What not to do when the police knock?

[WOSdrummer99]

3 hours ago, bullets13 said:

So those of you in favor of charging the cops, y'all all agree that this shooting was justified, right?

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

No another life was taken and the shooter should be charged.

[bullets13]

37 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

No another life was taken and the shooter should be charged.

This is the exact same scenario as the other shooting except the homeowner got shots off.  Someone knocked on the door at the wrong house and was shot for doing so.  In the police shooting the homeowner was acting the same way, but when they saw the gun the police responded with force.  

[WOSdrummer99]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

"84-year-old charged with felonies 4 days after shooting of Kansas City teen Ralph Yarl"

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

"84-year-old charged with felonies 4 days after shooting of Kansas City teen Ralph Yarl"

Yeah, the homeowner was charged.

I am not sure where there may be a misunderstanding but being on your own property gives no additional right to assault or threaten someone.

There is obviously a right of self defense on your property but the situation must fit a self defense scenario. Merely being on a person’s property is not grounds for self defense.

The situation you posted is almost identical to the title of this thread. The homeowner, without apparent justification, pulled a weapon when not justified.  “He was on my property” is not a valid reason for pointing or using a firearm. Coincidentally it appears to have happened for someone at the wrong address.

But, neither investigation is completed.

 I can understand releasing the suspect. When an arrest is made the DA has a limited time to accept the accusation charges from the police arrest. I think in Texas it is a usually 72 hour time limit. The police have to file enough information to the DA for the case to detain the person who has not made bail. For a felony there still has to be an indictment later. The investigation is not over, but the police did what we call, busted the deadline. Basically during an arraignment, the judge gives the DA a time limit to have enough information to make it appear that the case will go forward later. If that information is not in, the person must be released by law. The person would be released only to be arreste later on a warrant, when and if enough information is gathered.

[tvc184]

Can a person be charged with any traffic offenses while on private property?

 Examples are the Walmart parking lot or the same at a mall. I am not referring to a private driveway. 

[Separation Scientist]

On 4/16/2023 at 8:24 PM, tvc184 said:

You are talking emotions. I am talking law.

The police chief should do what he did. He gave condolences to the family.

I guess under your rationale, if UPS knocked on your door late night, you would be justified in threatening to kill him by pointing a gun while in a shooting stance. I would say you may need a good lawyer on retainer.

Ah, the straw man argument. UPS would not be packing heat, and then blow me away standing in my own home. 

You want to talk law? Earlier you said  Whose property it is on has no bearing"  Really? Better look up "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" laws. Whose property it is absolutely, positively does matter. I would say you need to consult a good lawyer and be enlightened. 

[LumRaiderFan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

And another one.

This guys comes out shooting and kills a woman in the car simply turning around.  If she would have returned fire and killed the guy, it would have been justified, he would have given her no choice.

I don't see the case with the police officers any differently, he gave them no other option.

 

[SmashMouth]

5 hours ago, Separation Scientist said:

Ah, the straw man argument. UPS would not be packing heat, and then blow me away standing in my own home. 

Really? What if it was someone dressed up like a UPS guy, but planned to rob your home or just kill you cuz they were nuts?

"What ifs", emotion and bias against "the man" don't have any room in this argument. The dude should've realized possible consequences in answering the door the way he did. 

[Separation Scientist]

3 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

And another one.

This guys comes out shooting and kills a woman in the car simply turning around.  If she would have returned fire and killed the guy, it would have been justified, he would have given her no choice.

I don't see the case with the police officers any differently, he gave them no other option.

 

Its hugely different. The woman was sitting in a car, unarmed, backing out of the driveway, leaving. Zero threat to the resident. Nothing remotely like multiple people knocking (beating?) on an innocent mans home armed to the teeth.  To try to equate the dead innocent homeowner with a homicidal maniac shooting a unarmed woman in a car is totally unbelievable.   

[Separation Scientist]

36 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

Really? What if it was someone dressed up like a UPS guy, but planned to rob your home or just kill you cuz they were nuts?

"What ifs", emotion and bias against "the man" don't have any room in this argument. The dude should've realized possible consequences in answering the door the way he did. 

And what if he was a Martian arriving in a spaceship? Its getting ridiculous now. 

Keep in mind you need to direct this question elsewhere. I did not voice the "straw man" argument out of desperation. Someone else did. Talk to him.  

 

[WOSdrummer99]

44 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

Really? What if it was someone dressed up like a UPS guy, but planned to rob your home or just kill you cuz they were nuts?

"What ifs", emotion and bias against "the man" don't have any room in this argument. The dude should've realized possible consequences in answering the door the way he did. 

