Objectivity needed

[rlongnt]

Wait..... Didn't uncle Joe advise us to shoot a shotgun through the door or give two warning blasts off the balcony?

 

[Cowcatcher]

I'm not very sharp on legal stuff and how to speak in legal terminology but here is what I think and my gut says. This is how I would look at it if I was on a jury.

Firstly, this shouldn't be in the courts because the nobody was hurt. I think opening the door and pointing your gun isn't a good practice but I think Mr. Doe should be able to do that if he wants. I'm sure the pizza man was scared. He needs to be sure of his addresses in the future. Pizza man also needs to accept the fact that things like this can happen in his line of work. We all have negatives to our jobs. It's just how things gotta be. Mr. Doe don't give more info than you need to. I wish you hadn't mentioned taking the medicine cuz that's just something for some to try to pick you apart on.

I personally when I have to knock on a door where I'm unexpected, knock a couple times and back way up so the person can see me from a window or something. I don't open my door if I can't clearly tell what you look like. As soon as I set foot on someone else's property I have the mindset that I'm not welcome until they tell me otherwise.
I pretty much didn't add anything new to the thread but this is just how one more guy feels about the situation.

 

[inactive]

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.

A resident that was both ill and possibly impaired by over the counter cold meds. Being startled awake by the noise may cause Mr. Doe to believe it was harder than it was.

Or not. I agree that the point of importance here may well be who makes the better argument of how hard this knocking in the door actually was.

 

[Cowcatcher]

Would we support Doe if he had shot the pizza guy after opening the door?

Everything else in the story stays the same?
Doe opens door and shoots the guy?

No I would not support that. Hang Doe by the neck until dead.

 

[donner]

I think opening the door and pointing your gun isn't a good practice but I think Mr. Doe should be able to do that if he wants.

i agree with most of your stuff, but not this.

If something isn't a threat, why should he be allowed to point a gun at it? Maybe i'm putting too much emphasis on better threat assessment, but i don't think i support the idea that you can point a gun at anyone who comes to your door if they aren't a threat.

It just seems like there are so many ways it could go badly when their are other options out there. And no, i'm not advocating 'do nothing', but You certainly can have a gun when you answer the door, not answer the door at all, call the cops, ask them to leave, etc. But pointing a gun at someone strikes me as being serious and something that goes being 'if you want' to something that requires you to be able to well articulate the threat.*

*much of my statement is viewed as it relates to this topic. i fully recognize that there are situations that might change my views, but i don't think i'd support willfully aiming at someone just because someone 'can'.

 

[Shadowrider]

Depends entirely on the type of pizza.

This is a key point. I'm betting it was a gluten free vegan supreme. If that's the case pizza boy is lucky to be alive.

To the thread, I'm with cowcatcher. Nobody was hurt. All gets to go on and live their life. Why's it in court? DA is trying to pad a resume.

 

[donner]

To the thread, I'm with cowcatcher. Nobody was hurt. All gets to go on and live their life. Why's it in court? DA is trying to pad a resume.

as i said, guilt vs needing to be punished are two different things in this discussion (to me).

But i also don't understand the 'no harm, no foul' mentality. We have plenty of crimes that are illegal because of the increased likelihood of someone getting hurt, regardless of whether someone does or doesn't, right? I mean Drunk driving isn't only a crime when someone gets hurt, correct? And again, whether this warrants prosecution is something that i know is beyond my understanding of the legal process.

 

[Shadowrider]

as i said, guilt vs needing to be punished are two different things in this discussion (to me).

But i also don't understand the 'no harm, no foul' mentality. We have plenty of crimes that are illegal because of the increased likelihood of someone getting hurt, regardless of whether someone does or doesn't, right? I mean Drunk driving isn't only a crime when someone gets hurt, correct? And again, whether this warrants prosecution is something that i know is beyond my understanding of the legal process.

Well the homeowner was inside his house minding his own business, not out driving under influence. Context matters. Does said homeowner live in 'da hood? Could be justified. Does said homeowner live in a gated tri-level with pool, tennis court and helipad? Probably a little off in the head and unjustified. Maybe...

But in general I'm not going to be condoning telling someone who's minding their own business IN THEIR OWN HOME what he can do, or what decisions he can make. The fact that there was no injury to either party would be key to my decision, it wouldn't be the ONLY key, but it would start there and after that the bar is going to be pretty high.

OTOH, actually there is an injury. The homeowner's checking account. Put me on that jury!

 

[Louro]

Very interesting. How does the DA got involve? Did the DG call the police?

 

[Ethan N]

A resident that was both ill and possibly impaired by over the counter cold meds. Being startled awake by the noise may cause Mr. Doe to believe it was harder than it was.

Or not. I agree that the point of importance here may well be who makes the better argument of how hard this knocking in the door actually was.

That’s not quite the argument I was making. Yes, how hard the knocking was is extremely important in this case, but the issue shouldn’t be who makes the better argument. The bar is set much higher than that. The state must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Doe didn’t believe someone was trying to break into his dwelling. Even if every last soul on Earth is convinced that Doe most likely didn’t really believe a break in was occurring, if it is plausible at all that Mr. Doe did believe someone was breaking in, he must be acquitted.

Did Mr. Doe have a reasonable belief someone was breaking in? Based on what I know, I don’t think so. Is it plausible that he did? Based on what I know, it’s absolutely plausible. It’s plausible the delivery guy was banging loud enough, or the banging was perceived to be loud enough, to be mistaken as kicking. It’s plausible Doe opened the door even though he believed someone was trying to kick it open (people do irrational things when under acute stress, which is something the pizza guy should keep in mind if he really was banging unreasonably loudly). It doesn’t matter that those possibilities aren’t the most likely scenario. They are logical explanations for Mr. Doe’s actions that introduce reasonable doubt of his guilt. He must be acquitted.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high standard. It’s not absolute certainty, but it’s the closest thing to it. It’s a standard predicated on the idea that it’s a greater injustice to punish an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free.

In laymen’s terms, this situation can be explained as an innocent misunderstanding, so the DA should not have laid charges. It’s possible that during a trial something could come out that could prove Doe’s guilt, but since no one was hurt, I don’t see any point in subjecting Doe to criminal prosecution just to make sure. If he had shot the delivery guy, I would 100% endorse a trial to make sure there’s not some evidence that could persuade a jury of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.