• chakan2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    86
    ·
    6 months ago

    To me the key point was did the kid open the door? I’ve seen conflicting reports about it.

    Also, I hate HOAs as much as anyone, but I have no idea how they are involved in this one.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      64
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      He was shot through the glass storm door, which would have been outside the front door.

      Perp opened the front door, saw the kid through the glass and shot him.

      • EvacuateSoul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        6 months ago

        Not to mention, it’s incredibly common to open a storm door to knock. Even if he had opened it, that doesn’t show any ill intent.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      This is why the Castle Doctrine is bullshit. Who the fuck cares if the kid opened the door? That’s not justification enough to shoot him.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        This is why the Castle Doctrine is bullshit. Who the fuck cares if the kid opened the door? That’s not justification enough to shoot him.

        Castle Doctrine only applies to someone entering your home against your will. So if the kid was shot outside the front door then Castle Doctrine doesn’t apply. If he was inside the home, then under Castle Doctrine it’s reasonable to assume the stranger invading your home doesn’t have your best interests in mind and that you don’t have a duty to flee from them but instead may defend your home as an extension of self defense.

        Usually the line is drawn at the threshold - if they’re outside the threshold then Castle Doctrine doesn’t apply. So if he was literally shot for knocking at the door/ringing the doorbell then Castle Doctrine wouldn’t apply., but if he was shot while trespassing inside the home…

      • chakan2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        According to the law, it is. (Even without castle doctrine a random stranger trying to gain entry into your house is usually grounds for self defense).

        If the kid didn’t open the door, then I agree with you. But even the kid admitted to at least grabbing the handle of the door. I’d personally never do that at stranger’s or even an acquaintance’s house.

        From a moral standpoint, please don’t try to walk into stranger’s houses uninvited.

    • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      They could be liable if, and only if they are proven to be be aware (or willfully ignorant) that the man’s general conduct/demeanor would indicate a proclivity to violence rather than him just being crotchety. Unfortunately, things like that can be hard to prove as they can require a lot of digging.