Cleaning crew member shot and killed on porch after arriving at the wrong house

[Lebowski]

I agree with this. Unfortunately, I also wonder if a person is afraid, how long before terror kicks in and you do something stupid?

How long does someone remain reasonable? How long are you able to think before "instinct" (that is prob not the right word) takes over?

Having become a gun owner at 70, I have been pondering these situations for a few years now.

the law puts a responsibility on you to have some self-control and judgment. this shooter is not a child, 911 had already been called, and there was still a locked door between him and the "intruders".

the conscious decision to take another human life is sort of a big deal, and the law treats it as such. showing up at the wrong house by mistake and trying unsuccessfully to unlock the door should not be a death penalty. there needs to be accountability here.

i'm not necessarily on board with a murder charge, but this should at least be manslaughter or something like that. you don't want to live in a world where a case like this clears the bar for justifiable homicide.

 

[louvillian08]

If it was me, I probably would have questioned whether it was a model home, mainly because there was no sign and vacant homes usually have a lock box. But I'm from here.

RSBM. They also were given a set of keys to the model home, which would indicate no lock box at the property.

 

[Leve]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

I only live about 10 minutes away from where this murder occurred. It is very common in our area for Amazon drivers to ring the doorbell as they’re dropping a package on the front porch and we also get Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, band students, ringing our doorbells and standing on our front porch.


To shoot through the front door because someone is standing on your porch is not the act of a reasonable human being.

If their employer had gone with them, it could’ve been the employer who got shot.

But the difference is they didn't knock or ring the doorbell. Nor where they casually standing on the porch. They were attempting to gain access to the house. Not saying the shooting was justified by any means, but these situations are not comparable.

 

[tara83]

But the difference is they didn't knock or ring the doorbell. Nor where they casually standing on the porch. They were attempting to gain access to the house. Not saying the shooting was justified by any means, but these situations are not comparable.

But again shooting through a door is nothing but cold blooded murder.

 

[IceIce9]

Fatal shooting of cleaning woman at wrong Indiana home attracts national attention

A deadly wrong-address shooting of a house cleaner in suburban Indianapolis is drawing national attention and renewed scrutiny of self-defense laws.

www.wfyi.org

 

[IceIce9]

But again shooting through a door is nothing but cold blooded murder.

Of course it is. Shooting through a door when someone is standing behind it is murder.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

BBM

Indiana Code 35-41-3-2 Use of force to protect person or property

Indiana General Assembly

Website for Indiana's General Assembly

iga.in.gov

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. Provisions concerning civil immunity for the justified use of force as defined in this section are codified under IC 34-30-31.

(b) As used in this section, "public servant" means a person described in 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, employer, or estate of a 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.

(e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:

(1) is justified in using deadly force; and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

only if that force is justified under subsection (c).

 

[mickey2942]

Did the people in the home yell at the folks on the porch before they started shooting? Like, "Go Away" or anything?

And I would agree that a standard practice would be verification of presence by knocking or ringing a bell is appropriate before trying to open a door. That would be an alert. I think even I would be creeped out if some random person was trying to open my front door.

Years ago, an acquaintance of mine was shot by police, when he was trying to open a sliding glass door on an apartment. It wasn't his apartment, he was drunk, and trying to get into the wrong place. He didn't stop when police told him to stop and they shot him.

 

[tara83]

Did the people in the home yell at the folks on the porch before they started shooting? Like, "Go Away" or anything?

And I would agree that a standard practice would be verification of presence by knocking or ringing a bell is appropriate before trying to open a door. That would be an alert. I think even I would be creeped out if some random person was trying to open my front door.

Years ago, an acquaintance of mine was shot by police, when he was trying to open a sliding glass door on an apartment. It wasn't his apartment, he was drunk, and trying to get into the wrong place. He didn't stop when police told him to stop and they shot him.

Would you be creeped out enough to murder them through a door?

 

[Lebowski]

BBM

...

(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.

...

increases in font size by me

also, there was no unlawful entry to terminate

 

[Lebowski]

yeah, the "necessary" part is the other thing people always forget about, besides the "reasonability" of the belief.

it's not just "that person is scaring me, i should shoot them." you have to think shooting them is necessary, to stop them. in other words, you have no other option. they won't be stopped if you don't pull the trigger. again, it sounds like this shooter didn't even try yelling at them before he started shooting. that is a big problem for the idea that he reasonably believed he had no other option. (edited)

 

[mickey2942]

Would you be creeped out enough to murder them through a door?

We are not talking about me. But what should be standard procedure when going to clean a home. Knock first or ring the doorbell.

 

[tara83]

We are not talking about me. But what should be standard procedure when going to clean a home. Knock first or ring the doorbell.

But again not knocking doesn't justify shooting someone through a door. If the person was scared call 911 and stay in your locked home and don't blow a person away when they are not even in your house. You can't just shoot first and ask questions later. JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Of course it is. Shooting through a door when someone is standing behind it is murder.

I really don't understand why no one's invented bulletproof doors. Seems to me everyone would be safer if bullets could not travel through doors.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

BBM

Indiana Code 35-41-3-2 Use of force to protect person or property

Indiana General Assembly

Website for Indiana's General Assembly

iga.in.gov

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. Provisions concerning civil immunity for the justified use of force as defined in this section are codified under IC 34-30-31.

(b) As used in this section, "public servant" means a person described in 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, employer, or estate of a 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.

(e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:

(1) is justified in using deadly force; and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

only if that force is justified under subsection (c).

Something tells me that law will be better written in the future. There is no justification for shooting through a door in my book.

MOO.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

We are not talking about me. But what should be standard procedure when going to clean a home. Knock first or ring the doorbell.

Yes, a residential home, but these cleaners believed they were attending an uninhabited show home so why would they knock first? They knew nobody would be in the house they thought were attending.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

We are not talking about me. But what should be standard procedure when going to clean a home. Knock first or ring the doorbell.

If you go back a few pages, you'll see the assignment was a model home in which there was no one living. That's why they were given a key.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

the law puts a responsibility on you to have some self-control and judgment. this shooter is not a child, 911 had already been called, and there was still a locked door between him and the "intruders".

the conscious decision to take another human life is sort of a big deal, and the law treats it as such. showing up at the wrong house by mistake and trying unsuccessfully to unlock the door should not be a death penalty. there needs to be accountability here.

i'm not necessarily on board with a murder charge, but this should at least be manslaughter or something like that. you don't want to live in a world where a case like this clears the bar for justifiable homicide.

I might agree with manslaughter, were it not for the fact that the shooter had already called 911, and had looked from an upstairs window and seen the people they were shooting at. They saw them there and made a conscious decision to go downstairs and shoot with no warning. Thats murder. Premeditated at that. JMO

 

[sunspun]

We are not talking about me. But what should be standard procedure when going to clean a home. Knock first or ring the doorbell.

But remember, these people were going to clean a model home, a house they knew would be unoccupied. Not just that nobody would be home, but a house that wasn't lived in, had not yet ever been lived in by anyone. So if it had been me, I can't see me knocking. They thought they were at the right address, so they knew (wrongly, it turned out) that no one lived there!

 

[Lebowski]

I might agree with manslaughter, were it not for the fact that the shooter had already called 911, and had looked from an upstairs window and seen the people they were shooting at. They saw them there and made a conscious decision to go downstairs and shoot with no warning. Thats murder. Premeditated at that. JMO

the fact that he moved towards them, upstairs to downstairs, is an additional problem for the idea that he reasonably believed he had no choice but to shoot them.