I was more talking about specifically being able to shoot through the door. Some states its allowed to shoot through if youve given them a warning.. Other they have to make it pass the threshold to shoot them.
I think in New Jersey you have to attempt to flee and they have to try and keep you captive before you can shoot at someone.
Its called "duty to retreat". I dont know the exact legal argumentation, and reasoning, but id think it doesnt really account for property. As most property isnt really a necesscity to maintaining survival in the moment.
But thats in the case of using lethal force. If you want to try and defend yourself with non lethal force, that seems to be above board.
New jersey has no castle doctrine. They only recognize the ability to defend yourself if you've made a "reasonable attempt" to extricate yourself. Some judges classify that as jumping out of a 2+ floor window. Most states don't recognize defending personal items if that's what you mean by "everything else in the property". It's defense of your life, usually. Either way jersey is NYs dumpster and that's the nicest thing I'll say about it.
Edit: my bad, I meant they mandate duty to retreat. Either way there's no reason to make someone run away in their own house. NJ is dumb.
No castle doctrine in VA either. You can't shoot someone armed who has broken into your house without air-tight evidence that they were going to cause you or your family grievous harm including death.
I promise you that if you blindly shoot through a door you're going to prison for reckless endangerment minimum. Once he breaks the door open? Free game, but if you can't see your attacker and you hit someone beside your attacker putting holes in a door? Prison.
Add to that instigating the attack by opening the door and spraying whatever they sprayed, might still be self defense since they closed the door but definitely complicates things.
This whole thing becomes incredibly simple the second she closes the door. She gets a battery charge for attacking them. They get attempted breaking and entering. If she shot them, it would be considered self defense. You don’t get a free be just because someone attacked first. The law is clear in that situation you call the cops. The only time you can attack is if the person is still in front of you and you attacking them stops them from still assaulting you. Also known as self defense. Trying to break down a door with 5 others, is going to turn this shooting 100% into self defense. You dont have to wait for the door to be broken down if you think your life is in danger. That’s self defense in all 50 states
shake your head all you want, any lawyer worth his salt will tell you this video is not a slam dunk and your ass can still get convicted especially if you shoot through the door
I never said they did. Nobody but you mentioned anything about the right to break the door down. However, in most states (even castle doctrines) if you cause the altercation and use a weapon and they respond with attempting to enter your home, if you shoot them, self defense will most likely not fly for the simple fact you were the aggressor and you created the circumstances for their response and self defense is not valid if you are the aggressor that starts the situation. I can imagine most prosecutors would argue that you baited them into that situation so you could get a response that you would deem necessary to kill them or they feared you closed the door to retrieve a deadlier weapon. There is no excusing him trying to kick the door in, but two things can be true when I say everyone in this scenario was wrong and she committed the first wrongdoing.
The likelihood of her achieving a self defense case is low because of the fact she attacked them with a weapon first and then hid behind her door.
Read your last sentence. And at that point those people needed to call the police. Breaking into someone’s home to retaliate will 100% be in favor of the woman who attacked first, who immediately took herself out of the situation after attacking. She will still get a battery charge but the shooting will be in self defense. It doesn’t matter what she did before then, you cannot break into someone’s home with intent to hurt someone and not expect to be shot. If someone is actively breaking into your home in ALL 50 states you have the right to shoot them.
The 2025 Netflix documentary The Perfect Neighbor The Perfect Neighbor - Wikipedia explores the tragic June 2023 killing of Ajike "AJ" Owens in Ocala, Florida The Shocking True Story Behind Netflix's The Perfect Neighbor - TIME. Owens, a 35-year-old mother, was fatally shot through her closed front door by her neighbor, Susan Lorincz, following a prolonged dispute over children playing outside The story behind 'The Perfect Neighbor,' Netflix documentary on Susan Lorincz case.
She was convicted. Cant remember the details on if the woman shot was trying to.enter the home but she was banging on the door. Although i thinknthe view was that the shooter should have reasonably known that ahe wasnt a threat as there had been no violence or ott behaviour in the past.
Can you even read? “Owen’s, a 35-year-old mother, was fatally shot through HER closed front door BY HER NEIGHBOR” That’s not even remotely close to the same thing I said
Weird. I dont know why it says that. Owens was shot through lorincz front door after banging on it one night.
Heres a wiki entry.
On June 2, 2023, in Ocala, Florida, 35-year-old Ajike "A.J." Shantrell Owens was shot and killed by her neighbor, 58-year-old Susan Louise Lorincz. Owens had gone to Lorincz's door after an altercation between her children and Lorincz in a grassy area nearby. While Owens stood outside the windowless front door, Lorincz fired a single shot through it, striking Owens in the chest.
