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

[tara83]

From the article I linked in a previous comment:

"(homeowner) called 911 at 6:49 a.m. Wednesday to report two Hispanic people trying to break in while he and his wife were in an upstairs bedroom.
Police confirmed the couple had accidentally arrived at 4283 Maize Lane in The Heritage development, which is adjacent to Windswept Farms.
Records indicate the homeowner fired a weapon at about 6:54 a.m. and Mauricio called at 6:57 a.m. saying he showed up for work and someone shot his wife."

Interesting that he looked out an upstairs window enough to report the race of the people but then went downstairs to shoot them through a locked door. I hope this wasn't a race inspired murder.

 

[MrsWatson]

Records indicate the homeowner fired a weapon at about 6:54 a.m. and Mauricio called at 6:57 a.m. saying he showed up for work and someone shot his wife."

Doorbell cam or were the homeowner or his wife still on the phone with 911?

If they saw/heard people at the door, why not just yell out the window first?

 

[MrsWatson]

'Justicia por María' supporters and family hold candlelight vigil for slain wife and mother

Family and supporters shouted, 'Justicia por María' at a candlelight vigil held on the steps of the Boone County Prosecutor's Office.

eu.indystar.com

 

[louvillian08]

Doorbell cam or were the homeowner or his wife still on the phone with 911?

If they saw/heard people at the door, why not just yell out the window first?

Just speculation but I was thinking doorbell camera. Especially since they noticed the people on their porch from an upstairs bedroom

 

[Rolypolyoly]

Interesting that he looked out an upstairs window enough to report the race of the people but then went downstairs to shoot them through a locked door. I hope this wasn't a race inspired murder.

I doubt it is something we are able to discuss here, but I dont think its a stretch to imagine that the homeowner made his decision once he had seen who was on his porch. The current climate in the USA at the moment meant it was my first thought (the reason he shot, just to be clear)

 

[fcavanaugh]

Been following this case, haven’t read all the posts on the thread/still catching up but wanted to post some of my thoughts.
IANAL but after reading up on Indiana law, from what I understand Indiana is one of many states that doesn’t have “Duty to Retreat” law meaning that a person, in this case homeowner, doesn’t have to retreat if they reasonably believe force is required to protect themself or a third person against serious bodily injury. There’s more detailed info about the law at link below for those interested. Apologies if it’s already been posted. I personally don’t think this case should qualify as justified homicide under Indiana’s stand your ground but that’s just MOO.

Some other thoughts-
Being someone who also lives in a no “Duty to Retreat” state and have a gun locked in a safe place in our home, if me or my husband were behind closed locked door like the homeowner in this case, I can confidently say our first reaction wouldn’t be to go grab our gun, go downstairs and start shooting through our door at people standing on our porch. Shoot first ask questions later imo is not reasonable course to take in this type of situation.

The homeowner called 911 so why go towards what they thought was danger when they were locked in, up on the 2nd floor and could’ve opened a window and yelled out that they had a gun and 911 was on their way. Heck they could’ve just yelled out to them and held the gun up from behind the window and I bet the cleaners likely would’ve figured out they must be at the wrong place and ran off the porch back to their vehicle and took off and most importantly, Maria would still be alive.

By choosing to shoot at them through a closed door imo is risky and reckless not to mention what if god forbid there was a child or any person really, walking by, or driving by and shooter missed his target and ended up striking and killing a child or someone walking or driving by the house on their way to school or work?! That didn’t happen obviously but the point is it could have happened, especially considering he shot through closed door with intended target not in direct line of sight, and would’ve been just as awful outcome if he’d ended up killing some poor innocent soul walking or driving by.

All that said, I can pretty confidently say what we (myself or my husband) very likely would’ve done in this type of situation, was opened a window and asked the people standing on our porch why they were there, and tried to redirect them if we recognized the address they were looking for, or suggested they call their client to obtain clarification and be directed by their client to the correct house, or knowing the police were on the way if we called 911, told the couple the police were on their way and they would likely be able to help them find the correct address. Not sure if Maria and her husband speak English. If not we’d have figured that out upon trying to converse with them from the window and probably just held our gun up behind the window and they likely would’ve run off porch, gone back to their vehicle and left.

