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

[MrsGungho]

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....

reread the article no warrant just the motorcycle of the guy they were looking for out front.. He was in a different building at the apartment complex.

 

[Ted]

Exactly.

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

No, what I am stating is that a perceived threat by either party can reasonably be construed to warrant deadly force.

The homeowner protecting his home, as well as the police attempting to apprehend a suspect, despite being performed erroneously.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Even granting that basis, there's still the instigator/respondant issue that cuts against the police, which is to not even mention continuum of force questions.

 

[foszoe]

No, what I am stating is that a perceived threat by either party can reasonably be construed to warrant deadly force.

The homeowner protecting his home, as well as the police attempting to apprehend a suspect, despite being performed erroneously.

I am trying to understand your viewpoint.

Are you saying that neither party had any culpablity for any actions that resulted in the resident's death or that in the final act of point and shoot neither had culpability as an isolated incidence without any other consideration given to the precursors?

Or are you some where in between.

 

[Ted]

I am trying to understand your viewpoint.

Are you saying that neither party had any culpablity for any actions that resulted in the resident's death or that in the final act of point and shoot neither had culpability as an isolated incidence without any other consideration given to the precursors?

Or are you some where in between.

The very opposite.

I am stating that all parties were culpable, and that all parties had mitigation.

 

[CathyInBlue]

The homeowner/resident is only culpable of addressing unlawful force with lawful force. The police who instigated get no mitigation.

 

[Ted]

Even granting that basis, there's still the instigator/respondant issue that cuts against the police, which is to not even mention continuum of force questions.

You're correct of the instigator/respondent issue cutting against the police, but they were there to pick up someone who was wanted for attempted homicide too.

Force continuum is pretty straight forward: Deadly physical force is met with deadly physical force. Someone points a gun at you, what is your response? Stand there and look at them?

 

[Ted]

The homeowner/resident is only culpable of addressing unlawful force with lawful force. The police who instigated get no mitigation.

What was the unlawful force? The knocking at the door?

 

[mrobnoxious1]

Did the police already have thier guns in there hands, drawn and pointing at the door? If so, why?

 

[KLB]

No, what I am stating is that a perceived threat by either party can reasonably be construed to warrant deadly force.

The homeowner protecting his home, as well as the police attempting to apprehend a suspect, despite being performed erroneously.

I can not agree that officers should be able to go onto someone's property, not announce who they are, and shoot someone in a residence that has a gun as you are suggesting. Even if the gun is supposedly pointing at them.

IF as stated in the original story the resident opened his door and pointed the gun at the officers, it could be different. Still seems like a quick trigger finger though. Doesn't seem likely, but it could have happened that way.

 

[foszoe]

The very opposite.

I am stating that all parties were culpable, and that all parties had mitigation.

The very opposite.

I am stating that all parties were culpable, and that all parties had mitigation.

Ok. What, if any, actions by either party do you see could have been avoided if either the deputies or the resident had used appropriate mitigation?

For example actions by police/individual

Crime of suspect expected to be apprehended
Prior record of suspect.
Weapon used in current crime investigation by suspect.
Arrival on scene.
Disembarking from Vehicle
Identification of residence
approach to doorway
announcing one's presence
reaction to first audio encounter
reaction to first visual encounter
weapons discharge

Others you may wish to add since all had mitigation?

Do you see any of these or other actions in a cause/effect relationship or are they each isolated from each other in their outcomes?

Can there be any cumulative responsibility in your mind for a chain of events by one party that ultimately results in (and perhaps favors) a single choice by another party or is the responsibility shared equally among all parties?

 

[Ted]

I can not agree that officers should be able to go onto someone's property, not announce who they are, and shoot someone in a residence that has a gun as you are suggesting. Even if the gun is supposedly pointing at them.

IF as stated in the original story the resident opened his door and pointed the gun at the officers, it could be different. Still seems like a quick trigger finger though. Doesn't seem likely, but it could have happened that way.

How about you knocking on your neighbor's door, to tell him that his dog is lying dead in the street. He comes out the door with a pistol in his hand, pointing it straight at your head?

Would you be justified in shooting him, before he shoots you?

 

[Ted]

Ok. What, if any, actions by either party do you see could have been avoided if either the deputies or the resident had used appropriate mitigation?

For example actions by police/individual

Crime of suspect expected to be apprehended
Prior record of suspect.
Weapon used in current crime investigation by suspect.
Arrival on scene.
Disembarking from Vehicle
Identification of residence
approach to doorway
announcing one's presence
reaction to first audio encounter
reaction to first visual encounter
weapons discharge

Others you may wish to add since all had mitigation?

Do you see any of these or other actions in a cause/effect relationship or are they each isolated from each other in their outcomes?

Can there be any cumulative responsibility in your mind for a chain of events by one party that ultimately results in (and perhaps favors) a single choice by another party or is the responsibility shared equally among all parties?

The one factor that we can all agree, is that homeowner opening the door and pointing a gun at the guys knocking at the door, resulted in the fatal action.

 

[KLB]

How about you knocking on your neighbor's door, to tell him that his dog is lying dead in the street. He comes out the door with a pistol in his hand, pointing it straight at your head?

Would you be justified in shooting him, before he shoots you?

Now you are saying "comes out". I said that if the resident cam out with gun pointed it is different. Not to mention, if I walked up with weapon in hand this reaction would probably not be unexpected.

You are not making good analogies.

 

[KLB]

The one factor that we can all agree, is that homeowner opening the door and pointing a gun at the guys knocking at the door, resulted in the fatal action.

IF that is what happened, I would agree it was a strong contributing factor.

 

[Justin Case]

Based on what we have observed of the crime scene it appears likely that the deceased opened the door with gun in-hand (maybe pointed at deputies, maybe not). When he saw several armed men with guns drawn pointing at him, he attempted to shut the door and was subsequently shot and killed by a deputy firing through the door. That's the only explanation I can see based on the door being riddled with bullets. Just my opinion. We may never know for sure what happened, except a man was killed in his own home because he answered the door with a gun in-hand and there were deputies poised to take action on the other side of the door.

 

[Jack Burton]

How about you knocking on your neighbor's door, to tell him that his dog is lying dead in the street. He comes out the door with a pistol in his hand, pointing it straight at your head?

Would you be justified in shooting him, before he shoots you?

No... it does even come close to meeting the required AOJ. There is no jeopardy attached to the homeowners actions in your scenario.

Cornered Cat - Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy

 

[CX1]

No... it does even come close to meeting the required AOJ. There is no jeopardy attached to the homeowners actions in your scenario.

Cornered Cat - Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy

The homeowner just committed a crime in the example you replied to.
Ted said nothing about the visitor displaying a firearm. They simply knocked, informed the homeowner of a dead dog and the homeowner then points a gun at the visitors head.
The visitor has the right to defend themselves once the homeowner brought firearms into play. People in Indiana do not have a duty to retreat.
Knocking on a door does not equal attempting to break in.
We may not like traveling salesmen but we are not allowed to point firearms at them for knocking on our door.

 

[foszoe]

The one factor that we can all agree, is that homeowner opening the door and pointing a gun at the guys knocking at the door, resulted in the fatal action.

No need to quote or respond to my posts if there are no answers to my questions

 

[Ted]

No need to quote or respond to my posts if there are no answers to my questions

Perhaps if the question was a bit less convoluted.