I could introduce hundreds of cases people you would deem as reasonable are dead, because they were not self-aware, or as you say, paranoid.

TxTarpon said:

---

Yes
Dude with a clean record shows up to do a home invasion by ringing the doorbell.

---

No crap. There's certainly no duty to retreat in your own home, but holy crap, there's a mile wide difference between banging on a door / refusing to leave / trying to gain access to the home and opening a storm door to ring a doorbell.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

TxTarpon said:

---

Yes
Dude with a clean record shows up to do a home invasion by ringing the doorbell.

---

No crap. There's certainly no duty to retreat in your own home, but holy crap, there's a mile wide difference between banging on a door / refusing to leave / trying to gain access to the home and opening a storm door to ring a doorbell.

---

I know you guys think you are making some brilliant "gotcha" point, but you are only showcasing your ignorance imo. A large % of home invasions begin with a knock or doorbell ring. Why WOULDN'T a criminal knock or ring the doorbell if it is a home invasion/burglary? The last thing they want is for people to be home. I could see if it was some assassination or hit job attempt. But criminals are trying to see if people are home.

And his comment about "clean record" is 100% meaningless. Just designed to appeal to emotions.

Even though soliciting is not permitted, we get people at our doorstep from time to time. Often times, i just pretend not to be home, so they go away...which they always do. However, if one of them ever started to try to turn our door handle (as alleged), I would without a doubt immediately arm myself just in case they breach. Fight or flight response would definitely kick in at that point.

if evidence comes out that the kid actually tried to enter the house, or did enter the house, I'll gladly change my stance. but if he just rang the doorbell and didnt try to go in, then yeah, the shooter was a paranoid loon looking for a reason to kill.

I'd be more agnostic on this if he had shot once. I'd still hate it, but there would be more plausible deniability. But he didnt. He shot again, a clear attempt to kill when there was no threat. Zero sympathy for the shooter.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

TxTarpon said:

---

Yes
Dude with a clean record shows up to do a home invasion by ringing the doorbell.

---

No crap. There's certainly no duty to retreat in your own home, but holy crap, there's a mile wide difference between banging on a door / refusing to leave / trying to gain access to the home and opening a storm door to ring a doorbell.

---

I know you guys think you are making some brilliant "gotcha" point, but you are only showcasing your ignorance imo. A large % of home invasions begin with a knock or doorbell ring. Why WOULDN'T a criminal knock or ring the doorbell if it is a home invasion/burglary? I could see if it was some assassination or hit job attempt. But criminals are trying to see if people are home.

And his comment about "clean record" is 100% meaningless. Just designed to appeal to emotions.

---

No. There's no gotcha here. You shouldn't shoot someone for knocking on your door and ringing your doorbell just because you think they could be casing it to see if you're home.

Becuase, if you're wrong you just tried to kill someone for knocking on your door.

It's almost as if some of you want this to happen.

barbacoa taco said:

---

if evidence comes out that the kid actually tried to enter the house, or did enter the house, I'll gladly change my stance. but if he just rang the doorbell and didnt try to go in, then yeah, the shooter was a paranoid loon looking for a reason to kill.

I'd be more agnostic on this if he had shot once. I'd still hate it, but there would be more plausible deniability. But he didnt. He shot again, a clear attempt to kill when there was no threat. Zero sympathy for the shooter.

---

Agreed, I think almost all of us can agree there.

barbacoa taco said:

---

the law does not require it to be what YOU think is reasonable. It's what a REASONABLE PERSON thinks is reasonable. I contend that a reasonable person would at least attempt to diffuse the situation or warn the person to leave, before immediately trying to kill them. Because the reasonable person is not trigger happy and paranoid. I think the jury would feel the same and that the shooter will have a hard time proving his actions were reasonable.

---

Oh my my, where to begin with this.

Let's start here.

Quote:

---

I think the jury would feel the same and that the shooter will have a hard time proving his actions were reasonable.

---

Defense does not have the burden of proof, even in self defense cases. And that is true in all 50 states since Ohio finally changed their statutes in 2019. Period. Full stop.

Quote:

---

I contend that a reasonable person would at least attempt to diffuse the situation or warn the person to leave, before immediately trying to kill them.

