White homeowner accused of shooting Black teen who went to the wrong house in KC will face felonies

Yes yes, always the liberals fault.

Thankfully we have the republicans here to save us from bad beer and internet apps!

 

I stand to be corrected not across town, two neighborhoods around the corner from each other, not just a different house number.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9183748,-94.5865462,17.5z

 

Fingerprints on the storm door would be irrelevant as the defendant shot through it.

The victim also was not armed

He was also shot while laying on the ground


Is it self defense to shoot someone that is wounded on the ground?

 

Don't know that's the reason he opened the door, merely to get a shot off that is.

The person does not have to be known to be armed and it is ATTEMPTED unlawful entry not actual entry under the law.

I have not read that he stepped out side and shot and I don't know that you can speak his mind as to when he would believe the threat subdued.

A reasonable expectation will come into his state of mind. Did you agree to the level of apprehensions I ramped it up with? Do you recall Jesse Jackson stating he crossed the street when he saw a group of black teens? We know that the likelihood of a person at your door has committed a crime in the past and likely to do so in the future can be factored by race/age and that that would point to young black males. As unfortunate as that is you don't agree?

And you have already convicted him in your opinion?

 

Again, someone has to be presenting a threat — because one old man deems black teens mere existence and not action to satisfy that requirement isn’t going to play well in court.

Unless something major is uncovered and with the current evidence against him, he will most likely be found guilty.

 

Absence of them could be relevant just as much as they being present.

Irrelevant.

Yarl says he was on the ground but I believe both shots were through the outer door.

Depends.......are you required to shoot, go and look, and then may shoot again. The guy fired off two shots you nor Yarl knows who well aimed they were.

 

An attempted unlawful entry IS a threat under the law, you can't escape that fact of law. I have no idea what he will be found and hope we get more evidence to lead to a beyond a reasonable doubt conclusion. But I can't just want him to be guilty of a crime so he can be punished therefore let's convict him. That's now how justice works.

 

Opening a door isn’t unlawful entry.
Are you really suggesting that it should be legal to shoot through the door to anyone that knocks on your door?

 

Sad to say, as a small government libertarian sort, I don't look to the Republicans to do Jack *****. Just posture and pander. There are a few that are have principles. Rand Paul for example. But not too many.

 

I did acknowledge that I might be missing some critical context. Thank you for proving it.

 

Bluesguy
Well-Known Member

A reasonable expectation will come into his state of mind. Did you agree to the level of apprehensions I ramped it up with? Do you recall Jesse Jackson stating he crossed the street when he saw a group of black teens? We know that the likelihood of a person at your door has committed a crime in the past and likely to do so in the future can be factored by race/age and that that would point to young black males. As unfortunate as that is you don't agree?



And you have already convicted him in your opinion?[/QUOTE]

Quite the racist claim.
Try that defence for Lester in a court of law.
You just claimed that every young black male who rings a doorbell or knocks on a residential door of being a "likely" criminal.

 

Posturing and pandering is all either party seems to really be effective at.

I am not really a small or big government person, I prefer an organized and efficient government.

 

Bluesguy stated:" The mistake was not a street number on a street where the houses all look the same. It was a mistake between streets with the same name but different type as "St" or "Ave." or "Ct." in entirely different parts of the city. "

So I would say to Bluesguy excuse me check the facts out,Yarl went to pick up his sibling at 115th Terrace but mistakenly went to 115th St., 1 block away. So don't tell the this crap he went to an entirely different neighbourhood. You want to say he was black and went into a white neighbourhood spit it out man,.

Next Bluesguy send the glass door was opened by Yarl. Horse crap. If he had opened it, and the door was open why did he shoot through it which he stated and is clear. He shot through the glass door because it was closed. Yarl opened his inner door and stated because of the size of the person at the door he shot him. The door was closed until Lester opened it so he could not see the glass door was open, Then once he opened the inner door of the glass door was open as Bluesguy says it was, why did he shoot through it?

Next Lester did not speak to the boy until he shot him. He admits his only words are, "you do not belong here". Why would he have needed to open his door and shoot, if he had actually stated that before he opened the door. Why did he not ask the person ringing behind his closed door to go away or at least ask him what he wanted? Why did he not call police if he was afraid let alone open the door? Stating the glass door was open is nonsense.

Next Blue asked me if I agree that someone ringing a doorbell unexpectedly at 10PM at night would raise my attention and he then uses this phrase..." to say the least and even in an apprehensive manner even some fearful manner?"

The question is dishonest. Even if I or anyone believes Lester was frightened that is not the question to ask in regards to what happened. The question to ask which is the heart of the issue is-Why would anyone with a genuine fear, open the door in the first place? Why wouldn't Lester have: a-called the police; b-told the person at the door he had called the police, had a gun and would shoot if he tried to break in and wait at the door and not open it and stand there with his gun and wait for the police? Why would he open the door knowing it would expose him to a potential killer if that is what he believed? More to the point, why would he not have asked him what he wanted behind the closed door? Why would he only speak to him after he shot him to say he the boy did not belong there. As well the photo of the boy is public domain. His face was not hidden at all. If he was a home invader would be not try cover his face?

Bluesguy believes and is making pretenses to excuse shoot first, think second.

We all know why. What a crock that he was in an entirely different neighbourhood. Spit it out Blues, why was the neighbourhood entirely different. Give it a rest.

