You don’t have a legal right to be on someone’s property, even by mistake. The only thing “mistake” does is mitigate punishment/civil liability. It doesn’t give you the right to be there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You don’t have a legal right to be on someone’s property, even by mistake. The only thing “mistake” does is mitigate punishment/civil liability. It doesn’t give you the right to be there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You don’t have a legal right to be on someone else’s property without permission, even by mistake. The only thing “mistake” does is mitigate punishment/civil liability. It doesn’t give you the right to be there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Home owner just has to say he feared for his life.....seems to get a lot of cops cleared when they shoot someone.
Plus, pizza boy, could not make change from a twenty. Enough is enough.
Sorry, I had forgotten that Soonerwings is one of our local attorneys.
One thing that might be a factor in this is what will the jury think. How many on the jury that are anti-gunners could very well be a major factor in the outcome of the trial. A co-worker of mine (OSBI employee) sat on a jury for a fellow charged with possession with intent to distribute drugs. When the jury went into deliberation, most, if not all, of the rest of the jury didn't know that possession with intent was a more serious crime than simple possession.
One thing that might be a factor in this is what will the jury think. How many on the jury that are anti-gunners could very well be a major factor in the outcome of the trial. A co-worker of mine (OSBI employee) sat on a jury for a fellow charged with possession with intent to distribute drugs. When the jury went into deliberation, most, if not all, of the rest of the jury didn't know that possession with intent was a more serious crime than simple possession.
i didn't say right to be there, i said it wasn't illegal (since you said 'legally allowed'). As was noted, if merely being on someone's porch to knock on the door was illegal then there'd be a lot of JWs who'd be criminals.
i'm not trying to strawman this. But (as was noted elsewhere) it seems like Doe ratcheted things up by opening the door, especially since the delivery guy wasn't actually trying to break in.
In your scenario, it seems like simply knocking on someone's door (for whatever reason) would rise to the level of justifiable force for the homeowner. I can easily think of examples where i've knocked on someone's door unexpectedly (to them) because their dog had escaped and was running in the street.
steelwings, if you're trying to gauge the average jury members reaction, I'll throw mine out... my first thought was uh, oh, not sure why he opened the door but probably not illegal to defend his home even if he did. The more I read though, the more I think I'd lean toward if he opened the door voluntarily, pointing a gun probably wasn't reasonable.
At the same time though, it seems odd to me that a DA would prosecute since ultimately no one got hurt. Can't charge him with any degree of homicide, is he maybe hoping to bluff him into a plea deal for brandishing a weapon, or some relatively minor charge?
At the same time though, it seems odd to me that a DA would prosecute since ultimately no one got hurt. Can't charge him with any degree of homicide, is he maybe hoping to bluff him into a plea deal for brandishing a weapon, or some relatively minor charge?
What's this "opening the door" you (OP) refer to?
People keep referring to the pizza guy “knocking on the door.” From the sound of it, the pizza guy was not simply knocking. He was banging hard enough to make the resident consider the possibility someone was attempting entry.
Remember that a jury’s job is not to decide what probably happened. A jury’s job is to decide if there is a reasonable doubt that whatever happened was a crime. If, God forbid, this case goes to trial, and I were on the jury, I would think Doe probably committed a crime, but would have no choice but to vote to acquit because I would have doubts based on Doe’s argument and/or testimony that he feared a forced entry. I say this even though I would be inclined to believe he didn’t actually fear a forced entry (because he opened the door). The doubt remains despite what I think probably happened.
Unfortunately, I think most jurors probably disregard “reasonable doubt” in favor of whatever they think happened.
Remember that a jury’s job is not to decide what probably happened. A jury’s job is to decide if there is a reasonable doubt that whatever happened was a crime. If, God forbid, this case goes to trial, and I were on the jury, I would think Doe probably committed a crime, but would have no choice but to vote to acquit because I would have doubts based on Doe’s argument and/or testimony that he feared a forced entry. I say this even though I would be inclined to believe he didn’t actually fear a forced entry (because he opened the door). The doubt remains despite what I think probably happened.
Unfortunately, I think most jurors probably disregard “reasonable doubt” in favor of whatever they think happened.
So i had some time to ponder this while riding my bike and i'm curious about a few things. I should also say that i'm not arguing against mr doe. You asked for objectivity and these are the questions that i'd have if presented with this case.
Why did he open the door before establishing what kind of threat was outside? With out looking, the 'threat' could have just as easily been the pizza guy, a thug, a cop canvasing the neighborhood following a break in, etc, etc.
Also, what property was he trying to protect if the person was banging on the door? It'd wonder why he'd remove one of the barriers to his safety if he felt threatened.
I guess i'm a bit uncertain on the adversarial nature of this. To me, it initially reads like the pizza guy didn't do anything wrong but still had a gun pulled on him. (he might have made a mistake, or could also have easily been sent to the wrong address by the company). Knowing what i know about other situations that have been discussed here, it also seems like saying the pizza guy was in the wrong would be like holding him to a higher standard than we do cops who go to the wrong address and kill someone. It's certainly not apples to apples, but it just seems like this is a situation where everyone could have been acting 'reasonably' and it still be a bad situation.
Which comes to my other thought, and that is the idea of guilt vs the need to be punished. I'm not sure it warrants being punished, but i'm also not sure doe acted in a manner that is without guilt in terms of misreading the situation and pulling on a guy who otherwise wasn't actually doing anything.
Would we support Doe if he had shot the pizza guy after opening the door?
Why did he open the door before establishing what kind of threat was outside? With out looking, the 'threat' could have just as easily been the pizza guy, a thug, a cop canvasing the neighborhood following a break in, etc, etc.
Also, what property was he trying to protect if the person was banging on the door? It'd wonder why he'd remove one of the barriers to his safety if he felt threatened.
I guess i'm a bit uncertain on the adversarial nature of this. To me, it initially reads like the pizza guy didn't do anything wrong but still had a gun pulled on him. (he might have made a mistake, or could also have easily been sent to the wrong address by the company). Knowing what i know about other situations that have been discussed here, it also seems like saying the pizza guy was in the wrong would be like holding him to a higher standard than we do cops who go to the wrong address and kill someone. It's certainly not apples to apples, but it just seems like this is a situation where everyone could have been acting 'reasonably' and it still be a bad situation.
Which comes to my other thought, and that is the idea of guilt vs the need to be punished. I'm not sure it warrants being punished, but i'm also not sure doe acted in a manner that is without guilt in terms of misreading the situation and pulling on a guy who otherwise wasn't actually doing anything.
Would we support Doe if he had shot the pizza guy after opening the door?
Similar threads
