Man shot dead in his tracks by homeowner

[skb12172]

It really depends on the state. I know that there was a case in my parent's neighborhood last year like this. Drunk pounds on wrong door at 2am. Homeowner warns once, then shoots through front door and kills drunk. Castle Doctrine. No charges, no civil suit.

[PawPaw]

It works like that around here, too. I can leave my door standing wide-assed open, and if you come in, you've committed a crime. Castle Doctrine kicks in, and all the presumptions go to the homeowner.

I didn't say that it was SMART to leave your door open, but all the presumptions flow to the homeowner.

[Termite]

It works like that around here, too. I can leave my door standing wide-assed open, and if you come in, you've committed a crime. Castle Doctrine kicks in, and all the presumptions go to the homeowner.

I didn't say that it was SMART to leave your door open, but all the presumptions flow to the homeowner.

Not only is it foolish to enter someone's house on first arrival uninvited, even if the door is open, it is just bad manners. As the French say: Gauche

Upon arriving at a friend's house, I would knock. If the door is already open, I would knock and announce myself. I
If the person said "Come on in", THEN I would enter.

The only exception I might make to entering without invitation is: I know the person, the door is open, and I have reason to think he or she may be injured/in need of assistance. Even then, I would enter slowly, calling out who I am, and asking were they OK.

[Jered]

It really depends on the state. I know that there was a case in my parent's neighborhood last year like this. Drunk pounds on wrong door at 2am. Homeowner warns once, then shoots through front door and kills drunk. Castle Doctrine. No charges, no civil suit.

Interestingly enough, there's an Applebee's about a 10 minute walk away.

The family said he'd been drinking with them at Applebee's.

The shooting occurred at 0230 in the morning, and in Washington State, establishments are required to stop selling alcoholic beverages at 0200 in the morning.

Here's my hypothetical situation.

At 0200, the bar at the restaurant kicks them out because it's closing time. At 0210 or so, they arrive back home. Sometime around 0215 dead guy goes out for a smoke. At 0220 or so, the guy finishes his smoke. Sometime around 0220 or 0225, he arrives at the wrong house and starts banging on the door. Sometime before 0230, the homeowner opens the door, and the dead guy shoves his way in. When he's in the house, he gets shot by the homeowner, and collapses on his way out the door.

That seems to fit with all the facts that I've seen.

And for the record it does not matter if he was drunk or not:

RCW 9A.16.090
Intoxication.

No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication shall be deemed less criminal by reason of his or her condition, but whenever the actual existence of any particular mental state is a necessary element to constitute a particular species or degree of crime, the fact of his or her intoxication may be taken into consideration in determining such mental state.

So, my money is still on no charges.

[Aesop]

That seems to fit with all the facts that I've seen.

The problem with that statement is that you haven't seen any facts, and none are known except that a homeowner shot someone at his door.
Which yet again, is the whole problem with jumping to conclusions, and filling in the facts in one's head before anyone else who knows the answers provides them.
It's the reason lawyers hate witnesses and juries with equal passion, regardless of whether they're prosecutors or defense attorneys.

[Jered]

That seems to fit with all the facts that I've seen.

The problem with that statement is that you haven't seen any facts, and none are known except that a homeowner shot someone at his door.

No, actually, according to the police, he shot someone in his house. There's a lot of facts that are known, and readily apparent to someone who is actually willing to look at them.

To wit:

Officials said during the news conference that Aceves was shot after he got “well inside” the house. They would not say how Aceves got inside. There were reportedly no signs of a break-in at the house on Savary Drive.

I've posted that excerpt from a different story on multiple occasions but you don't seem to have read it. According to the police he was inside the house when he was shot. So, he was well inside the house when he was shot.

Aceves’ body was found near the front door, partly inside, said officials.

Which yet again, is the whole problem with jumping to conclusions, and filling in the facts in one's head before anyone else who knows the answers provides them.

Perhaps you've got a logical explanation, then. I crafted a logical explanation that fits with the facts of the scenario that have been published by the police, is consistent with state law, explains why he was wandering around at around 2 AM. I've come up with a reasonable inference of events which accounts for all of the facts that have been disclosed. If you want, I'll walk you through it again. For your convenience, I've bolded the facts.

According to the family, this guy was out drinking at Applebees. The guy was up, around and active at around 2 AM in the morning. In Washington State, bars stop selling alcohol at 2 AM in the morning according to state law. If he's up and active at after 2 AM, it's not a particularly great leap of faith to conclude that he had been kicked out of a a bar at closing time, especially if he'd been out drinking with his family. There are two Applebees restaurants within ten minutes travel of the home. My guess was that he was at the one that was a ten minute walk away from the street where this house was located. There's another one that's about a ten minute drive away. Either one fits within my time frame.

According to his family, he stepped out for a cigarette. He was at his step brother's house around the corner. Can a drunk guy become disoriented?

Somehow he ended up at Onterivos' house. . He raised enough of a din to wake up Onterivos. [Incidentally, the house appears to have a doorbell, which can explain that. This could also explain why the neighbors didn't hear anything.] Interestingly, the front door is shielded from the closest neighbor's view by the garage.

