6:29pm: “Entered the wrong house”
6:34pm: “Rang the doorbell”

H/t: @pdabrosca pic.twitter.com/ONNhN6RxFM

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 17, 2023

This kid tried to walk in or walked in and got shot

AggieUSMC said:

---

Buck Turgidson said:

---

Not defending the reckless shooter, but I will point out that in the rare instances where a black kid is shot by a white person, the media goes WAAAAY out of their way to make the kid look like a cross between Bambi and Steve Erkel. Don't fall for this media driven rush to judgement. They did the same thing to a certain "white hispanic" in Florida some years back. Turns out the kid who was shot wasn't quite the angel the media was trying to pain him as. Let the investigation conclude before passing final judgement.

---

Exactly, there are many unanswered questions in this case. This may very well be an unjustified shooting but nobody should be buying into the media narrative in light of past cases that are eerily similar to this where the initial narrative falls apart.

---

Unless you are there personally to witness these things, all you have are media accounts. Trouble is, people choose the media that fits their personal biases and all of the others are "lying".

aggielostinETX said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

If you are 84 years old and someone is at your house after 10 PM trying to pull open your door, what are you going to think is happening? Would it be reasonable to assume a break in or home invasion is being attempted? Have to put yourself in the mind of that person.

---

I think shouting a warning first would be the correct initial action. He wasn't an immediate threat unless he started trying to break the door down.

---

While, that may be what you think a reasonable person would do, that is not what the law says, nor what the law requires.

Eta for accent in voice to text

---

Wrong, the law requires a "reasonable" belief of imminent harm or unlawful entry into the house. Simply pulling on the storm door handle is not sufficient cause for "reasonable" belief.

The law clearly says attempted entry and reasonable harm

Opalka said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Buck Turgidson said:

---

Not defending the reckless shooter, but I will point out that in the rare instances where a black kid is shot by a white person, the media goes WAAAAY out of their way to make the kid look like a cross between Bambi and Steve Erkel. Don't fall for this media driven rush to judgement. They did the same thing to a certain "white hispanic" in Florida some years back. Turns out the kid who was shot wasn't quite the angel the media was trying to pain him as. Let the investigation conclude before passing final judgement.

---

Exactly, there are many unanswered questions in this case. This may very well be an unjustified shooting but nobody should be buying into the media narrative in light of past cases that are eerily similar to this where the initial narrative falls apart.

---

Unless you are there personally to witness these things, all you have are media accounts. Trouble is, people choose the media that fits their personal biases and all of the others are "lying".

---

I'm just going off the information that's available. And based on the current information, it doesn't seem like a good shoot. I'm certainly open to being persuaded the other way if sufficient info becomes available.

aggielostinETX said:

---

The law clearly says attempted entry and reasonable harm

---

Yeah, "reasonable". His actions don't sound reasonable based on current info.

At 10 pm a black teenage male allegedly rang the doorbell, and that's going to put people one edge, especially senior citizens. I understand shooting to save your life or your property, but not when someone rings the door bell at the wrong house. Homeowner Andrew Lester could have simply told Ralph Yarl that he is at the wrong home and given him time to leave. Andrew Lester is probably a shoots first and asks questions later type person.

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

At 10 pm a black teenage male allegedly rang the doorbell, and that's going to put people one edge, especially senior citizens. I understand shooting to save your life or your property, but not when someone rings the door bell at the wrong house. Homeowner Andrew Lester could have simply told Ralph Yarl that he is at the wrong home and given him time to leave. Andrew Lester is probably a shoots first and asks questions later type person.

---

Exactly, and I don't think there's a "shoot first, ask questions later" provision in MO law.

TxTarpon said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

10pm, young black male ringing the doorbell. Unfortunately it's going to put people one edge given the events of the last several years. American minds have been trained to fear instead of trust and that's sad.

I hope this was caught on camera somewhere. If he did shoot him again after he fell he needs to go away for a long time. The first shot *may* have been legal depending on the circumstances.

---

Unsure about that state, in Texas shooting through the door has resulted in homeowners not going to prison.
We had one case in Bexar county where a guy (teen, wrong house) was shot on the ground by the homeowner after a foot chase. The jury acquitted the homeowner.

---

There was one in Louisiana, I think, a few years ago in which a Japanese foreign exchange student was shot at the wrong house.