I know this is jumping ahead a bit as we don’t know what charges, if any, will be filed or if they’ll be a trial but I’m glad to hear that the DA is carefully considering the case and keeping the decedent Maria and her family close in mind. I definitely think the homeowner should be charged and held accountable in some way since an innocent person ended up losing her life due to their imo unreasonable actions. It’s just my opinion the homeowner’s actions weren’t reasonable and understand some might not agree and that’s ok. We are all different, different life experiences etc., and these type of unfortunate cases tend to cause emotions to rise and hot debates over laws in respective communities and society as a whole. I get it.

At any rate, If there are charges and eventual trial, IMO reasonable and justified are going to be very important elements discussed and going to come down whether at end of trial, the Jury believes based on the evidence presented if the Prosecution proved their case BARD.

Having said that, I really feel for Jurors in cases like these as some jurors may feel the homeowner’s action was reasonable and some that think it wasn’t reasonable, but as we know, jurors are expected to be impartial and instructed to consider all the evidence and the laws and expected to keep their emotions and personal beliefs out of the equation. IMO most jurors are able to do all that and take their responsibility seriously. I can picture a future Jury in this case either being split/hung, or convicting on Manslaughter or similar lesser charge than first degree murder.

It’s very sad that an innocent woman lost her life when she had no ill intent to harm anyone, just got lost on her way to do her job. It hurts my heart and I feel so bad for Maria’s husband, family and their four children who will now have to grow up without their Mother.
Heartbreaking and absolutely tragedy.

RIP Maria

https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/indiana-stand-your-ground-law

IMHOO

 

[CuriousCricket]

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!

This is exactly why this discussion might be so important. Yes, you might be being sent to a new home in which no one has ever lived. However, after this case, aren't you now aware of the possibility you might have the wrong house? Can't you now see the value of knocking first?

 

[Cryptic]

"(homeowner) called 911 at 6:49 a.m. Wednesday to report two Hispanic people trying to break in while he and his wife were in an upstairs bedroom.

I wonder if he was asked to describe the individuals? Or… did he automatically supply say, their race and no additional details?

If so, this could indicate a pre disposition to view some races as inherent threats.

For example, I have called in prostitution many times when my ‘burbs open air sex bazaar gets especially bizarre. But I can’t remember ever automatically supplying the race of the working girls with out being asked.

 

[Cryptic]

Can't you now see the value of knocking first?

I can see the value of knocking and….. not shooting through doors.

I would like to know if the shooter mentioned their race sans being asked and if they had visible cleaning supplies.

I suspect that a fact pattern of: “White woman in Nordstrom ware getting out of an Audi with a real estate magnet on it”might have been handled differently.

Sure, she could be part of a meth gang engaged in home invasions. Might be a lone wolf political terrorist acting on a red / blue vibe etc.

But…. My guess is that “likely real estate agent / wrong house” would have been applied. She would not have been shot through the door and… through the Nordstroms blouse.

 

[CuriousCricket]

(Snipped for focus CC)

At any rate, If there are charges and eventual trial, IMO reasonable and justified are going to be very important elements discussed and going to come down whether at end of trial, the Jury believes based on the evidence presented if the Prosecution proved their case BARD.

reasonable and justified - sure to be at the center of this case, as well as the way the law appears to be written. Something struck me as very interesting back in post 107 where BayouBelle_LA pasted a much longer version. I have copied only a small portion to highlight that the law seems to state that force is allowed to prevent unlawful entry and to prevent unlawful trespass

(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.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

Then IMO the issue is if the homeowner "reasonably" believes it to be necessary.

I don't think this homeowner was "reasonable," because Maria and her husband were not trying to pry something open to gain access to the house or doing anything suspicious. They were in plain view on the front porch, possibly trying out a key in a doorknob at the most, and "reasonably" you would think, they are are at the wrong house and I need to yell out to them.

I wonder if anyone who thinks this shooting was "reasonable" would think so if it was their own relative shot in the exact same situation.