---

This is where prosecutors often get into trouble by placing "duties" on defendants because it is in effect the same as above, burden shifting. "He could have done something else!" is not a proper argument if the laws of the state are stand your ground/castle doctrine.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

TxTarpon said:

---

Yes
Dude with a clean record shows up to do a home invasion by ringing the doorbell.

---

No crap. There's certainly no duty to retreat in your own home, but holy crap, there's a mile wide difference between banging on a door / refusing to leave / trying to gain access to the home and opening a storm door to ring a doorbell.

---

I know you guys think you are making some brilliant "gotcha" point, but you are only showcasing your ignorance imo. A large % of home invasions begin with a knock or doorbell ring. Why WOULDN'T a criminal knock or ring the doorbell if it is a home invasion/burglary? I could see if it was some assassination or hit job attempt. But criminals are trying to see if people are home.

And his comment about "clean record" is 100% meaningless. Just designed to appeal to emotions.

---

No. There's no gotcha here. You shouldn't shoot someone for knocking on your door and ringing your doorbell just because you think they could be casing it to see if you're home.

Becuase, if you're wrong you just tried to kill someone for knocking on your door.

It's almost as if some of you want this to happen.

---

Again, I am responding to his "clean record" and "ringing the doorbell" comments. So many home invasions start with criminal ringing the door bell or knocking. And "clean record" is meaningless.

I am operating under the assumption that he did in fact start turning the door handle (that may very well be a lie)...In that event, I could see that escalating things dramatically. That is when I would be scared enough to arm myself, for sure.

If he really just did ring the doorbell, it's bullsh** for sure, send the crazy old man to jail.

aggiehawg said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

the law does not require it to be what YOU think is reasonable. It's what a REASONABLE PERSON thinks is reasonable. I contend that a reasonable person would at least attempt to diffuse the situation or warn the person to leave, before immediately trying to kill them. Because the reasonable person is not trigger happy and paranoid. I think the jury would feel the same and that the shooter will have a hard time proving his actions were reasonable.

---

Oh my my, where to begin with this.

Let's start here.

Quote:

---

I think the jury would feel the same and that the shooter will have a hard time proving his actions were reasonable.

---

Defense does not have the burden of proof, even in self defense cases. And that is true in all 50 states since Ohio finally changed their statutes in 2019. Period. Full stop.

Quote:

---

I contend that a reasonable person would at least attempt to diffuse the situation or warn the person to leave, before immediately trying to kill them.

---

This is where prosecutors often get into trouble by placing "duties" on defendants because it is in effect the same as above, burden shifting. "He could have done something else!" is not a proper argument if the laws of the state are stand your ground/castle doctrine.

---

Fine, I should have used a word other than "proving." I'm aware that defense does not have a burden of proof other than affirmative defenses.

But I think the facts are stacked against the shooter and he's going to need to come up with a solid defense to get an acquittal. Right now I dont think he has an out with a stand your ground law, unless the kid actually did enter the house.

And the second shot is huge here. When the kid was on the ground after taking one bullet, he shot again. Hard to imagine a jury thinking that was a reasonable self-defense move.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I contend that a reasonable person would at least attempt to diffuse the situation or warn the person to leave, before immediately trying to kill them.

---

This is where prosecutors often get into trouble by placing "duties" on defendants because it is in effect the same as above, burden shifting. "He could have done something else!" is not a proper argument if the laws of the state are stand your ground/castle doctrine.

---

Prosecutors in "stand your ground" states usually usually get into this not because they're trying to place a "duty" on the defendant but as a probative measure into the "necessity" of the use of force.

"No duty to retreat" doesn't wipe out the necessity element of the use of force.

Quote:

---

And the second shot is huge here. When the kid was on the ground after taking one bullet, he shot again. Hard to imagine a jury thinking that was a reasonable self-defense move.

---

The second shot and the forensics of the angle of that shot will be crucial. Kid lived so we don't have an autopsy but his medical records should provide information regarding entry and exit wounds. Was he on the ground or not?

We do not know at this point.

You can tell who the prog leftists are in this thread, claiming you should 'de-escalate' a situation while in your own home. These are the type of people who argue you should let someone steal your property 'because they need it more than you do'.

