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

[Ted]

It seems that you are saying it was a mistake by the homeowner to answer the door with a gun in his hand......

I am stating that it was a mistake for the homeowner to open the door and point a handgun at the guys outside. At least according to the news story.

His death is clearly evidence to this fact.....presuming it is what happened.

 

[rockhopper46038]

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.

I concur. This is the conjecture I put forth back on page 1 or so of this thread, and the one that I believe most likely (for essentially the same reasons given in the post this quote was taken from), although I will clearly state again that it is unproven at this point.

 

[thebishopp]

I am stating that it was a mistake for the homeowner to open the door and point a handgun at the guys outside. At least according to the news story.

His death is clearly evidence to this fact.....presuming it is what happened.

I can agree that one should not point a gun at someone unless one reasonably believes that deadly force is required to defend themselves. Someone coming to your door (even at 130am) is not automatically a deadly force situation though I would say it definitely warrants caution.

My point is the only "evidence" we have that he was actually pointing a gun at someone is a statement by the guys who shot him. The actual "evidence" (the fact that he didn't get even one shot off, and the bullet ridden doorway) point to quite a different scenario.

 

[CX1]

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.

Jack quoted Ted and I quoted Jack, the forum software removed previous quoted quotes to save huge nesting quote issues.
How would you suggest I make it more clear that I am addressing Jack's response to Ted beyond quoting Jack's specific response?
I would have thought it obvious that by quoting Jack's response to Ted I was specifically addressing that, clearly though from your response and others response's that is not the case. So what is a person to do to make sure everyone follows along?

And as far as having threads stay germane to the OP, good luck with that on INGO

 

[elliotle]

Don't people have screen doors? Don't the screen doors have locks? Police, door to door salesmen, neighbors...my screen door is locked and the glass slider is down. I had a 10 minute conversation with a Dish Network rep after Viacom dropped their stations from Directv through the screen after I slid the glass up a little bit, and he didn't know I had a gun behind the inside door the whole time.

 

[Jack Burton]

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.

Valiant attempt, CX, and overall a fairly good job. However, the devil is in the details, and those kinda got neglected in your overall post.

Let's examine them a little better.

We'll start by restating the concept that what is illegal in one context may be perfectly legal in another context.

While you did a masterful job of stating the law about pointing guns at someone, you yourself noted that this does not apply to those who have a good enough reason to do so.

Therefore the real question about the person who answers the door with a gun in hand, pointing at someone is not a "Did he break the law, yes or no" question but is instead a "did he have sufficient reason to satisfy the law to point a gun at someone"?

There is a universe of difference in those two approaches, and you seem to be attempting to cram all the answers into the first question.

The answer to the second question is "he may have, he may not have." I can think of a dozen reasons why he, IMO, may have reasonable belief that it was in his best interest to do so. Will the justice system buy those reasons? Dunno. But it is not as cut and dried, "he broke the law" as you put it in your post.

On the issue of the jeopardy involved. By your statements it seems apparent that you still don't understand the issue. You say...

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.

Let's work from the DA's outlook.

DA: Mr. Shooter, you were on the property of the homeowner, correct?

Shooter: Yes.

DA: Mr. Shooter, were you invited or expected, or known to the homeowner?

Shooter, No

DA: Mr. Shooter, did the homeowner issue any verbal threats to you?

Shooter: No.

DA: Did he say he was going to harm you in any way?

Shooter: No

DA: Did he state that you were in any danger?

Shooter: No

DA: Then it was totally your assumption that you were in danger. There was no actual verbalized threat from a man who was on his own property, minding his own business until you made yourself known to him.

Shooter: Yes, I assumed that I was in danger.

DA: Mr. Shooter, I am going to recommend manslaughter charges against you as the legal system doesn't allow nebulous assumptions to provide the foundation for self defense.

I suggest you study up on jeopardy, and see just what it entails. You can attempt to make the case that the pointing of the gun is in itself jeopardy but I don't think you'll get far under the circumstances of homeowner in his own home.

Pointing a loaded firearm at someone is a felony(with exceptions which the homeowner did not meet).

As pointed out you are unable to make that case legally unless you want only your assumptions about the homeowner to be the sole determining factor. So the rest of the post is moot.

 

[Jack Burton]

Jack quoted Ted and I quoted Jack, the forum software removed previous quoted quotes to save huge nesting quote issues.
How would you suggest I make it more clear that I am addressing Jack's response to Ted beyond quoting Jack's specific response?
I would have thought it obvious that by quoting Jack's response to Ted I was specifically addressing that, clearly though from your response and others response's that is not the case. So what is a person to do to make sure everyone follows along?