 

[fcavanaugh]

reasonable and justified - sure to be at the center of this case, as well as the way the law appears to be written. Something struck me as very interesting back in post 107 where BayouBelle_LA pasted a much longer version. I have copied only a small portion to highlight that the law seems to state that force is allowed to prevent unlawful entry and to prevent unlawful trespass

(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.

Yes thank you for pointing that portion of the stand your ground law out. I went back and read the law a couple more times. Upon some further reading of the link I previously posted, it’s my understanding that a person/defendant claiming stand your ground in Indiana has to meet the state’s self defense requirements.
Snipped from link:

Indiana Stand Your Ground Law Requirements:
To successfully use the law as a defense, a defendant must meet the self-defense requirements.

Self-Defense General Requirements:
Self-defense is an “affirmative defense.” This means the defendant admits to having used force and is claiming self-defense to justify their conduct. To succeed on a self-defense claim, a defendant must prove (1) they acted in self-defense as opposed to initiating the violence, (2) they had a reasonable beliefthat they were being threatened with (3) imminent serious bodily harm,and (4) the force they used was proportionate to the force threatened against them.
Let's define the terminology used in those four points:

• Self-defense: The defendant didn’t initiate the altercation but only used force after the other person initiated it.
• Reasonable belief: The defendant truly believed they could’ve been seriously harmed and a reasonable person in their situation would have believed so, too. Whether the defendant’s belief was reasonable will depend on the relative sizes (and weapons, if any) of the defendant and their assailant, among other things.
• Imminent: The defendant believed serious bodily harm was about to happen to them. If someone makes a threat of force but then turns and runs away, the threat is no longer about to happen.
• Proportionate: The response may not be greater than the threat posed.

IMO there are terms under those requirements like altercation and assailant that don’t apply in this particular situation since there was no altercation/the cleaners did not assail the homeowner but I understand they likely use broad terms in the descriptions. At any rate, imo there are some things that will not work in the homeowners favor in his defense, specifically under bullet #2 BBM- whether the defendant’s belief was reasonable will depend on the relative sizes (and weapons) of the defendant and their assailant, among other things;
and bullet #4 BBM- The response may not be greater than the threat posed.

IMO reasonable is subjective, a slippery slope so to speak since what some consider reasonable, others may not. The case however, if goes to trial, will be decided by objective parties’ aka Judge and/or Jury as to whether they believe a ‘hypothetical’ (for lack of better word) reasonable person would have used force in these circumstances, whether the force used was greater than the threat posed, whether it was justified, or not etc. That’s for the court to decide.

Based on info released so far, imo the homeowner used force greater than the threat posed i.e, they’re not proportionate. IMO the cleaners posed no significant threat at all, certainly not requiring deadly force. These people showed up at the wrong house for work and had no ill intent to harm anyone which I hope will also be taken into serious consideration by the court.

I can’t help but wonder how the homeowner feels after finding out he ended the life of an innocent woman and Mother of four children, and how he’d feel if this happened to one of his own beloved family members.

https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/indiana-stand-your-ground-law

IMHOO

 

[CuriousCricket]

I can’t help but wonder how the homeowner feels after finding out he ended the life of an innocent woman and Mother of four children, and how he’d feel if this happened to one of his own beloved family members.

https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/indiana-stand-your-ground-law

IMHOO

I happen to agree that the force used was above and beyond what nearly everyone would consider reasonable. Plus, I agree the danger was not imminent.

Nonetheless, I see this as a tragedy for all parties. Maria's family is the obvious. But the shooter was home where he belonged, perhaps having just a normal day with the expectation of many normal days stretching ahead.

Then, through no fault of his own, he is faced with a nightmare. His own actions took a life and changed the course of many lives in just a split second.

Trying to imagine the horror of that is beyond my capabilities.

 

[tara83]

I happen to agree that the force used was above and beyond what nearly everyone would consider reasonable. Plus, I agree the danger was not imminent.

Nonetheless, I see this as a tragedy for all parties. Maria's family is the obvious. But the shooter was home where he belonged, perhaps having just a normal day with the expectation of many normal days stretching ahead.

Then, through no fault of his own, he is faced with a nightmare. His own actions took a life and changed the course of many lives in just a split second.