Somehow, he gained entrance into Onterivos' house. See excerpt above. While "well inside" the house, he was shot. His body was partially found in the house. Onterivos' girlfriend was also in the house. A woman in the house placed a 911 call. Is it customary to place a 911 call if one is inviting a guest into one's house? At 0230, a woman said that there was an intruder in the residence. Apparently at some point while there was an intruder in the residence, and Onterivos shot the intruder. Is it common practice to call 911 to report an intruder and then allow him into your house?

I've gathered all of this information from the news article I posted, the news article in the OP, and good old fashioned open source research.

I think I've only actually jumped two to conclusions here, but both are based on sensible interpretations of the facts that I've bolded above.

1) Aceves' was under the influence of alcohol.

2) That Aceves' entrance to the home was unlawful.

And the article that I linked to, three posts ago.

My whole theory about this can be summed up as, "A drunk guy forced his way into the wrong house, and got shot as a burglar."

It's the reason lawyers hate witnesses and juries with equal passion, regardless of whether they're prosecutors or defense attorneys.

In this case, in order to prove a crime, the prosecutor would have to show that Aceves' had gained lawful entrance to the home. Since it wasn't his house, that's remarkably difficult, wouldn't you say? If the prosecutor can't meet that burden, then the win goes to the defense.

[Les Nessman]

Drunk pounds on wrong door at 2am. Homeowner warns once, then shoots through front door and kills drunk.

I've always had somewhat of a problem with this. Unless they're trying to break the door down as opposed to knocking loudly, shooting blindly through the door at....well, you don't know what you are shooting at, or who is next to them or behind them or what's behind the target etc etc etc. It just seems reckless.

:jacked:

[skb12172]

I didn't like it either. The circumstances, as reported, didn't seem to warrant shooting THROUGH the door. It does seem reckless.

[Aesop]

I crafted a logical explanation...

That's nice.
Another way of putting is that you made stuff up assuming facts not in evidence that fits one possible explanation, while ignoring the universe of other possibilities, and even at that leaping from facts to assumptions all along the way.
Making things up in your head, rather than waiting for an explanation based on all the facts is the difference between logical consideration, and wishful thinking.
If you're writing a novel in your head, it's a feature.
When you're looking at an incident, it's a bug.
If you're doing it while involved in said incident, it's delusional.

I think I've only actually jumped two to conclusions here, but both are based on sensible interpretations of the facts that I've bolded above.
1) Aceves' was under the influence of alcohol.
2) That Aceves' entrance to the home was unlawful.

Exactly. The first is a possibility, but nowhere near a certainty, because everyone who drinks isn't de facto drunk.
The second one is the entire point of whether this is a justifiable shooting, or murder.
Assuming your conclusions is a great way to get to the end of your argument, as long as one isn't actually trying to prove a point as much as assume one.
But thanks for noting that if we just assume you're right, then of course, you're right.
Any contrary facts that emerge after that are just annoying inconsistencies of the universe's failure to live up to your conclusions.

In this case, in order to prove a crime, the prosecutor would have to show that Aceves' had gained lawful entrance to the home. Since it wasn't his house, that's remarkably difficult, wouldn't you say? If the prosecutor can't meet that burden, then the win goes to the defense.

As noted earlier, all somebody has to do is allege the victim knew the shooter. Or worse, the girlfriend. Prosecutors only have to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. It isn't beyond reasonable doubt that someone who lets a guy into his house at 2AM had motives other than his family's safety in mind for opening the door in the first place. The very act of opening a locked door behind which they're safe undermines the argument that he was acting out of concern that Aceves was trying to get inside unlawfully, which is exactly the point when this fails to be a justifiable shooting. And at that point, Ontiveros is the one who has to do the proving, which is well-nigh impossible. People are buried in Boot Hill after getting a fine trial and a public execution based on far weaker cases. And even if he wins, Ontiveros is out more than he'll make in 10 years' wages.

There are any dozen ways this is justifiable. And an equal number of ways it isn't.
There are no reasons based on available facts for deciding it either way at this point.

If we all agree that the actual facts are irrelevant, why not assume Ontiveros' girlfriend was Aceves' fiancée, and he recognized her car in the homeowner's driveway? So he knocks on the door, and hilarity ensued.
Or we could assume that Ontiveros was dealing meth on the side, and tried to rip off Aceves.
When we ignore the petty details, and only assume a couple of things first, it's fun, and we can "prove" any conclusion we want to reach.

Coupled with this is that both the D.A. and the police know that people lie to them, even when making 911 calls, but that physical evidence doesn't lie.
Which explains why they want to make sure the facts that can't lie match the stories of people who sometimes do lie. Especially when there's a fresh corpse on the front porch.

[308Mike]

Drunk pounds on wrong door at 2am. Homeowner warns once, then shoots through front door and kills drunk.

I've always had somewhat of a problem with this. Unless they're trying to break the door down as opposed to knocking loudly, shooting blindly through the door at....well, you don't know what you are shooting at, or who is next to them or behind them or what's behind the target etc etc etc. It just seems reckless.

:jacked:

Which MIGHT be why, IN THIS CASE, he opened the door to ensure who it was who was pounding on his door.

We're still waiting for all the details of this incident - which the police and prosecutors (AND DEFENSE) are NOT going to release until AFTER the trial/appeals (IF any) are over.