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

[Ted]

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.

Perception is a strange animal.

We on INGO are critical of those who call 911 upon the gun owner who is OCing, but often equate the 3am knock on the door as an attempt of an armed intrusion.....or excessive police force.

In reality, everyone has a right to defend themselves, but there are smarter ways to doing so than by brute force. By the letter of the law, it will likely be found that all parties were correct, and all parties were wrong.

 

[ckcollins2003]

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.

CARRYING A FIREARM DOES NOT WARRANT DEADLY FORCE!!!!! Especially if they are in their own home doing it. And yes, if you're a cop, you have to have a search warrant in order to go inside someone's home. If you shoot someone while entering their home because you're there for unofficial business like the officers were here because they have the wrong house and only ASSUMED the bad guy was in there, then you are breaking and entering with a deadly weapon.

One has to actually be able to prove that their life was in serious harm before pulling that trigger. As said before, you can't go around wal-mart shooting people for carrying a weapon just because you "feel threatened".

But hey, you go do what you do. If you want to go murder someone instead of taking advice from people who know the difference between self defense and murder then you go right ahead. But don't say the victim was in the wrong for pointing a gun at a possible intruder when you say you'd do the same damn thing. You can be ignorant but don't be a hypocrite.

 

[rockhopper46038]

The homeowner just committed a crime in the example you replied to.
Ted said nothing about the visitor displaying a firearm.

True. But Ted's example bears little similarity to the situation we have been discussing. This homeowner's "visitors" had guns. Likely pointed at him (not confirmed in the story, but the evidence strongly supports this conjecture on my part; at least I think so. See my original post 30 pages ago or so). Once again, responding to the comment about "what would you do, just stand there?"; the answer is of course, no. But I would expect to have to deal with the consequences of unlawfully killing a man.

 

[Birds Away]

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.

Well, I can't agree with this. There is no evidence, other than the Officers' stories, that the man pointed a gun at them. The condition of the door might make this story questionable in some people's mind. The Officers have a lot to lose if it would ever come to light that the man did not point the gun. I am not saying the Officers lied. I am saying I don't know and it cannot be verified. None of this changes the fact that an innocent homeowner is dead for no good reason.

 

[ckcollins2003]

True. But Ted's example bears little similarity to the situation we have been discussing. This homeowner's "visitors" had guns. Likely pointed at him (not confirmed in the story, but the evidence strongly supports this conjecture on my part; at least I think so. See my original post 30 pages ago or so). Once again, responding to the comment about "what would you do, just stand there?"; the answer is of course, no. But I would expect to have to deal with the consequences of unlawfully killing a man.

It doesn't matter. Ted says he will shoot you if you come to his door with a weapon, yet he should also be shot because he comes to the door with a weapon.

It's a lose/lose scenario to him and he can't seem to find the castle doctrine and self-defense definitions to conceive that the homeowner was simply protecting his home and shot dead.

In answering Ted's other completely irrelevant story about going to a homeowners door without a weapon drawn and the guy "coming out" with one pointed at my head, I'd run, because obviously he's already got the drop on me. I'm not going to have my pistol drawn when I go to my neighbors house to tell him his cat's dead. Why you would is beyond me, but your scenario is completely different than what the police and this victim had experienced.

 

[Ted]

It doesn't matter. Ted says he will shoot you if you come to his door with a weapon, yet he should also be shot because he comes to the door with a weapon.

It's a lose/lose scenario to him and he can't seem to find the castle doctrine and self-defense definitions to conceive that the homeowner was simply protecting his home and shot dead.

In answering Ted's other completely irrelevant story about going to a homeowners door without a weapon drawn and the guy "coming out" with one pointed at my head, I'd run, because obviously he's already got the drop on me. I'm not going to have my pistol drawn when I go to my neighbors house to tell him his cat's dead. Why you would is beyond me, but your scenario is completely different than what the police and this victim had experienced.

Wrong again there ace, I never said that. A weapon pointed in a threatening manner deserves the appropriate response.....even if its on the other side of a window, door, or wall.

 

[littletommy]

This thread's giving me a headache! I'm going over to the politics forum.

 

[Ted]

Well, I can't agree with this. There is no evidence, other than the Officers' stories, that the man pointed a gun at them. The condition of the door might make this story questionable in some people's mind. The Officers have a lot to lose if it would ever come to light that the man did not point the gun. I am not saying the Officers lied. I am saying I don't know and it cannot be verified. None of this changes the fact that an innocent homeowner is dead for no good reason.

