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

The questions are inane because the position you are taking is laughable

 

Wait . . . so @Bluesguy is seriously claiming that it is illegal to try to open a storm door? For ****'s sake. Bluesguy, you will be the ONLY person in the country making this argument. Everyone who has ever experienced a storm door has opened a storm door to knock at some point in their lives. Ask any Girl Scout, Boy Scout, Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, traveling salespeople, canvassers, or (once again) ANYONE WHO HAS EVERY ENCOUNTERED A STORM DOOR.

 

Try to open a LOCKED outer door a a private residence to which you have no legal entry yes that can be reasonably assumed an attempted unlawful entry under the law. I suggest you not go around your neighborhood late at night trying to open locked outer doors. And I have never had one of those groups ever try to open a locked door of mine. The are not just storm doors they are SECURITY doors.

https://www.larsondoors.com/storm-doors/security-screen-storm-doors

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url...=2ahUKEwjN-ZDB6sL-AhXglIQIHS4dAkAQjRx6BAgAEA0

 

It's totally racist for anyone to assume that a young black male who knocks on your door has committed a crime in the past and likely to do so in the future due to black crime statistics.
Go tell that to the judge, that black crime warrants Lester's shooting a black teen in the head then adding insult to injury shot him again after he fell.
Your claims are racist no matter how many hoops you keep jumping through.

 

This is a storm door


This is a security door



Numerous reports as well as neighbors have said he was cleaning up glass as he shot through the door — a security door is not made of glass.

Excuse number 207,635 doesn’t hold water.

 

Pssst . . . you don't know if a storm door is locked or not until you try to open it. Again, how do you not know this?

 

No I am not saying people should be afraid of anyone let alone blacks. My statement is that I believe personally the jury picked will probably believe it is normal in Missouri because of their standard of cultural norms that being afraid of blacks is so engrained in the culture that shooting a black young man without speaking to him first would appear understandable and therefore reasonable. That is my take. Its not based on anything but my own perceptions of what I read and seems to be widespread as beliefs, i.e., cultural norms. I am not commenting on whether those norms are right or wrong.

Of course cultural norms deals directly with how citizens of the US and specifically in this case Missouri distrust and fear one another and this is amplified when there is race differential.

I do believe had the boy shot been white Lester would not have shot him and his pretense that he shot the boy because of his "size" really refers to his skin colour not his size. That is my personal take.

There are unfortunately repeat examples in the US of shoot first find out what the person was up to after they were shot because of this fear, this access to guns and on top of that the added distrust between the races. Those are all my subjective opinions as I have made clear. No more no less.

I myself do not find it reasonable that Lester would have shot the boy without:

1-first calling the police
2-not opening the door but waiting behind the door for the police
3-try speak to the boy behind the closed door and asked him what he wanted.

I also do not find it probable if he was afraid he would open the door to shoot but would be too afraid to open the door.

Opening the door does not suggest fear, it suggests anger and aggression in my opinion.

 

Yes. It was a glass door and if the glass door was opened by the boy as some are claiming, he would not have shot through the glass door because it would have been at an angle being open making that improbable if not very difficult to do.

For me as well it makes no sense you open your main door for any reason if you are in fear of your life. You would leave it locked, call the police and wait until the police came. Opening the inside door as Lester did suggests a choice to confront and shoot, which are not acts of fear and defense but aggression or deliberate attempt to escalate. The argument fear causes you to open a door and shoot to me makes less sense then calling police and waiting behind the door locked and closed and if anything screaming go away or what do you want which did not happen. Even Lester said the only words he said were after he shot him and "you do not belong here". The words "you do not belong here" show no remorse upon seeing it was a boy with no gun. If he was genuinely afraid of the boy's size as Lester claims why would he not have said after the shooting something like "you can't hurt me now"? "Do not belong" does not refer to fear of size it suggests the conclusion of NOT BELONGING not threatening, i.e., not that he was threatening him but that he didn't belong in the neighbourhood. The notion he did not belong because of his size makes no sense.

All that said I think the jury will know the pretense that he feared his "size" really meant skin colour, and when he said do not belong he meant because of his skin colour not his size. That said even if he shot because of his skin colour I believe a jury from Missouri will find it understandable and therefore reasonable as I have argued I think that kind of belief is a cultural norm in Missouri.

I also believe he can try deny all race fear questions saying who me, no no no, I was not worried or addressing his skin colour-it was his size nothing else.

Its a moot point. Premature shooting with no attempt to ascertain whether deadly force was needed and whether it makes sense to open a door and not call the police and wait, I think will all be ignored by a jury.

I think the underlying bias and fears that generated this shooting are so deeply entrenched that this jury will not be ready yet to acknowledge them no different than many on this thread claim there was no race component or that the boy opened the glass door even though the glass door was shot through.

 

For starters there's no evidence that Yarl was pulling on the door , no less with the intent to enter Lester's residence.

 

I am here to save you. Repent before it is too late.

 

Read the finding of fact. That is his statement and will be his defense.

 

So is what I showed you. Did you compare the locks and casing?

Again I would urge you to not go around your neighborhood trying to open locked storm/security doors late at night, someone could perceive you were engaged in an unlawful entry.

 

The law doesn’t allow for you to execute people that open a storm or security door, many people do that to knock.

The place y’all either think this country is or desire it to become is disturbing.

 

And no business attempting, that's why the law specifies attempting. Why would you be attempting if your purpose wasn't to open it and even sticking your arm through is considered entry.

You're gonna have to deal with the law here just as will the prosecutor. Right now it appears all he has is the statements of the two parties.

 

If attempting to open a storm door to knock were an executable offense and was considered "entry" even when the door behind it was closed, then you'd support the summary executions of Girl Scouts and Mormons for doing so. You are going to have to deal with the fact that you are misrepresenting the law.

 

I have cited the law that does. Neither of us know exactly what happened at that door. At this point it doesn't appear the prosecutor has much more. For you to use the inflammatory "execution" serves no purpose.

 

Cite one law that says it is illegal to open a storm door to knock on the door behind it. Cite one law that doing so justifies homicide.

 

There is a law that allows someone to shoot a non-threatening individual for trying to open a screened/storm/security door that leads to an exterior door?

Where?

 

You'll notice he's the one arguing that this is the case. There's a reason, of course.

 

there is a law that allows someone to defend against an attempted unlawful entry into a dependable property you have been shown.

 

Where is the law that says opening a storm door to knock on the actual door is "unlawful entry"? Is it illegal for me to mow down Girl Scouts and Jehovah's Witnesses for doing so?

 

Cited me a law that say a person can enter a home without permission through a locked outer door.

 

He didn't enter the home and there is no evidence he attempted to. All we know he tried to do is to open the storm door, which Girl Scouts and Jehovah's Witnesses do all of the time to knock. Why are you okay with gunning down Girl Scouts when they open a storm door to knock?

 

You are making the assertion that attempting to open a secondary door and not entering the dwelling justifies lethal source.

Post the statute

 

Everyone who has encountered a storm door has done this at some point: open the storm door and knock on the actual door. Every Girl Scout, Boy Scout, and missionary has done this. There's a reason why @Bluesguy is the only one pretending that this is a crime and that it justifies homicide.