Summary
Far-right influencer Nick Fuentes faces a battery charge for allegedly pepper-spraying and shoving a woman, Marla Rose, outside his Illinois home on Nov. 10.
Rose claims she visited his house after his viral “Your body, my choice” abortion post and was assaulted, with her phone damaged.
Fuentes, arrested and released the same day, cited safety fears over doxxing and death threats. Police confirmed no visible injuries but noted witness accounts.
Fuentes’ court date is Dec. 19, and Rose has hinted at pursuing a civil case.
Castle Doctrine doesn’t apply on the sidewalk or street in front of your house.
It wasn’t on the sidewalk or street. It was on his doorstep. However, I’m pretty sure that walking to the door of someone’s house and knocking on it doesn’t present a threat to the occupants of the house.
Edit: I am told that it wasn’t a knock, but a doorbell ring. This could be important, as the presence of a doorbell may amount to an invitation to press it.
It may if you feel threatened in your home. There have been rulings both ways. A classic example is drive-by shootings where the other party never leaves city property but still clearly threatens bodily harm.
My main point though is that going to someone’s private property puts you at a severe legal disadvantage.
In this case no anyone can come up to the front door and you still have to be in reasonable fear for your safety and admitting strangers at his door make him fearful generally well ruin his image, it’s on video too.
The video certainly helps and is likely to be stronger. However, castle doctrine or not, any jury is going to view this instance of going to their home as an aggressive act.
That doesn’t mean he can just get away with whatever he wants, but it does make it easier.
Is the mailman aggressive? Girl scouts? Mormons?
Anyone can approach your door and knock, if you’re truly that scared you’d probably put up a fence and a no trespass sign. He did neither, he just sprays them and goes inside.
I think the point is that she was there specifically to confront him about it. If you plan on confronting someone, it’s safer for you to do so on neutral ground, so the penalty of anyone escalating the confrontation to something physical is the same. No one is protected or at more risk. Although, of course, if the person you want to confront has more money, they will always be at more advantage. But no sense tipping it even more in their favor.
Sure, but what was she supposed to do, stalk him till he was somewhere more neutral then confront him? Send him a letter with a time and place to air her grievances? Like, going up to someone’s door and saying things isn’t unreasonable.
You’re right, but there’s reasonable and then there’s the law.
The law will side with “would a reasonable person be in fear for their life” and “talking to me” isn’t something to be in fear of.
Edit: Actually, to be fair, I don’t think it actually is “would a reasonable person be in fear” but the moment you point out that anyone else coming to the door, from deliveries to Girl Scouts, doesn’t get attacked… it kinda throws out the “I’m afraid of someone coming to the door and talking to me”.
Yeah that’s what people have done since the dawn of the door. Shitty people avoid others because they don’t want to deal with their shittiness so you often have to track them down like a goddamn bounty hunter.
And breaks their phone.
Clearly you haven’t met many Girl Scouts or Mormons…