Agreed with this caveat of the homeowner's innocence or death for no good reason........and for the same reason you cited: It cannot be verified.

 

[ckcollins2003]

Wrong again there ace, I never said that. A weapon pointed in a threatening manner deserves the appropriate response.....even if its on the other side of a window, door, or wall.

So you're pretty much trying to say that both sides were right?

Even though the officers had the wrong door, which instigated the homeowner to come to the door with a weapon, which led to this young man being killed in cold blood. Neither party is at fault in your mind? The lack of reconnaissance to find the correct suspect and the way the police could have easily set up a trap since they knew where the suspects bike was has no ill effect in your mind?

How can both parties be right if one is dead? Someone was wrong. Was it the suspect or the police? Either the person who dies is murdered (being right) or they are killed because they done something wrong. They can't be right and wrong at the same time. Bullets don't fly when police and suspects are both doing what's right.

I'd like to know if you think the police would let you go if you went to someone's house and shot and killed them through their door. Or do you think they would label you as an intruder and a murderer? And how would you try to explain that you aren't? I know if I'm on a jury and see that a person is killed through their front door, that's murder. Whether the shooter has a badge or not. It's the same crime.

 

[Ted]

The very opposite.

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

So you're pretty much trying to say that both sides were right?

Even though the officers had the wrong door, which instigated the homeowner to come to the door with a weapon, which led to this young man being killed in cold blood. Neither party is at fault in your mind? The lack of reconnaissance to find the correct suspect and the way the police could have easily set up a trap since they knew where the suspects bike was has no ill effect in your mind?

How can both parties be right if one is dead? Someone was wrong. Was it the suspect or the police? Either the person who dies is murdered (being right) or they are killed because they done something wrong. They can't be right and wrong at the same time. Bullets don't fly when police and suspects are both doing what's right.

I'd like to know if you think the police would let you go if you went to someone's house and shot and killed them through their door. Or do you think they would label you as an intruder and a murderer? And how would you try to explain that you aren't? I know if I'm on a jury and see that a person is killed through their front door, that's murder. Whether the shooter has a badge or not. It's the same crime.

I'm saying that both parties were right, and both parties were wrong. By the book and in practice.

Mistakes on both sides contributed to this tragedy.

 

[Jack Burton]

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.

1) specifically, what "crime" did the homeowner commit? Don't give a general answer, you have to take into context the location of the supposed crime and the circumstances around it. We all know that a "crime" in one place and time is not necessarily a "crime" in a different place and time.

2) Not all "crimes" allow for a deadly self defense response. Even if you can show a specific crime you still have point 3 to deal with.

3) The visitor has a "right" to defend himself if AOJ is present. You still have said nothing about J. Did you read the reference that I gave to understand the issue?

4) Duty to retreat has nothing to do with it.

 

[CX1]

1) specifically, what "crime" did the homeowner commit? Don't give a general answer, you have to take into context the location of the supposed crime and the circumstances around it. We all know that a "crime" in one place and time is not necessarily a "crime" in a different place and time.

Well lets see, how about:

IC 35-47-4-3
Pointing firearm at another person
Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:
(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or
(2) IC 35-41-3-3.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded.

So now we need to examine 35-41-3-2 & 3 to see if knocking on a door rises to the burden needed under those two codes. I am only going to post the relevant areas of the code. For example the section about hijacking an airplane is not relevant to this discussion.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.
(b) As used in this section, "public servant" means a person described in IC 35-41-1-17, IC 35-31.5-2-129, or IC 35-31.5-2-185.
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

So lets see, knocking on a door...is that use of unlawful force? Nope.
Does knocking on a door equal unlawful entry or attack? Nope

So that section is not going to get you off the hook for pointing a gun at some one. Now lets look at the other one. Again omitting non-relevant sections to save space.

IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.

Does knocking on a door justify an arrest? Generally no (restraining orders excluded since it was not in the hypothetical example).

Does knocking on a door indicate the person recently committed a felony? No.

So since knocking on a door does not meet the standard for performing a citizen's arrest the home owner is not justified in pointing the gun under that section either.

The homeowner committed a crime(probably a felony since most folks would not answer their door with an unloaded gun).


Skipping point two since it basically skips to point three anyway

3) The visitor has a "right" to defend himself if AOJ is present. You still have said nothing about J. Did you read the reference that I gave to understand the issue?

So lets look at what I pointed out for point one and see if that might apply to point 3.

c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.

