Man shot dead in his tracks by homeowner

The place to talk about personal defense, preparedness, and survival; both armed and unarmed.
User avatar
Jered
Posts: 7859
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:30 am

Re: Man shot dead in his tracks by homeowner

Post by Jered »

Aesop wrote: 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.
The guy was shot while he was in the house. He died while he was in the house. His body was found in the doorway.

In the latest news story, the prosecutor admitted that.

On the night of the shooting, the police did not find probable cause to believe that the homeowner committed murder. The homeowner has had a chance to clean up his house, and remove all sorts of additional evidence, and absent a warrant, the police are not going to get any more.

At the night of the shooting, the police couldn't determine with a "fair probability" (hehe another wall of text court case follows. I use those words for a reason.) that murder had been committed, and they're probably unlikely to gain any more evidence.
“Probable cause to arrest exists when officers have knowledge or reasonably
trustworthy information sufficient to lead a person of reasonable caution to
believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person being
arrested. For information to amount to probable cause, it does not have to be
conclusive of guilt, and it does not have to exclude the possibility of
innocence. . . police are not required "to believe to an absolute certainty, or
by clear and convincing evidence, or even by a preponderance of the
available evidence" that a suspect has committed a crime. All that is required
is a "fair probability," given the totality of the evidence, that such is the case.”
Garcia v. County of Merced, 639 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2011).
Or, to put it another way, they couldn't find enough evidence to cause a "cautious and disinterested person" (I picked those words for a reason.)to believe that the suspect is guilty. The guy has had a chance to clean the house where the shooting took place, so, the police probably have all the evidence that they are going to get for their investigation into this crime. Over the past week, it's rained in Pasco, so, the likelihood of obtaining additional forensic evidence from outside of the dwelling is fairly remote. The shooting occurred at an hour of the morning when most people are asleep and in an area out of sight of the general public, so the possibility of additional witnesses is remote. They probably had all of this evidence the night of the shooting, and they couldn't find enough even to warrant the belief in a "cautious and disbelieving person" that the suspect is guilty.
To make an arrest, the officer need not have facts sufficient to
establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but only reasonable grounds for
suspicion coupled with evidence of circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to warrant a cautious and disinterested person in believing that the
suspect is guilty." State v. Bellows, 72 Wn.2d 264, 266, 432 P.2d 654 (1967).
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.
Nope. The burden of proof is on the state.

It took some digging, but I enjoy this sort of research, so it was time well spent. Anyway, I give you the Washington State Jury Instruction on Justifiable Homicide:
WPIC 16.03 Justifiable Homicide—Resistance To Felony

It is a defense to a charge of [murder][manslaughter] that the homicide was justifiable as defined in this instruction.
Homicide is justifiable when committed in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony [upon the slayer][in the presence of the slayer][or][upon or in a dwelling or other place of abode in which the slayer is present].
The slayer may employ such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they reasonably appeared to the slayer, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances as they appeared to [him][her] at the time [and prior to] the incident.
The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not justifiable. If you find that the State has not proved the absence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
In this instance, they have to prove that Aceves was lawfully in the house. Which is going to be rather difficult, since the neighbors testified that a few minutes prior to the shooting, Aceves was outside the house making a racket, at the time that he was making the racket, a resident of the house was on the phone with the police because of his unwelcome presence at the house, and, at the time of entrance to the house, Ontiveros shot him, and he apparently tried to leave the house.

In the event that the jury finds not guilty based on self defense:
RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime — Reimbursement.

(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

(2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.

(3) Notwithstanding a finding that a defendant's actions were justified by self-defense, if the trier of fact also determines that the defendant was engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the charges filed against the defendant the judge may deny or reduce the amount of the award. In determining the amount of the award, the judge shall also consider the seriousness of the initial criminal conduct.

Nothing in this section precludes the legislature from using the sundry claims process to grant an award where none was granted under this section or to grant a higher award than one granted under this section.