As of right now, I think this guy is not guilty. 84 years old and wakes up in the dead of the night to someone trying to enter his house? Easy to imagine he is a little disoriented and simply reacted out of fear in his confusion.

I'll be interested to see if the defense brings any of the neighbors up as witnesses. Two other people refused to help this kid before a third person called 911. So two other people were alarmed enough by a bleeding 16 year old to refuse to help him. If they testify they were scared and alarmed when a stranger showed up bleeding on their porch, that is enough reason for the jury to believe the defendant acted in a reasonable manner.

BTW, unlike in Texas, Missouri does not allow a civilian to use deadly force only in defense of property. Pointing this out as I feel like it might be getting muddied here in the debate about whether he may or may not have "tried to enter."

Missouri only allows deadly force to defend against force against you (or a 3rd person.)

This guy will need to show the kid both tried to unlawfully enter and deadly force was reasonably necessary to prevent the kid from imminently using force against the guy.

Quote:

---

I'll be interested to see if the defense brings any of the neighbors up as witnesses. Two other people refused to help this kid before a third person called 911. So two other people were alarmed enough by a bleeding 16 year old to refuse to help him. If they testify they were scared and alarmed when a stranger showed up bleeding on their porch, that is enough reason for the jury to believe the defendant acted in a reasonable manner.

---

Interesting how you see the neighbors not helping as possibly supporting the defendant. I see it as the neighbors are cruel a-holes.

I'd be alarmed too no doubt, but the least you can do is call 911.

Buzzy said:

---

You can tell who the prog leftists are in this thread, claiming you should 'de-escalate' a situation while in your own home. These are the type of people who argue you should let someone steal your property 'because they need it more than you do'.

As of right now, I think this guy is not guilty. 84 years old and wakes up in the dead of the night to someone trying to enter his house? Easy to imagine he is a little disoriented and simply reacted out of fear in his confusion.

I'll be interested to see if the defense brings any of the neighbors up as witnesses. Two other people refused to help this kid before a third person called 911. So two other people were alarmed enough by a bleeding 16 year old to refuse to help him. If they testify they were scared and alarmed when a stranger showed up bleeding on their porch, that is enough reason for the jury to believe the defendant acted in a reasonable manner.

---

Not a leftist. Never voted for a Dem in my life.

Knocking on a door isn't a situation that needs to be de-escalated with a firearm.

Literally no one is saying that you should have a duty to retreat in your own home of someone is trying to enter said home.

People caught in the act stealing your stuff deserve to be shot… people arrested for stealing your stuff deserve to have their hand caught off.

I think this dude is guilty and shot a kid becuase he was black and knocked on his door at night.

I haven't read anything about the neighbors comments / actions so I have no opinion there. Regardless, if it happened after the shooting it wouldn't matter anyways.

Think that covers it all.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

And the second shot is huge here. When the kid was on the ground after taking one bullet, he shot again. Hard to imagine a jury thinking that was a reasonable self-defense move.

---

The second shot and the forensics of the angle of that shot will be crucial. Kid lived so we don't have an autopsy but his medical records should provide information regarding entry and exit wounds. Was he on the ground or not?

We do not know at this point.

---

This. People are assuming he was shot once, and then the killer slowly walked up to him as he lay dying on the ground, like in the movies, to finish him off...probably bc many want to believe that. It makes it even more "racist" in their minds.

In reality, most of these incidents are fast moving, chaotic, bang-bang, in nature. The actual evidence and ballistics will be super important.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Buzzy said:

---

You can tell who the prog leftists are in this thread, claiming you should 'de-escalate' a situation while in your own home. These are the type of people who argue you should let someone steal your property 'because they need it more than you do'.

As of right now, I think this guy is not guilty. 84 years old and wakes up in the dead of the night to someone trying to enter his house? Easy to imagine he is a little disoriented and simply reacted out of fear in his confusion.

I'll be interested to see if the defense brings any of the neighbors up as witnesses. Two other people refused to help this kid before a third person called 911. So two other people were alarmed enough by a bleeding 16 year old to refuse to help him. If they testify they were scared and alarmed when a stranger showed up bleeding on their porch, that is enough reason for the jury to believe the defendant acted in a reasonable manner.