The "wants ifs" are overwhelming. What if as soon as there was any question to the location. They all retreated to the patrol vehicles for confirmation. It's that simple. Do refinery workers go work at the wrong location? And then wondered why things went wrong. And if there was a major explosion where loss of life occurred. Would someone be responsible?

Unfortunately "the man" has continually placed themselves in these arguments by continuing to make mistakes. Not all them do. But when it happens it's major.

There's one common theme thruout all these stories. NM, KC, NY... ORANGE, TEXAS!!!

A person with a gun made decision that cost a life. Life is too precious to not be valued more. Even if not valued by the victim or the shooter. Society should not let this go unresolved. We are losing kids at an alarming rate. And there's a deeper reason to that than just gun control conspiracies. But that's a conversation for different topic.

IMO, which amounts to nothing. Don't buy a gun without accepting the consequences of taking another life, or your own.

[LumRaiderFan]

11 minutes ago, Separation Scientist said:

Its hugely different. The woman was sitting in a car, unarmed, backing out of the driveway, leaving. Zero threat to the resident. Nothing remotely like multiple people knocking (beating?) on an innocent mans home armed to the teeth.  To try to equate the dead innocent homeowner with a homicidal maniac shooting a unarmed woman in a car is totally unbelievable.   

They weren't beating on the door and they weren't pointing weapons at the guy, they were absolutely no threat until he came out of the house pointing a gun at them and gave them no choice.  

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

The "wants ifs" are overwhelming. What if as soon as there was any question to the location. They all retreated to the patrol vehicles for confirmation. It's that simple. Do refinery workers go work at the wrong location? And then wondered why things went wrong. And if there was a major explosion where loss of life occurred. Would someone be responsible?

Unfortunately "the man" has continually placed themselves in these arguments by continuing to make mistakes. Not all them do. But when it happens it's major.

There's one common theme thruout all these stories. NM, KC, NY... ORANGE, TEXAS!!!

A person with a gun made decision that cost a life. Life is too precious to not be valued more. Even if not valued by the victim or the shooter. Society should not let this go unresolved. We are losing kids at an alarming rate. And there's a deeper reason to that than just gun control conspiracies. But that's a conversation for different topic.

IMO, which amounts to nothing. Don't buy a gun without accepting the consequences of taking another life, or your own.

Much respect, but dude gotta be smarter than answering the door pointing a gun at armed cops. It's as simple as that for me.

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, Separation Scientist said:

And what if he was a Martian arriving in a spaceship? Its getting ridiculous now. 

Keep in mind you need to direct this question elsewhere. I did not voice the "straw man" argument out of desperation. Someone else did. Talk to him.  

 

I bring up the what ifs because nothing is absolute. But people have actually showed up to homes as delivery persons, service technicians. Not sure how many martians/spaceships are documented burglarizing lately. Ridiculous? Yes, you are...

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

IMO, which amounts to nothing. Don't buy a gun without accepting the consequences of taking another life, or your own.

No truer words can be said. I have dozens of them and treat them with caution and respect.

[LumRaiderFan]

21 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

Much respect, but dude gotta be smarter than answering the door pointing a gun at armed cops. It's as simple as that for me.

That’s it for me as well.

[tvc184]

11 hours ago, Separation Scientist said:

Ah, the straw man argument. UPS would not be packing heat, and then blow me away standing in my own home. 

You want to talk law? Earlier you said  Whose property it is on has no bearing"  Really? Better look up "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" laws. Whose property it is absolutely, positively does matter. I would say you need to consult a good lawyer and be enlightened. 

No, a straw man is a false accusation that is easy to tear down. Facts are not a straw man. Emotions usually are.

What you call stand your ground law has nothing to do with property. In fact, in this situation, the police have the same right of stand your ground.

Being on your own property gives a person no authority to point guns at people, make threats, etc.

Perhaps you should read the penal code.

[tvc184]

The castle doctrine is a general legal concept and has no bearing in law. There is no mention in Texas law on castle doctrine. There is statutory law that says exactly what is illegal and in some (rare) cases, what is legal.

The idea of the castle doctrine goes back to the early 1600s with Sir Edward Coke and late described in more details by William Pitt who said that a man may have a crappy home by the king may not enter.

So the concept of castle doctrine from English common law is that the government cannot enter your home without being invited or a warrant.

Somehow that has been expanded into the belief that there is an actual law that says castle doctrine and it covers you everywhere you walk. Walking on a public sidewalk is not your home. Your car is not your home unless it is like a motor home.

In this particular incident, the police were not inside his home.

Statutory or written/enacted law is what matters. 

[tvc184]

9 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

And another one.