Trying to imagine the horror of that is beyond my capabilities.

No fault of his own? Shooting through a door is something no decent human being would ever do. JMO

 

[tlcya]

No fault of his own? Shooting through a door is something no decent human being would ever do. JMO

agree, his irrational choices left a woman dead. There is no amount of sugar coating that can change that fact. JMO

 

[Rolypolyoly]

I happen to agree that the force used was above and beyond what nearly everyone would consider reasonable. Plus, I agree the danger was not imminent.

Nonetheless, I see this as a tragedy for all parties. Maria's family is the obvious. But the shooter was home where he belonged, perhaps having just a normal day with the expectation of many normal days stretching ahead.

Then, through no fault of his own, he is faced with a nightmare. His own actions took a life and changed the course of many lives in just a split second.

Trying to imagine the horror of that is beyond my capabilities.

I would definitely argue against no fault of his own! He made a decision, and he made that decision 5 minutes after he called 911. That's not a split second, thats time enough to consider the situation, form an opinion and act on it. 5 minutes is much longer than we think it is.

The fault is his, the circumstances preceding his decision were not, but the ending of a woman's life? Definitely his. JMO

 

[Dotta]

I would definitely argue against no fault of his own! He made a decision, and he made that decision 5 minutes after he called 911. That's not a split second, thats time enough to consider the situation, form an opinion and act on it. 5 minutes is much longer than we think it is.

The fault is his, the circumstances preceding his decision were not, but the ending of a woman's life? Definitely his. JMO

Yep.
Besides it was not the middle of the night.
But nearly 7 am when a lot of people are going to work!
As I wrote earlier,
this person saw the pair from upstairs, he could have yelled from the window!!!
Give a warning!

Especially
as there was a new model house nearby.

What a senseless death
Children are left motherless.

If all of us who made a mistake with wrong keys/cars/houses
were shot,
population would certainly decrease.

Let's be serious

JMO

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

I would definitely argue against no fault of his own! He made a decision, and he made that decision 5 minutes after he called 911. That's not a split second, thats time enough to consider the situation, form an opinion and act on it. 5 minutes is much longer than we think it is.

The fault is his, the circumstances preceding his decision were not, but the ending of a woman's life? Definitely his. JMO

I do agree 5 minutes is a long time. It’s also a long time for people trying to gain access into your home. We don’t know if he called out to them or not. It’s possible there was a language barrier. They didn’t have the right street and it was clearly marked. imo

I don’t think shooting through a door is a good idea given the circumstances. Have they named the homeowner? Curious about age.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

I do agree 5 minutes is a long time. It’s also a long time for people trying to gain access into your home. We don’t know if he called out to them or not. It’s possible there was a language barrier. They didn’t have the right street and it was clearly marked. imo

I don’t think shooting through a door is a good idea given the circumstances. Have they named the homeowner? Curious about age.

I haven't seen anything official, I believe they are keeping his identity back at the minute, which is unusual. If I were to make a guess, I might say I thought he was 62, imo.

I am inclined to believe that he didnt make any attempt to speak to them due to reports that Maria's husband called 911 around 3 minutes after she was shot and said someone had shot his wife at work (not sure of the excact wording right now), which doesn't sound to me like he had a clue what was happening, but that is completely opinion on my part.

 

[IceIce9]

I happen to agree that the force used was above and beyond what nearly everyone would consider reasonable. Plus, I agree the danger was not imminent.

Nonetheless, I see this as a tragedy for all parties. Maria's family is the obvious. But the shooter was home where he belonged, perhaps having just a normal day with the expectation of many normal days stretching ahead.

Then, through no fault of his own, he is faced with a nightmare. His own actions took a life and changed the course of many lives in just a split second.

Trying to imagine the horror of that is beyond my capabilities.

I disagree with “through no fault of his own”

He shot through his front door knowing someone was standing on the other side of it. Whose fault was it? A person who owns a firearm needs to use it responsibly.

She had not gained access to his home.

Yes, it is a nightmare. But a nightmare for the children, husband, extended family, friends, and all who knew and loved her.

JMO