And as far as having threads stay germane to the OP, good luck with that on INGO

Just use either Jack or Ted for every third word and people will get the hint.

 

[CX1]

Still talking about the hypothetical situation not the real incident
Wonder if that will work

I can think of a dozen reasons why he, IMO, may have reasonable belief that it was in his best interest to do so. Will the justice system buy those reasons? Dunno. But it is not as cut and dried, "he broke the law" as you put it in your post.

There are only 3 exemptions. The homeowner not being a LEO eliminates one. Simply knocking on a door does not rise to what is necessary for the other two.
You can supposedly think of a dozen reasons the home owner may attempt to justify pointing a gun at someone who knocks on their door yet have not provided a single reason let alone one with a legal basis.

I suggest you study up on jeopardy, and see just what it entails. You can attempt to make the case that the pointing of the gun is in itself jeopardy but I don't think you'll get far under the circumstances of homeowner in his own home.

The key question, would a reasonable person feel threatened simply because another person under possible emotional distress from the loss of a pet pointed a gun at their head. I don't think it would matter if they were in their home, in their car, on the beach or anywhere else.
I think the visitor would have a much easier time defending manslaughter charges then the homeowner would defending the act of pointing a gun at someone for knocking(if not killed by the visitor of course).

So please please please do not point a gun at someone just because they knocked on your door. It's just a really bad idea to do so.

 

[Bunnykid68]

we still do not know if anyone other than the officers pointed a gun at someone, they should at least be arrested and put in jail like Zimmerman, yeah, someone had to go there, figured it might as well be me.

You have one story, the one of the shooter. The one that shot the innocent black kid and the one that shot the innocent homeowner.

 

[EOD Guy]

Sad to see this...I'm curious to see how things pan out. Will they mark it up to bad circumstances with police defending themselves from what they viewed as an armed suspect...maybe the department will be held accountable for procedures that led to an innocent death...will their dept try to save face and throw their officers to the wolves?

This problem has been around for a while and doubt it'll go away anytime soon...

 

[Bunnykid68]

Sad to see this...I'm curious to see how things pan out. Will they mark it up to bad circumstances with police defending themselves from what they viewed as an armed suspect...maybe the department will be held accountable for procedures that led to an innocent death...will their dept try to save face and throw their officers to the wolves?

This problem has been around for a while and doubt it'll go away anytime soon...

REALLY? Not likely

 

[Darral27]

I have also had this knock on the door in the middle of the night. It got me up out of bed. First thing I did was grab my 9mm that I keep next to me and go check to see who was at my door. I answered the door with gun down to my side, saw that it was police when I answered and asked them to hold on a second, went to my kitchen and put my gun on the table while I spoke with the officers.

My guess is this guy did not have his gun pointing at them when he opened the door. That is probably what the officers are saying to try to cover their own rears. The other guy is dead so he can't exactly dispute their version of the story.

 

[Jack Burton]

Still talking about the hypothetical situation not the real incident
Wonder if that will work

There are only 3 exemptions. The homeowner not being a LEO eliminates one. Simply knocking on a door does not rise to what is necessary for the other two.
You can supposedly think of a dozen reasons the home owner may attempt to justify pointing a gun at someone who knocks on their door yet have not provided a single reason let alone one with a legal basis.


The key question, would a reasonable person feel threatened simply because another person under possible emotional distress from the loss of a pet pointed a gun at their head. I don't think it would matter if they were in their home, in their car, on the beach or anywhere else.
I think the visitor would have a much easier time defending manslaughter charges then the homeowner would defending the act of pointing a gun at someone for knocking(if not killed by the visitor of course).

So please please please do not point a gun at someone just because they knocked on your door. It's just a really bad idea to do so.

The "legal basis" is going to be judged by the legal system. If the legal system considers it a valid reason to point a gun at someone at the door then the homeowner has not committed a crime.

You keep confusing the action of the "knock" with the homeowners action of what he perceives as reasonable. That's why you post things such as "Simply knocking on a door does not rise to what is necessary for the other two" and "I think the visitor would have a much easier time defending manslaughter charges then the homeowner would defending the act of pointing a gun at someone for knocking"

The knocking (action of the visitor) has nothing to do with whether or not the homeowner is deemed justified for opening the door and pointing a gun. Your fixation on the knock instead of the mindset of the homeowner is leading you astray.