(4) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section is decided by a judge, the judge shall consider the same questions as must be answered in the special verdict under subsection (4) [(5)] of this section.

(5) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section has been submitted to a jury, and the jury has found the defendant not guilty, the court shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in substantially the following form:


answer yes or no
1. Was the finding of not guilty based upon self-defense? . . . . .
2. If your answer to question 1 is no, do not answer the remaining question.
3. If your answer to question 1 is yes, was the defendant:
a. Protecting himself or herself? . . . . .
b. Protecting his or her family? . . . . .
c. Protecting his or her property? . . . . .
d. Coming to the aid of another who was in imminent danger of a heinous crime? . . . . .
e. Coming to the aid of another who was the victim of a heinous crime? . . . . .
f. Engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the crime with which the defendant is charged? . . .
There's this one, too:
WPIC 16.08 No Duty To Retreat
It is lawful for a person who is in a place where that person has a right to be and who has reasonable grounds for believing that [he][she] is being attacked to stand [his][her] ground and defend against such attack by the use of lawful force. The law does not impose a duty to retreat.
And this:
WPIC 16.07 Justifiable Homicide—Actual Danger Not Necessary

A person is entitled to act on appearances in defending [himself][herself][another], if that person believes in good faith and on reasonable grounds that [he][she][another] is in actual danger of great personal injury, although it afterwards might develop that the person was mistaken as to the extent of the danger.
Actual danger is not necessary for a homicide to be justifiable.
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
Aesop
Posts: 6149
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:17 am

Re: Man shot dead in his tracks by homeowner

Post by Aesop »

In your zeal to prove that the state only has to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt, you managed to overlook my statement explicitly stating that the state only has to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt, which you managed to nonetheless quote verbatim. Scroll back and read your own post.

BTW, if they get to looking at WA state jury instructions, Onvtiveros is already on trial for his life at the cost of some tens of thousands of dollars on a security guard's salary. Good times!


And I'm sure the state collected enough blood, photographs, and the actual body, at the time, that needing any further evidence inside the house to prove their case if later details come to light and undo his story won't be necessary.

Kindly look up the number of people now LWOP'ed or on death rows nationwide (or already executed) who weren't arrested on Day Zero, and get back to me.

In the meantime, if everything checks out, and the shooter was justified, all well and good for him. That's why we pay authorities to investigate people getting shot.

The difference is, you'll have been there all along, having helpfully abandoned common sense and reason to get there first.
I hope that course always works out so well for you.
Statistics suggest otherwise, but people win at roulette and the lotto too, so who am I to judge?
"There are four types of homicide: felonious, accidental, justifiable, and praiseworthy." -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
User avatar
Jered
Posts: 7859
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:30 am

Re: Man shot dead in his tracks by homeowner

Post by Jered »

In your zeal to prove that the state only has to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt, you managed to overlook my statement explicitly stating that the state only has to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt, which you managed to nonetheless quote verbatim. Scroll back and read your own post.
The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was not a justifiable homicide.
BTW, if they get to looking at WA state jury instructions, Onvtiveros is already on trial for his life at the cost of some tens of thousands of dollars on a security guard's salary. Good times!
Only if he's found guilty. If it goes to trial, and he's found not guilty, and a jury believes that he was acting in self defense, then the state picks up the tab for his legal costs.
And I'm sure the state collected enough blood, photographs, and the actual body, at the time, that needing any further evidence inside the house to prove their case if later details come to light and undo his story won't be necessary.
If he illegally entered the residents, he's presumed to have done so with the intent to commit a crime in there.

The difference is, you'll have been there all along, having helpfully abandoned common sense and reason to get there first.
I hope that course always works out so well for you.
Statistics suggest otherwise, but people win at roulette and the lotto too, so who am I to judge?
If the security guard invited this guy into the house, why would he shoot him, knowing that the whole thing would be recorded on a 911 tape?

They're waiting on the autopsy report and the toxicology report from the State Patrol. The autopsy is already done, and they found that the guy died from gunshot wounds.
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
Post Reply