---

Not a leftist. Never voted for a Dem in my life.

Knocking on a door isn't a situation that needs to be de-escalated with a firearm.

Literally no one is saying that you should have a duty to retreat in your own home of someone is trying to enter said home.

People caught in the act stealing your stuff deserve to be shot… people arrested for stealing your stuff deserve to have their hand caught off.

I think this dude is guilty and shot a kid becuase he was black and knocked on his door at night.

I haven't read anything about the neighbors comments / actions so I have no opinion there. Regardless, if it happened after the shooting it wouldn't matter anyways.

Think that covers it all.

---

Again, the shooter claims that he was opening the door. It could be 100% BS, but it's also just pure speculation/assumption to say that the kid just knocked on the door as a matter of fact. Your bias/agenda is showing.

We are ALL in agreement that you can't swiss cheese someone for knocking on your door. Literally no one thinks you can justifiably shoot people for that.

This guy probably isn't going to be able to justify the first shot, yet alone getting into the second shot. If this old fart doesn't croak before trial, I'm sure they'll thoroughly get into it but I don't think this will likely turn on anything about the second shot.

Quote:

---

Prosecutors in "stand your ground" states usually usually get into this not because they're trying to place a "duty" on the defendant but as a probative measure into the "necessity" of the use of force.

"No duty to retreat" doesn't wipe out the necessity element of the use of force.

---

The phrasing in attempting to make that point. There is also a proportionality element that can address that.

Innocence: Was Lester the aggressor?
Imminence: Did Yarl present an imminent threat to the 84 year old inside his house?
Proportionality: Was Lester's use of force proportional to the threat he perceived?
Avoidance: Not applicable here.
Reasonableness: Was Lester's use of force reasonable for the circumstances he perceived he was in? There is no requirement that Lester actually be correct but were his perceptions reasonable under the circumstances at the moments he took the shots?

Prosecution has to disprove to the jury any one of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury. If they are successful, self defense fails.

Eventhough the reporting has been awful on this, it appears Lester's counsel will have an uphill battle at least on the proportionality element. I assume the kid was unarmed but that is just my assumption at this point.

Reasonableness will bring in other circumstances, such as amount and severity of crimes recently committed in the neighborhood. Lester's medical conditions, if any, and other outside evidence. Again we do not know such additional details right now.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

This guy probably isn't going to be able to justify the first shot, yet alone getting into the second shot. If this old fart doesn't croak before trial, I'm sure they'll thoroughly get into it but I don't think this will likely turn on anything about the second shot.

---

Totally depends on if the teen was turning the door handle or not, imo. Footage should be able to tell a lot, assuming cameras were functioning and recording.

Quote:

---

Again, the shooter claims that he was opening the door. It could be 100% BS, but it's also just pure speculation/assumption to say that the kid just knocked on the door as a matter of fact.

---

Ask me which I think was more plausible.

Buzzy said:

---

I'll be interested to see if the defense brings any of the neighbors up as witnesses. Two other people refused to help this kid before a third person called 911. So two other people were alarmed enough by a bleeding 16 year old to refuse to help him. If they testify they were scared and alarmed when a stranger showed up bleeding on their porch, that is enough reason for the jury to believe the defendant acted in a reasonable manner.

---

LOL. Nonsense.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

This guy probably isn't going to be able to justify the first shot, yet alone getting into the second shot. If this old fart doesn't croak before trial, I'm sure they'll thoroughly get into it but I don't think this will likely turn on anything about the second shot.

---

Totally depends on if the teen was turning the door handle or not, imo. Footage should be able to tell a lot, assuming cameras were functioning and recording.

---

What footage? What cameras?

Quote:

---

This. People are assuming he was shot once, and then the killer slowly walked up to him as he lay dying on the ground, like in the movies, to finish him off...probably bc many want to believe that. It makes it even more "racist" in their minds.

In reality, most of these incidents are fast moving, chaotic, bang-bang, in nature. The actual evidence and ballistics will be super important.

