have a gun in your hand I don't want to see any cries about murder. In your mind it's completely legal and justified. Have a good one there Eastwood.

Oh, so one has to be shot at first, before being able to respond to a threat of deadly force? And if you're a cop, you have to have a search warrant to boot?

Your ignorance is truly beyond reproach......Bronson.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Sorry Ted, but ckcollins is kinda right here. If two men walk up to MY door, with guns, presenting a deadly threat, start pounding on the door and do not identify as police officers, then although I personally would pursue a different course of action, you yourself said you would be justified in shooting them through the door. So that's the perspective of the homeowner. Now, from the perspective of the two guys outside (LEO or not), you walk up on a door, you are armed, you pound on the door without identifying yourself, and you see (somehow) the guy behind the door has a firearm. If YOU shoot through the door, you've committed a crime. Period. If you think committing that crime saves your life I'm not going to argue with you, but I will be pissed if you don't go to jail.

 

[Ted]

Sorry Ted, but ckcollins is kinda right here. If two men walk up to MY door, with guns, presenting a deadly threat, start pounding on the door and do not identify as police officers, then although I personally would pursue a different course of action, you yourself said you would be justified in shooting them through the door. So that's the perspective of the homeowner. Now, from the perspective of the two guys outside (LEO or not), you walk up on a door, you are armed, you pound on the door without identifying yourself, and you see (somehow) the guy behind the door has a firearm. If YOU shoot through the door, you've committed a crime. Period. If you think committing that crime saves your life I'm not going to argue with you, but I will be pissed if you don't go to jail.

The question being, does one have to wait until one fires a shot before responding with deadly force? Or is the mere imminent threat of a firearm being pointed at them, enough to respond with physical force?

IC 35-41-3-2 states rather clearly that a person is justified to use all reasonable force, including deadly force, if a the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the another person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, occupied motor vehicle, their person, or another person.

 

[foszoe]

The question being, does one have to wait until one fires a shot before responding with deadly force? Or is the mere imminent threat of a firearm being pointed at them, enough to respond with physical force?

IC 35-41-3-2 states rather clearly that a person is justified to use all reasonable force, including deadly force, if a the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the another person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, occupied motor vehicle, their person, or another person.

And if two unidentified armed men are on a person's porch with guns drawn, does one have to wait until they shoot to point back and fire from inside one's dwelling?

 

[rockhopper46038]

The question being, does one have to wait until one fires a shot before responding with deadly force? Or is the mere imminent threat of a firearm being pointed at them, enough to respond with physical force?

IC 35-41-3-2 states rather clearly that a person is justified to use all reasonable force, including deadly force, if a the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the another person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, occupied motor vehicle, their person, or another person.

That's why the guy IN the house is clear (although in this case, dead), while the guys OUTSIDE the house need to go to jail. To the question of firing first, the Code doesn't preclude it - so long as the other provisions are met.

 

[KLB]

That's why the guy IN the house is clear (although in this case, dead), while the guys OUTSIDE the house need to go to jail. To the question of firing first, the Code doesn't preclude it - so long as the other provisions are met.

Exactly.

Ted, I think you are starting to mix your arguments.

 

[rockhopper46038]

I should clarify my thought process. The owner's defense is lawful, to prevent the unlawful attack on his person and property; the LEO (or anyone else's) attack is unlawful because it is a "defense" against a lawful act by the homeowner. You are only protected by the Code for shooting a person who may be threatening you if that threat is "unlawful". That would be my read. May hold up in court, may not; but that is the crux of the matter.

 

[lucky4034]

What the hell were the cops thinking?!? Pounding on a door without announcing themselves in the middle of the night. Sheesh!

My guess is they had a warrant to arrest someone and knocked on the wrong door.

The cops in Elkhart use the "after midnight" strategy to add the element of surprise. Years ago when I was in highschool my mom had a boyfriend who was a drunk and delinquent on his child support. On two different occasions we had police knock on our door looking for him (after he had been kicked out). One time in uniform and another time not in uniform....