I don't remember the details, but I think that he was running at the homeowner and yelling something unintelligible.

Of course, there were new calls for gun control. That's a major problem with any shooting like this because the gun control fans invariably use it to try to justify their own position on gun control.

WaltonAg18 said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

As in, the teen was running away from the house and the homeowner was still firing at him? I'd love to know more facts about this case because that's damn near an open and shut case for a conviction.

---

IIRC the language of the law says that you can fire upon someone "in the act of or fleeing from committing a crime", something along those lines.

---

If that is true, then what crime did the kid commit that he was fleeing from?

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

At 10 pm a black teenage male allegedly rang the doorbell, and that's going to put people one edge, especially senior citizens. I understand shooting to save your life or your property, but not when someone rings the door bell at the wrong house. Homeowner Andrew Lester could have simply told Ralph Yarl that he is at the wrong home and given him time to leave. Andrew Lester is probably a shoots first and asks questions later type person.

---

Did you read the part about him seeing the kid start pulling on the outer door handle?

Anonymous Source said:

---

AggieCo2023 said:

---

You're allowed to shoot anyone who rings your door bell in the head with no warning??

---

Jehovah's Witnesses, you're on notice!

---

They might return fire.

I know of one case in which someone thought that was a Jehovah's Witness walking up his sidewalk and knocking on his door, but it actually turned out to be an FBI agent.

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

At 10 pm a black teenage male allegedly rang the doorbell, and that's going to put people one edge, especially senior citizens. I understand shooting to save your life or your property, but not when someone rings the door bell at the wrong house. Homeowner Andrew Lester could have simply told Ralph Yarl that he is at the wrong home and given him time to leave. Andrew Lester is probably a shoots first and asks questions later type person.

---

Yeah, and as we all know, that's not a good type of person to be.

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

oh no said:

---

I have no idea what happened here; just saw this on my timeline and thought this was the right thread for it. Seems that some sites say he rang the wrong doorbell while others say he entered the wrong house.

---

The only thing saying he went in is the exact tweet you posted. The prosecutor has said there was no evidence of that.

---

What did the prosecutor say in the Daniel Perry trial? Prosecutors lie all the time.

What I haven't seen posted/reported is some of the other "strange" parts of the situation.

How often these days do you go to a stranger's house and not have them text you the address so you can enter in maps, etc?

When you pull up to a stranger's house, particularly late at night, it is pretty common to text them to know you are there.

How old were the younger brothers and why were they out so late?

even if we had answers to all your questions it doesn't excuse anything

AggieUSMC said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

The law clearly says attempted entry and reasonable harm

---

Yeah, "reasonable". His actions don't sound reasonable based on current info.

---

The laws say nothing about his actions being reasonable.

He must meet these requirements:

Remember he's an 85 year old man responding to someone trying ringing his doorbell at 10pm, and then trying to enter his home uninvited.

" A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:"(none of the unless apply)

Check
And

" He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;"

Check
And

" Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or"

Check.

This case meets all three of those.


Additionally:

" 3. A person does not have a duty to retreat:
(1) From a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining;
(2) From private property that is owned or leased by such individual; or"

He meets that requirement as well.

barbacoa taco said:

---

even if we had answers to all your questions it doesn't excuse anything

---

You need to read the law and stop responding to emotions.

Yeah, nothing I've seen thus far leads me to believe it was reasonable to believe he needed to use lethal force to prevent any of those.

"He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;"

All you have is a teenager rang your doorbell and may have touched door handle. None of that reasonably leads to death, injury, or felony.

I'm always surprised at how many people don't listen to tbe Titan rule. We're not that far removed from when it was established.

AggieKatie2 said:

---

Yeah, nothing I've seen thus far leads me to believe it was reasonable to believe he needed to use lethal force to prevent any of those.

"He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;"

All you have is a teenager rang your doorbell and may have touched door handle. None of that reasonably leads to death, injury, or felony.

---

Your picking and choosing facts.

aggielostinETX said:

---

AggieKatie2 said:

---

Yeah, nothing I've seen thus far leads me to believe it was reasonable to believe he needed to use lethal force to prevent any of those.

"He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;"

All you have is a teenager rang your doorbell and may have touched door handle. None of that reasonably leads to death, injury, or felony.

---

Your picking and choosing facts.