---

Has anyone said what the crime rate in that neighborhood is? I also think it odd that Yarl was going to pick up his brothers from the house where they lived? He was unfamiliar with where his brothers lived? Or did the media get that wrong, too? Or was this neighborhood one in which every homes is cookie cutter in appearance?

Again, the other circumstances existing at the time.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

This guy probably isn't going to be able to justify the first shot, yet alone getting into the second shot. If this old fart doesn't croak before trial, I'm sure they'll thoroughly get into it but I don't think this will likely turn on anything about the second shot.

---

Totally depends on if the teen was turning the door handle or not, imo. Footage should be able to tell a lot, assuming cameras were functioning and recording.

---

Don't think it'll totally depend on that, either. As I was saying before, there's no right to use deadly force for defense of property in Missouri. The defendant will have to successfully equate the kid trying to turn the door handle with an imminent use of force against the defendant.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its irrelevant.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

This. People are assuming he was shot once, and then the killer slowly walked up to him as he lay dying on the ground, like in the movies, to finish him off...probably bc many want to believe that. It makes it even more "racist" in their minds.

In reality, most of these incidents are fast moving, chaotic, bang-bang, in nature. The actual evidence and ballistics will be super important.

---

Has anyone said what the crime rate in that neighborhood is? I also think it odd that Yarl was going to pick up his brothers from the house where they lived? He was unfamiliar with where his brothers lived? Or did the media get that wrong, too? Or was this neighborhood one in which every homes is cookie cutter in appearance?

Again, the other circumstances existing at the time.

---

News reports here say his parents sent him to pick up his siblings from a friend's house

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

This. People are assuming he was shot once, and then the killer slowly walked up to him as he lay dying on the ground, like in the movies, to finish him off...probably bc many want to believe that. It makes it even more "racist" in their minds.

In reality, most of these incidents are fast moving, chaotic, bang-bang, in nature. The actual evidence and ballistics will be super important.

---

Has anyone said what the crime rate in that neighborhood is? I also think it odd that Yarl was going to pick up his brothers from the house where they lived? He was unfamiliar with where his brothers lived? Or did the media get that wrong, too? Or was this neighborhood one in which every homes is cookie cutter in appearance?

Again, the other circumstances existing at the time.

---

Not seen a news story say the brothers lived there. Every news story I've read has consistently said he was going to pick his brothers up from a friend's house or just pick his brothers up. Happy to see a link to a story saying different, however

Quote:

---

News reports here say his parents sent him to pick up his siblings from a friend's house

---

Okay. Are you familiar with that area of KC?

BG Knocc Out said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

From cnn:

"Lester told police he fired immediately after answering the doorbell when he saw Ralph pulling on an exterior door handle, according to the probable cause document obtained by CNN."

No bill.

---

No bill? I don't think that's sufficient cause to fire through the door. Simply pulling on the handle is not actively trying to break in.

---

From Missouri law.
Pulling on a door handle is the same thing as attempting to open the door, right?

" (2) 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"

---

You missed the first part of the statute where it says "when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself". This means the actions must be reasonable and proportionate and the force must be properly escalated. Simply pulling on the handle would call for a verbal warning as the initial action. You don't immediately jump to firing through the door.

---

Supposedly there are a bunch of no trespassing signs up.

That counts as a warning, right?

The asymmetry here is important. Young physically imposing guy vs an 80 year old guy means the old guy can perceive a threat of great bodily harm in a situation that you might not necessarily perceive the same level of threat.

I have no idea what really happened. If the kid was yanking violently on the door, then this might be legit self defense. If he just rang the doorbell, not so sure.

---

Walking up to the door and ringing the bell is not trespassing no matter what signs are up. Besides, it was 10:30 at night and maybe he didn't see the signs anyway.

I don't care what State it is or what "castle doctrine" is on the books. There is no place in the country where simply ringing the doorbell and/or turning the handle on a storm door is sufficient cause to plug someone from the other side of said door and then shoot him again.

---

Be honest...let's play along with this scenario. It's 10:30pm at night. You are not eagerly awaiting any online orders, a black youth with no uniform on rings your door bell, then decides to start opening the storm door (hypothetical)...any sane human being, you included, is sh*tting bricks at that point, right? I think it would AT LEAST be prudent to arm yourself in that situation and be ready to shoot in the event he enters.