Some examples of what may be considered justified would be if the homeowner has been threatened with grave bodily harm from a credible source and he truly believes it is that threat that is standing on the door step. Another might be that he looked out the window and based upon the appearance of the person on the step the homeowner believes the person knocking on the door is the very same person who raped his wife two weeks ago and is coming back for another attempt. He has, in his mind, a legitimate fear of harm.

It doesn't matter if you find these credible or not... it is what the justice system finds credible. And you don't speak for the justice system.

as to your question:

The key question, would a reasonable person feel threatened simply because another person under possible emotional distress from the loss of a pet pointed a gun at their head.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I think your people somehow got confused about who is whom in that sentence, who pointed a gun, and who lost the cat.

You're still confused about the issue of jeopardy. I would like to have an understanding of just what you think this means in a self defense situation (in your own words).

 

[CX1]

The "legal basis" is going to be judged by the legal system. If the legal system considers it a valid reason to point a gun at someone at the door then the homeowner has not committed a crime.

You seem to be confusing the idea of committing vs conviction.

One can meet the letter of the law of the requirements of committing a crime yet not be convicted.

You keep confusing the action of the "knock" with the homeowners action of what he perceives as reasonable. That's why you post things such as "Simply knocking on a door does not rise to what is necessary for the other two" and "I think the visitor would have a much easier time defending manslaughter charges then the homeowner would defending the act of pointing a gun at someone for knocking"

It is not what the home owner perceives as reasonable but rather how a reasonable person would consider the actions of the home owner.
Due to a mental imbalance the home owner might consider it reasonable that the visitor is an agent of the Martian invasion, but the home owner's perception of reasonable is not the standard used in meeting the exceptions to the pointing a firearm code but instead it is the standard of a reasonable person.

The knocking (action of the visitor) has nothing to do with whether or not the homeowner is deemed justified for opening the door and pointing a gun. Your fixation on the knock instead of the mindset of the homeowner is leading you astray.

The actions of the visitor are the only thing it can be based on. Does the visitor do something that meets the exceptions to the pointing of a firearm code to a reasonable person (not the home owner) is the standard that must be met for the pointing to be justified.

Some examples of what may be considered justified would be if the homeowner has been threatened with grave bodily harm from a credible source and he truly believes it is that threat that is standing on the door step. Another might be that he looked out the window and based upon the appearance of the person on the step the homeowner believes the person knocking on the door is the very same person who raped his wife two weeks ago and is coming back for another attempt. He has, in his mind, a legitimate fear of harm.

Again not the home owners mind but the mind of a reasonable aka average person.

You're still confused about the issue of jeopardy. I would like to have an understanding of just what you think this means in a self defense situation (in your own words).

Maybe I'm tired but I am not quite understanding this question

 

[ckcollins2003]

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.

WTF? Did you read the article? Watch the video's of it? Based on what we KNOW so far, or at least what was reported to have happened, is that the "apartment dweller" aka "the victim" had a gun pointed at the officers while he opened the door! So yes, we know he had a gun and we know he opened the door... otherwise the officer who shot would have had x-ray freakin vision and would have flown through the sky to the next person in trouble all the while avoiding kryptonite to get home to Lois Lane in time for dinner.

You seem to be confusing the idea of committing vs conviction.

One can meet the letter of the law of the requirements of committing a crime yet not be convicted.



It is not what the home owner perceives as reasonable but rather how a reasonable person would consider the actions of the home owner.
Due to a mental imbalance the home owner might consider it reasonable that the visitor is an agent of the Martian invasion, but the home owner's perception of reasonable is not the standard used in meeting the exceptions to the pointing a firearm code but instead it is the standard of a reasonable person.



The actions of the visitor are the only thing it can be based on. Does the visitor do something that meets the exceptions to the pointing of a firearm code to a reasonable person (not the home owner) is the standard that must be met for the pointing to be justified.



Again not the home owners mind but the mind of a reasonable aka average person.


Maybe I'm tired but I am not quite understanding this question

A picture of a dog licking his own junk would have sufficed. Reading that last response made me want to go ram my eyes through railroad spikes so I never have to see that much irrelevant (all the while illiterate) talk ever again.

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

 

[CX1]

WTF? Did you read the article? Watch the video's of it? Based on what we KNOW so far, or at least what was reported to have happened, is that the "apartment dweller" aka "the victim" had a gun pointed at the officers while he opened the door! So yes, we know he had a gun and we know he opened the door... otherwise the officer who shot would have had x-ray freakin vision and would have flown through the sky to the next person in trouble all the while avoiding kryptonite to get home to Lois Lane in time for dinner.