---

What facts? That it was 10 at night? The color of his skin? His gender?

"He may have touched handle"

Nothing you listed pertains to the law. The only thing law cares about is that he attempted to open the door and the person behind it felt there was a reasonable threat.

aggielostinETX said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

even if we had answers to all your questions it doesn't excuse anything

---

You need to read the law and stop responding to emotions.

---

I am familiar with the law generally, though I am not as well versed in the nuances in Missouri law. Nothing I have seen so far comes close to justifying deadly force in this situation, as you seem to think it does. Sounds like you really want this kid to be in the wrong here.

There are so many ways you can deescalate the situation, or at the very least warn the kid, without resorting to deadly force. Even if I concede that the first shot was reasonable, the second shot absolutely was not and was a clear attempt to kill when he was not under a threat.

This man will get his day in court, so he can make his case, but I think he's dead in the water.

aggielostinETX said:

---

"He may have touched handle"

Nothing you listed pertains to the law. The only thing law cares about is that he attempted to open the door and the person behind it felt there was a reasonable threat.

---

For your sake, please don't shoot someone because you think they touched your front door handle

on a serious note, UPS and Fedex are probably about to start offering their delivery drivers serious hazard pay.

barbacoa taco said:

---

on a serious note, UPS and Fedex are probably about to start offering their delivery drivers serious hazard pay.

---

The next time, one of those drivers deliver something at 10 PM and tries to open my front door, will be a first.

aggielostinETX said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

on a serious note, UPS and Fedex are probably about to start offering their delivery drivers serious hazard pay.

---

The next time, one of those drivers deliver something at 10 PM and tries to open my front door, will be a first.

---

What if his prints aren't on the door handle?

Do you change your mind this might be justified?

aggielostinETX said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

on a serious note, UPS and Fedex are probably about to start offering their delivery drivers serious hazard pay.

---

The next time, one of those drivers deliver something at 10 PM and tries to open my front door, will be a first.

---

Do you actually know he attempted to open the door? Why are you saying that like it's a fact?

Why don't you humor me and answer the 1st 2.

I know when I go to a person's house for the first time, stranger or not, I have their phone number and have them send me the address.

When people come to my house for the first time I do the same.

Do you not find that at all strange?

Quote:

---

" Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or"

Check.

---

At what point was their "unlawful entry" or "attempted unlawful entry"?


I have a storm door. Many front door knockers open it to knock on my wood front door.
There is no "entry" opening a storm door. The opener is still outside.
There is no "attempted entry" since the main door handle is untouched.

Quote:

---

Lester came to the door and shot Yarl in the head then shot him again. No words were exchanged before the shooting, the probable cause statement said.

Lester told police that he lives alone and had just gone to bed when he heard his doorbell, according to a probable cause statement. He said he picked up his gun and went to the door, where he saw a Black male pulling on the exterior storm door handle and thought someone was breaking in.Link

---

[url=https://news.yahoo.com/kansas-city-man-charged-shooting-233015359.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFNc-jIcgceZDPvXl_t9i8VBpOaENH80xgZVNVDS2u7ZRPIRqERzoGTaCxSvc5zxmpuwSRGY_TyzJkdQaKc6Hftt2cx83grmTaOOYOUyGyhRhNLgTV30ZkEgCr5sIzaEHRvLyPaGisiuEBYh7FQ3cFbJXssK_oLGam8kXTtCCeFn][/url]

aggielostinETX said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

on a serious note, UPS and Fedex are probably about to start offering their delivery drivers serious hazard pay.

---

The next time, one of those drivers deliver something at 10 PM and tries to open my front door, will be a first.

---

Every weekend evening, tens of thousands or more Americans touch someone's door handle trying to figure out if the door is unlocked or if they need to ring the doorbell to get into the house party they're trying to attend.

God bless anyone who goes to the wrong house, eh?

Scotty Appleton said:

---

Why don't you humor me and answer the 1st 2.

I know when I go to a person's house for the first time, stranger or not, I have their phone number and have them send me the address.

When people come to my house for the first time I do the same.

Do you not find that at all strange?

---

I dont know the answers to the questions, so no, I cannot answer them. Why does it matter? We dont need to answer every conceivable question. Nothing revealed so far makes me think it was okay for this man to shoot the kid not once, but a second time while he was wounded.

Where are you going with this?