Maybe him tampering with the door isn't sufficient justification to shoot at that moment, but a reasonable person is justified in fearing a possible home invasion at that point, right?

If I see a dude, of any race, trying to open my outer door at night, I am rushing to get my gun and telling wife to take our toddler and hide in back.

Point being, if the shooter's testimony is correct, and the kid was turning his door handle...it would be completely normal to be scared AF and have some sort of fight or flight response. I hope we can at least all be honest and concede that.

---

There's a difference in being suspicious and preemptively shooting through the door. "Reasonable" is the operative word in the law and it's difficult to determine this guy's actions were reasonable based on the info currently available.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

From cnn:

"Lester told police he fired immediately after answering the doorbell when he saw Ralph pulling on an exterior door handle, according to the probable cause document obtained by CNN."

No bill.

---

No bill? I don't think that's sufficient cause to fire through the door. Simply pulling on the handle is not actively trying to break in.

---

From Missouri law.
Pulling on a door handle is the same thing as attempting to open the door, right?

" (2) 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"

---

You missed the first part of the statute where it says "when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself". This means the actions must be reasonable and proportionate and the force must be properly escalated. Simply pulling on the handle would call for a verbal warning as the initial action. You don't immediately jump to firing through the door.

---

Supposedly there are a bunch of no trespassing signs up.

That counts as a warning, right?

The asymmetry here is important. Young physically imposing guy vs an 80 year old guy means the old guy can perceive a threat of great bodily harm in a situation that you might not necessarily perceive the same level of threat.

I have no idea what really happened. If the kid was yanking violently on the door, then this might be legit self defense. If he just rang the doorbell, not so sure.

---

Walking up to the door and ringing the bell is not trespassing no matter what signs are up. Besides, it was 10:30 at night and maybe he didn't see the signs anyway.

I don't care what State it is or what "castle doctrine" is on the books. There is no place in the country where simply ringing the doorbell and/or turning the handle on a storm door is sufficient cause to plug someone from the other side of said door and then shoot him again.

---

Be honest...let's play along with this scenario. It's 10:30pm at night. You are not eagerly awaiting any online orders, a black youth with no uniform on rings your door bell, then decides to start opening the storm door (hypothetical)...any sane human being, you included, is sh*tting bricks at that point, right? I think it would AT LEAST be prudent to arm yourself in that situation and be ready to shoot in the event he enters.

Maybe him tampering with the door isn't sufficient justification to shoot at that moment, but a reasonable person is justified in fearing a possible home invasion at that point, right?

If I see a dude, of any race, trying to open my outer door at night, I am rushing to get my gun and telling wife to take our toddler and hide in back.

Point being, if the shooter's testimony is correct, and the kid was turning his door handle...it would be completely normal to be scared AF and have some sort of fight or flight response. I hope we can at least all be honest and concede that.

---

So if the youth is white are you going to be ****ting bricks and getting your gun?

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

From cnn:

"Lester told police he fired immediately after answering the doorbell when he saw Ralph pulling on an exterior door handle, according to the probable cause document obtained by CNN."

No bill.

---

No bill? I don't think that's sufficient cause to fire through the door. Simply pulling on the handle is not actively trying to break in.

---

From Missouri law.
Pulling on a door handle is the same thing as attempting to open the door, right?

" (2) 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"

---

You missed the first part of the statute where it says "when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself". This means the actions must be reasonable and proportionate and the force must be properly escalated. Simply pulling on the handle would call for a verbal warning as the initial action. You don't immediately jump to firing through the door.

---

Supposedly there are a bunch of no trespassing signs up.

That counts as a warning, right?

The asymmetry here is important. Young physically imposing guy vs an 80 year old guy means the old guy can perceive a threat of great bodily harm in a situation that you might not necessarily perceive the same level of threat.

I have no idea what really happened. If the kid was yanking violently on the door, then this might be legit self defense. If he just rang the doorbell, not so sure.

---

Walking up to the door and ringing the bell is not trespassing no matter what signs are up. Besides, it was 10:30 at night and maybe he didn't see the signs anyway.