Well would it be reasonable to think you were in danger of the use of unlawful force if a stranger points a gun at your head and you have committed no crime? Yes I believe it would be reasonable. Therefore the visitors use of force up to and including deadly force would be allowed.

Lets look at the other section.

(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.

Pointing a loaded firearm at someone is a felony(with exceptions which the homeowner did not meet). The homeowner is standing right there in the act of committing that felony against the visitor.
The visitor would be justified in holding the homeowner at gunpoint to affect a citizen's arrest.

So again the homeowner committed a crime and the visitor would be justified in pulling and pointing a firearm at the homeowner to affect a citizen's arrest and would be justified in firing the firearm because the homeowners actions put the visitor at risk of serious unlawful bodily injury or attack.

And for point four, duty to retreat is specifically mentioned in the relevant code. Specifically that we as Indiana residents do not have it. If we did then that would of course change the responsibilities of the visitor to defend themselves.

 

[Birds Away]

Well lets see, how about:
So now we need to examine 35-41-3-2 & 3 to see if knocking on a door rises to the burden needed under those two codes. I am only going to post the relevant areas of the code. For example the section about hijacking an airplane is not relevant to this discussion.

So lets see, knocking on a door...is that use of unlawful force? Nope.
Does knocking on a door equal unlawful entry or attack? Nope

So that section is not going to get you off the hook for pointing a gun at some one. Now lets look at the other one. Again omitting non-relevant sections to save space.

Does knocking on a door justify an arrest? Generally no (restraining orders excluded since it was not in the hypothetical example).

Does knocking on a door indicate the person recently committed a felony? No.

So since knocking on a door does not meet the standard for performing a citizen's arrest the home owner is not justified in pointing the gun under that section either.

The homeowner committed a crime(probably a felony since most folks would not answer their door with an unloaded gun).


Skipping point two since it basically skips to point three anyway


So lets look at what I pointed out for point one and see if that might apply to point 3.

Well would it be reasonable to think you were in danger of the use of unlawful force if a stranger points a gun at your head and you have committed no crime? Yes I believe it would be reasonable. Therefore the visitors use of force up to and including deadly force would be allowed.

Lets look at the other section.

Pointing a loaded firearm at someone is a felony(with exceptions which the homeowner did not meet). The homeowner is standing right there in the act of committing that felony against the visitor.
The visitor would be justified in holding the homeowner at gunpoint to affect a citizen's arrest.

So again the homeowner committed a crime and the visitor would be justified in pulling and pointing a firearm at the homeowner to affect a citizen's arrest and would be justified in firing the firearm because the homeowners actions put the visitor at risk of serious unlawful bodily injury or attack.

And for point four, duty to retreat is specifically mentioned in the relevant code. Specifically that we as Indiana residents do not have it. If we did then that would of course change the responsibilities of the visitor to defend themselves.

There were two men, who did not identify themselves as LEOs, standing at his door with guns drawn. And you don't think the homeowner was justified in believing this to be "an imminent use of unlawful force". If this were Indiana and not Florida then I do not believe that the victim of this attack committed any crime. He just wasn't quick enough and the bad guys won.

 

[ckcollins2003]

Pointing a loaded firearm at someone is a felony(with exceptions which the homeowner did not meet). The homeowner is standing right there in the act of committing that felony against the visitor.
The visitor would be justified in holding the homeowner at gunpoint to affect a citizen's arrest.

You are correct, pointing a loaded firearm at someone is a felony. Even for an officer to point a loaded firearm at an individual who is doing nothing but living his every day life.

Therefore, the officers committed a felony first and foremost, which gave the homeowner a reason to defend his home. But then again, I guess those officers could have had their weapons holstered and used their lightning fast ninja skills to quickly draw and fire what was it? 10 shots? Before the homeowner who already had the gun pointed at them could get a single shot off. Because someone with skills like that would need a gun, right?

I'm not saying the homeowner didn't make a mistake by not looking out the window first, but it's his house. He did not commit a crime. If you strictly place the blame on the victim in this instance then you are granting each criminal innocence because the victim was living life. Should thieves be arrested if we don't lock our doors? After all, it is the homeowner who left it unlocked by mistake...

 

[CX1]

There were two men, who did not identify themselves as LEOs, standing at his door with guns drawn. And you don't think the homeowner was justified in believing this to be "an imminent use of unlawful force". If this were Indiana and not Florida then I do not believe that the victim of this attack committed any crime. He just wasn't quick enough and the bad guys won.