This guys comes out shooting and kills a woman in the car simply turning around.  If she would have returned fire and killed the guy, it would have been justified, he would have given her no choice.

I don't see the case with the police officers any differently, he gave them no other option.

 

Are you sure? After all it was 10 o’clock at night! Surely that gives people the authority to come out pointing guns or shooting and claim to be scared.

Now beyond sarcasm….

 Yes it is almost exactly the same except trade a person in a car for a person out of the car.

All uses of force use the term “reasonable”. “I saw a car in my driveway” would not be seen as a reasonable justification for deadly force by any reasonable person. 

[tvc184]

6 hours ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

The "wants ifs" are overwhelming. What if as soon as there was any question to the location. They all retreated to the patrol vehicles for confirmation. It's that simple. Do refinery workers go work at the wrong location? And then wondered why things went wrong. And if there was a major explosion where loss of life occurred. Would someone be responsible?

Unfortunately "the man" has continually placed themselves in these arguments by continuing to make mistakes. Not all them do. But when it happens it's major.

There's one common theme thruout all these stories. NM, KC, NY... ORANGE, TEXAS!!!

A person with a gun made decision that cost a life. Life is too precious to not be valued more. Even if not valued by the victim or the shooter. Society should not let this go unresolved. We are losing kids at an alarming rate. And there's a deeper reason to that than just gun control conspiracies. But that's a conversation for different topic.

IMO, which amounts to nothing. Don't buy a gun without accepting the consequences of taking another life, or your own.

How do you retreat when a gun is brought up and pointing at you from 15 feet away? You are not going to outrun a bullet to confirm. I am not sure what is to be confirmed anyway. 

The police don’t usually put themselves in that situation. They are called by someone to be there.

Under what legal situation should a person be able to point a gun at someone for knocking on a door? 

 The claim of fear is nonsense. If fear was justification then a person could kill anyone and say the person scared me. “I heard a person walking on my porch and I was scared”. 

 The law says a “reasonable belief” and reasonable will be judged by a jury. I don’t think that almost anyone would feel that a person turning around in your driveway or hearing a knock on your door gives a reasonable belief that you are about to be killed and need to resort to the use of or threat of deadly force.

 I suspect that if you changed the original story to a neighbor and not the police, people would have a different opinion. 

[WOSdrummer99]

6 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

How do you retreat when a gun is brought up and pointing at you from 15 feet away?

They questioned the location way before he came out packing heat. 

Why was there no lights flashing at the scene? Since the original call was such a volatile domestic disturbance.

[tvc184]

4 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

They questioned the location way before he came out packing heat. 

Why was there no lights flashing at the scene? Since the original call was such a volatile domestic disturbance.

I have yet to see any reasonable explanation from anybody as to why misreading an address allows a person to threaten you with a firearm. As LR posted the article of a mistaken address and some guy thought that was justification to come out shooting.

Where are y’all coming up with these nonsensical theories?

This is not difficult. Tragic, yes, but not difficult.

The police were called to a family disturbance. They walked across the street to the wrong house. They knocked on the door and announced police. Somebody inside the house heard the knocking and the man walked out without knowing anything, except that was a knock and immediately pointed gun at whoever was standing on his property.

The (1) officers were not violating any law, (2) they had the same authority on stand your ground and (3) they had a reasonable belief that their lives were in danger. Can anyone point to where any of that is incorrect? 

[tvc184]

6 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

They weren't beating on the door and they weren't pointing weapons at the guy, they were absolutely no threat until he came out of the house pointing a gun at them and gave them no choice.  

That pretty much sums up the entire case. 

[tvc184]

This is the Texas stand your ground law, not the misidentified castle doctrine.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

Did the officers have the right to knock on the door? If not, what law does anyone claim they were violating?

Did knocking on the door provoke the attack? Reading some of the comments, I would not be shocked that some people in this forum think that knocking on the door is a provocation.

Were the officers engaged in criminal activity? No, unless you think, knocking on a door is a crime.

The phrase ”Is not required to retreat” is the so called stand your ground law.

Notice that it never mentions property, ownership, residence or anything similar. It only says have a right to be present at that location. The US Supreme Court in a case has already said that an officer can knock on a door just like anyone else. 

 

[WOSdrummer99]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Where are y’all coming up with these nonsensical theories?

You've explained in detail that the law allows this. It's still not right. The man clearly made a bad decision. But this would not be a conversation now, if not for a obvious mistake by the local police.

You avoided my question about the flashing lights? That would've been a very obvious signal that police were in the area before the man opened the door with gun in hand. Just saying police once after the initial knock shouldn't be enough.