You don't jump to conclusions it was about race-you? How equalitarian and open minded of you. Of course Lester saw no black monster at his door, just a monster.

 

Yet it didn’t happen.

 

This happened in Michigan and the shooter was convicted of 2nd degree murder.
Shooting through the door because you feared for your life didn't fly.

'Lawyer explains Michigan's castle doctrine law: When you can and can't shoot an intruder'

snip:

"You can protect yourself or someone else, only if the person is inside your home," Barone said. "Being outside the home on the porch, in the front yard, over by the garage, none of that matters."

He gave an example of People v. Wafer, a case in which a young woman came to Theodore Wafer's home in the middle of the night, pounding on his door. Wafer pulled out his rifle, shot through the door, and killed the young woman, Barone said.

“Even though he may have believed that she was about to break and enter into the home, she had not done that," Barone said. "She was still outside the home, and he was essentially in no danger."

Barone said people should remember the castle doctrine is a defense, not a preclusion to prosecution. It’s not enough for a person to simply have an honest and reasonable belief that a breaking and entering is taking place, he said. If they're wrong in their belief, and it’s later determined that a breaking and entering was not taking place, then the defense will not apply."



https://wwmt.com/news/local/lawyer-...e-law-when-you-can-and-cant-shoot-an-intruder





"The murder of Renisha McBride,

a 19-year-old African American teenager, occurred on November 2, 2013, in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, United States. Renisha McBride crashed her car while intoxicated at a street in Detroit, and then walked to a neighborhood in Dearborn Heights where she knocked on the door of a house.

The homeowner, 54 year old Theodore Wafer, shot McBride with a shotgun. Wafer contended that the shooting was accidental and that he thought his home was being broken into after he heard her banging on his door at 4:42 in the morning.[2]

Wafer was convicted of second-degree murder on August 7, 2014,[3] and received a sentence of 17 to 32 years in prison. He may be eligible for parole in 2031.[4]"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Renisha_McBride

 

Never said he was charged under this statute, but the statute in question does show how and where a person can use self-defense on their person no matter what they are charged. It is the only statute if you perform an internet search of using "being fearful" or using force when necessary. And if you look at the statutes the person was charged with, there is no affirmitve or definitive definition in which they could reasonably defend themself. It is quite common here for anyone being charged with assault to use some sort of self-defense argument so that they can cause reasonable doubt, and Self defense doctrine is usually found in the statutes where homicide is involved even though the defendant was not charged with homicide. Understand now?

 

You will be surprised with no evidence of mental illness and yet they will claim it anyway. Classic example is a female giving birth and has multiple kids, but at some point, decides to kill them anyway. But if you are using the word "fear of someone" that can indicate an insanity defense. It's a long shot, but defense attorneys are known sometimes for going the long shot on any and all cases.

 

Except for the fact that when he opened the door, saw the person who rang the doorbell, and then shot him without saying a word. That is not under any definition of "reosonable" in my book.

This has nothing to do with cultural norms. What you are saying is that people should be afraid of Black people. Have to ask you, are you really afraid of someone named Jet Li, or anyone who you know is a 3rd-degree dan? And by using cultural norms, you are introducing the race card directly into evidence, and the court of criminal procedures is not going to allow that to happen in any case unless you will admit that the defendant is a die hard racist. Now good defense attorney is going to do that type of argument in any court of law, at least not in the US.

 

Not a big deal but your map is showing streets in Johnson County Kansas, the shooting took place in Clay County Missouri, which is off your map to the north.

 

Thanks,
Here's the NE 115 Terrace and NE 115 Street
They're still one black from each other in Clay County
A poster claimed that Yarl went to the other side of the city from where his siblings were, which was wrong.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3019971,-94.573873,17z

 

I've read bond conditions that have included no internet or restricted use but never the monitoring of a defendant's cell phone.
Lester said he used his home phone to call 911 after shooting Ralph Yarl.
Has Lester's 911 recording been released?
Could this monitoring have anything to do with Thompson's claim that there are "racist components" in this case?


"During the hearing, Judge Angles added several additional conditions to Lester's bond, including that he cannot leave the state of Missouri without permission from his bond supervisor and must surrender his passport and concealed carry permit.

Other conditions of his bond include supervision with Midwest ADP, monitoring of his cell phone, inability to possess weapons of any type and not having direct or indirect contact with Yarl or his family."


cont:
https://www.kshb.com/news/crime/ral...ster-pleads-not-guilty-in-arraignment-hearing

 

Pick at random a white person, an asian person, a native american and a young black male and which one is more likely to have a criminal record or will have one in the future?

Do you denying this?

We know that the likelihood of a person at your door has committed a crime in the past and likely to do so in the future can be factored by race/age and that that would point to young black males. As unfortunate as that is you don't agree?

I can go to my local news everyday and see the violent crimes, shootings armed robbery and even home breakins, and the vast majority committed by blacks. I can turn on my cable news every night but especially on Monday mornings and read about all the shootings and lootings and crime committed in black neighborhoods.

I can go a read the FBI crime statistics and read the same. Are you saying that unless you engage in a denial of reality your are a racist?

 

Trying to go through a locked door is an attempted unlawful entry. Knocking on a door isn't. Are you left with such inane questions?

 

Why did you leave out that he states the person was trying to force open the locked storm door? Don't you think that is relevant to your stating what occurred?

 

In what way did he try to "force open" the storm door beyond just trying to open it? Please. Be specific.