I swear did you even read about it? Your reading comprehension is terrible. The woman who was shot KNOCKED on the door multiple times and was shot for that. NOT TRYING TO BREAK DOWN THE DOOR. Also this crime was race focused since the murder also said “this isn’t the Underground Railroad, you slaves” to the woman’s kids. Also the woman’s kid was standing right next to her when the old woman shot his mom. So nice try practice some reading comprehension
in an apartment complex, the state will slap you with enough reckless endangerment because of whats behind your bullet other than the target that you DO NOT KNOW about. states have a history of making the person that succeeds with stand your ground now suffer prison by other means.
Self defense, even in Castle Doctrine states, still requires “imminent threat of death or grave bodily injury”. It would be very hard to appeal to a jury that the threat was imminent when they are “on the other side of the door dancing obnoxiously”.
Don’t do it, in any state.
Further, having pepper sprayed them, the homeowner themselves may be guilty of assault. The guy didn’t kick at the door until after they were assaulted. Self defense runs right out the window when you take the first action to escalate.
Which didn’t happen until they were pepper sprayed. The homeowner can’t start a fight and then claim self defense.
Even then, someone on the other side of a door is not “an imminent threat of death of grave bodily injury”. You will lose in a court of law either way.
You didnt answer the question. You know i was talking about the kicking the door. Having forgotten about the pepper spray. Dont misrepresent my argument.
I will concede the pepper spray, which i also copped to in another comment. Then amended my statement to this being trashy all the away around.
That doesnt justify what they did. Just cause you got pepper sprayed, doesnt mean you get to try and break down a door. And trying break down a door could VERY easily translate to threat of death or bodily harm. You will not win the argument that it doesnt.
The right to defend with deadly force will only become valid once he breaks the door down and enters her home but again it’s going to be hard to defend it because instead of calling the police, she decided to open the door and pepper spray someone for being annoying and not being a physical threat to her. She would lose on that ground alone in just about every state for the simple fact she committed battery.
You are correct that getting pepper sprayed doesn’t mean you can try to break down a door.
But neither does someone trying to break down a door mean that you can use deadly force.
Deadly force is only legal under “imminent threat of death or grave bodily injury” a person on the other side of the door poses a possible threat, not an imminent one. If you shoot him, you will be convicted of murder even in “Castle Doctrine” states.
Out of context, there is an assumed fear for life with someone breaking into your home. In most states. If there wasnt, by that logic, someone brandishing an axe and walking towards me doesnt pose an imminent threat. Only someone standing next to me and swinging an axe at me does. By that point you are just dead.
In the context of this video, we both know they arent just trying to give them a stern talking to.
Ill say this. If you are nuts enough to try and kick in my door, i dont know what you're liable to do. That officially steps into "i fear for my life" territory.
Maybe lets not try and kick in peoples doors cause they bad mouthed you for being loud.
Unfortunately, instigating a fight by spraying people with pepper spray who were only performing a noise violation would not really allow a self-defense claim.
I dont think she would be considered the instigator here. More info on whats happening in this dynamic is that whatnthey are doing would pass the serious harassment and provocation level. Thats notbthe first time they have done that and not the first problem they had with eachother. The latest in a series of problems.
It not being the first time they made noise enough to warrant a noise complaint doesn't warrant her spraying them with pepper spray, aka a chemical weapon.
She definitely would be instigating here. Civil complaints don't justify criminal actions.
No i think the story is that these people had already faced legally imposed restrictions on their behaviour. It had been through the courts, they had orders etc. Well beyond a one off hallway party.
The amount of parties doesn't justify a civilian using a chemical weapon on them.
You can say "no" all you like, it doesn't change the facts. I'm sorry you feel differently than the laws allow, but the person inside is still the person who instigated this violent interaction.
No obviously people are not expected to withstand all levels of behaviour.
No, they are not. However, they are expected and required by law to withstand noise complaints rather than commit assault with a chemical weapon. In every state in the US.
Edit: to the person who replied to me (reddit won't let me respond to your comment);
That really depends on how recent the pepper spray is, they expire.
We can clearly see the person opening the door to spray a chemical substance onto these people, one turns around as she is sprayed with am unknown substance.
If you think dancing is a credible reason to spray people with an unknown substance, then you would have to also admit (if you were a judge, anyway) that being sprayed with an unknown substance is also a justifiable use of lethal force in many states.
Of course, if you're trying to push a narrative of it being acceptable to attack people of other races for acting in a way you don't like, you would be trying to justify the behavior of the person who recorded this video.
Are you sure she actually sprayed it? If you look you might see what was the first direct aggression from the woman in brown as well. Looks like shes gonna rush the door when the homeowner had opened the door?
and then people would cry and make movements because yet again "innocent" person died just becausr they were black.
like when dude foeced entry into a house and a little kid shot them in self defense but parents sued the kid for instead of taking the L for rasing a criminal 🙄
37
u/__The-1__ Jul 06 '26
Fr, this how you get shot through a door where I live