We are not talking about that. We are discussing Ted's hypothetical example of a single individual knocking on someones door to inform them their dog had been run over and the homeowner then immediately pointed a gun at the individual's head.
Jack seems to believe that is perfectly legal to do.

As to the OP incident I believe the apartment dweller was justified in having the gun in hand to answer the door but would not have enough information at the time to justify pointing it under Indiana law simply because two people knocked on his door. If they attempted entry without IDing as LEO then by all means the dweller should point and in fact open fire.
As it stands we do not 'know' if the apartment dweller had a firearm at the time or if he even opened the door. We do not know if the officers had their guns out. We just 'know' what was reported to have happened.
It was a tragic situation but without knowledge of all the evidence it would be impossible for me to assign the majority of the blame for the incident on either party. And sadly we will not get to hear the dead person's side directly.

 

[CX1]

You are correct, pointing a loaded firearm at someone is a felony. Even for an officer to point a loaded firearm at an individual who is doing nothing but living his every day life.

Actually there is a LEO exception as well. It was not relevant to my discussion with Jack though.

Just to be clear. I am not stating the LEOs were right and the man deserved to be shot in the story from the OP.
Clearly a whole bunch of 'wrong' stuffed happened. One man paid the price for all the wrong so far. Should there be a spreading out of the blame in hindsight? Possibly, but the news articles do not provide enough evidence on their own for me to make a determination.

 

[Ted]

We are not talking about that. We are discussing Ted's hypothetical example of a single individual knocking on someones door to inform them their dog had been run over and the homeowner then immediately pointed a gun at the individual's head.
Jack seems to believe that is perfectly legal to do.

As to the OP incident I believe the apartment dweller was justified in having the gun in hand to answer the door but would not have enough information at the time to justify pointing it under Indiana law simply because two people knocked on his door. If they attempted entry without IDing as LEO then by all means the dweller should point and in fact open fire.
As it stands we do not 'know' if the apartment dweller had a firearm at the time or if he even opened the door. We do not know if the officers had their guns out. We just 'know' what was reported to have happened.
It was a tragic situation but without knowledge of all the evidence it would be impossible for me to assign the majority of the blame for the incident on either party. And sadly we will not get to hear the dead person's side directly.

What are you smoking? Whatever it is, please stop. It is obviously affecting your judgement.

 

[thebishopp]

I'm saying that both parties were right, and both parties were wrong. By the book and in practice.

Mistakes on both sides contributed to this tragedy.

Based on the video of the bullet holes in the door and the fact that the homeowner did not get a shot off despite the police statement that he had his gun pointed at the officers, I would say it is more than reasonable to believe that the homeowner was not actually pointing the gun at the officers when he opened the door.

Gun pointed at you and you trying to draw your weapon is a no brainer as to who is going to get the first shot off.

Gun pointed at you and you pointing gun at someone, the odds are you both will get at least one shot off.

Gun NOT pointed at you but down to the ground and you having to draw your weapon and fire, the odds are he will get at least one shot off before you do.

Gun NOT pointed at you but down to the ground and you have you gun already pointed at him... cue video of bullet ridden door and no shot by homeowner.



Now it seems that you are saying it was a mistake by the homeowner to answer the door with a gun in his hand and other than the statement of the officers the evidence released to the public does not seem to support the claim that he was actually pointing the gun at the officers. To which I would have to disagree with you. A homeowner has every right to answer his door on his property with the ability to defend himself with the threat of deadly force or deadly force should he reasonably believe it necessary.

While it is true that PD's do not always put out all the information... what has been put out does not look good for the PD side of this situation.

 

[rockhopper46038]

It might be useful to remove the hypothetical "telling your neighbor their dog has just been hit" scenario from the thread. It is not particularly germane to the original topic, and seems to be adding only confusion.

Or don't, but be clear whether your comment is applicable to the event which occurred, or to a different "what if" situation. I would have been inclined to also point out the logical error in CX's argument if I hadn't seen his later list indicating it only applied to the "neighbor's dog" question.

 

[ckcollins2003]

Actually there is a LEO exception as well. It was not relevant to my discussion with Jack though.

Just to be clear. I am not stating the LEOs were right and the man deserved to be shot in the story from the OP.
Clearly a whole bunch of 'wrong' stuffed happened. One man paid the price for all the wrong so far. Should there be a spreading out of the blame in hindsight? Possibly, but the news articles do not provide enough evidence on their own for me to make a determination.

LEO's can literally just walk around pointing their firearms at innocent citizens?