You know all this because officers have never planted evidence (such as a gun) at a crime scene?
Do we know that the officers didn't shoot through the door when they heard the apartment dweller tell them to **** off for banging on his door? I didn't see much blood on the door compared to the many holes in it.
You've seen the video of the event as it happened?
Or is it all you 'know' is what the officers have said happened?
So basically don't 'know' anything about it unless you are one of the three people involved, you just have an opinion based on what you've been told. So get off your high and mighty horse.

A picture of a dog licking his own junk would have sufficed. Reading that last response made me want to go ram my eyes through railroad spikes so I never have to see that much irrelevant (all the while illiterate) talk ever again.

You do 'know' that all that post was about a completely hypothetical situation (involving a dog ironically enough) and not about the real situation where a man was shot by police right?

 

[ckcollins2003]

You know all this because officers have never planted evidence (such as a gun) at a crime scene?
Do we know that the officers didn't shoot through the door when they heard the apartment dweller tell them to **** off for banging on his door? I didn't see much blood on the door compared to the many holes in it.
You've seen the video of the event as it happened?
Or is it all you 'know' is what the officers have said happened?
So basically don't 'know' anything about it unless you are one of the three people involved, you just have an opinion based on what you've been told. So get off your high and mighty horse.

You do 'know' that all that post was about a completely hypothetical situation (involving a dog ironically enough) and not about the real situation where a man was shot by police right?

Lets try to use a little bit of common sense now, shall we?

The police aren't going to shoot someone through a door if they haven't even seen the guy. While I do question he POINTED a gun at them, I firmly believe (had you read any of my previous posts) that he had a gun. While police may plant evidence, they usually won't do it to a guy sleeping in bed at 1:30 am and who has never been in trouble before.

The reason you didn't see any blood on the door is because the guy wasn't on the OUTSIDE of the doorway, but on the INSIDE of it, which explains why all of the bullet holes are entrance holes and not exit holes as well. Also, he never came outside and the news article never reported that he did.

Police aren't going to shoot you for telling them to "**** off". Not here in America, so IDK where you are from but it's a little different here. They may harass you, kick in your door (since in this instance they thought he was a violent suspect), and arrest you for some bogus charge, but they won't shoot you. This is what we as adults have realized throughout living lives like human beings.

As for the response to your "hypothetical situation"... the reason it's irrelevant and illiterate is because it's nothing like what really happened. As Jack has tried explaining to you multiple times but you just can't seem to be competent enough to pick up on.

Since I've already now dumbed down the news article for you, I'll also dumb down the reason the hypothetical situation is completely retarded to use.

You see, in the real life scenario (the one worth discussing because in stories Unicorns fly around with rainbows in the sky and aliens will forever be our loyal subjects who will one day ride a bike through the night sky across the moon to make us happy) the police had their guns drawn. This we know. Even though the story doesn't say so, simply because using common freaking sense tells us that if someone was shot, they had a gun pointed at them. The hypothetical situation is based on a "knock" rather than a "threat of people with guns drawn at the door". But somehow after Jack had explained it to you (and pretty well I thought) you still couldn't grasp the concept.

I was going to insult the living **** out of you, but for all I know you're an 8 year old kid. Seriously... just stop. This is a discussion for adults who use common sense.

 

[CX1]

This we know. Even though the story doesn't say so,

That says it all right there.
You know it, even though the news didn't report it, you didn't see it and there is no video of it to you it is absolute fact.
Whatever man.
People used to believe the Earth was flat just as strongly with that same amount of facts you claim to 'know'.
/yawn

 

[ckcollins2003]

That says it all right there.
You know it, even though the news didn't report it, you didn't see it and there is no video of it to you it is absolute fact.
Whatever man.
People used to believe the Earth was flat just as strongly with that same amount of facts you claim to 'know'.
/yawn

Are you ****ing serious? Do you honestly believe the guy was shot that many times without a ****ing gun pointed at him? Tell me you're joking right now.

If you're dead serious about this stupid **** you need sterilized.

Please oh great one, explain to me how a person is shot with a handgun in this situation without one being pointed at him. Please, it will make my morning if you tell me that aliens came down from outer space and humped those holes in the door.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Playing devil's/CX1's advocate, I don't think there can be any (sane) argument that at the moment the decedent was shot multiple times, there were firearms pointed in his general vicinity. The question I would have was whether they were pointed thusly immediately prior to his opening of his front door.