I don't care what State it is or what "castle doctrine" is on the books. There is no place in the country where simply ringing the doorbell and/or turning the handle on a storm door is sufficient cause to plug someone from the other side of said door and then shoot him again.

---

Be honest...let's play along with this scenario. It's 10:30pm at night. You are not eagerly awaiting any online orders, a black youth with no uniform on rings your door bell, then decides to start opening the storm door (hypothetical)...any sane human being, you included, is sh*tting bricks at that point, right? I think it would AT LEAST be prudent to arm yourself in that situation and be ready to shoot in the event he enters.

Maybe him tampering with the door isn't sufficient justification to shoot at that moment, but a reasonable person is justified in fearing a possible home invasion at that point, right?

If I see a dude, of any race, trying to open my outer door at night, I am rushing to get my gun and telling wife to take our toddler and hide in back.

Point being, if the shooter's testimony is correct, and the kid was turning his door handle...it would be completely normal to be scared AF and have some sort of fight or flight response. I hope we can at least all be honest and concede that.

---

So if the youth is white are you going to be ****ting bricks and getting your gun?

---

I would personally be a little more on edge if a black male vs. a white one. For the same reason I would be more on edge if a white male vs. an Asian one. Stats matter. And certain groups commit way more of these types of crimes than others. I am not sure how that could be debated.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

From cnn:

"Lester told police he fired immediately after answering the doorbell when he saw Ralph pulling on an exterior door handle, according to the probable cause document obtained by CNN."

No bill.

---

No bill? I don't think that's sufficient cause to fire through the door. Simply pulling on the handle is not actively trying to break in.

---

From Missouri law.
Pulling on a door handle is the same thing as attempting to open the door, right?

" (2) 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"

---

You missed the first part of the statute where it says "when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself". This means the actions must be reasonable and proportionate and the force must be properly escalated. Simply pulling on the handle would call for a verbal warning as the initial action. You don't immediately jump to firing through the door.

---

Supposedly there are a bunch of no trespassing signs up.

That counts as a warning, right?

The asymmetry here is important. Young physically imposing guy vs an 80 year old guy means the old guy can perceive a threat of great bodily harm in a situation that you might not necessarily perceive the same level of threat.

I have no idea what really happened. If the kid was yanking violently on the door, then this might be legit self defense. If he just rang the doorbell, not so sure.

---

Walking up to the door and ringing the bell is not trespassing no matter what signs are up. Besides, it was 10:30 at night and maybe he didn't see the signs anyway.

I don't care what State it is or what "castle doctrine" is on the books. There is no place in the country where simply ringing the doorbell and/or turning the handle on a storm door is sufficient cause to plug someone from the other side of said door and then shoot him again.

---

Be honest...let's play along with this scenario. It's 10:30pm at night. You are not eagerly awaiting any online orders, a black youth with no uniform on rings your door bell, then decides to start opening the storm door (hypothetical)...any sane human being, you included, is sh*tting bricks at that point, right? I think it would AT LEAST be prudent to arm yourself in that situation and be ready to shoot in the event he enters.

Maybe him tampering with the door isn't sufficient justification to shoot at that moment, but a reasonable person is justified in fearing a possible home invasion at that point, right?

If I see a dude, of any race, trying to open my outer door at night, I am rushing to get my gun and telling wife to take our toddler and hide in back.

Point being, if the shooter's testimony is correct, and the kid was turning his door handle...it would be completely normal to be scared AF and have some sort of fight or flight response. I hope we can at least all be honest and concede that.

---

So if the youth is white are you going to be ****ting bricks and getting your gun?

---

I would personally be a little more on edge if a black male vs. a white one. For the same reason I would be more on edge if a white male vs. an Asian one. Stats matter. And certain groups commit way more of these types of crimes than others. I am not sure how that could be debated.

---

Not debating the stats at all.

Which is why I was asking BG the question, since he got all up in arms when I said IMO the kid got shot because the old guy saw a black teenager at his door. Then he turns around and says he's getting his gun in his hypothetical situation involving a black youth.

Branca released another discussion about this case.

Leaving intruder alive is not a good idea.

Kozmozag said:

---

Leaving intruder alive is not a good idea.

---

Good thing Ralph wasn't an intruder