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

So someone trying to open a locked garden gate can also be shot?

 

Actually, it's Joe Biden that told the nation to just fire through the door. The law abiding gun owners of America promptly called out Illegitimate Joe on his incredibly reckless and dangerous advice.

 

Criminal laws issue prohibitions of certain behaviour. They do not state what you can do.

You know damn well nocriminal law can state nor does it exist that states opening any door can be assumed to be a crime. Stop the b.s. You may believe its a reasonable ground to shoot someone but its not a crime. Opening a door itself can not be a crime. You would have to show if it was a crime there was criminal intent (mens rea) to open the door to commit a crime.

No you can not assume criminal intent you must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

You are mixing up the defense Lester is going to use as the basis of a crime you assume the boy committed. No opening a door is not a crime or would you have us believe the boy should be charged with a crime for opening the door. Finish that nonsense.

.What makes what you say even more disingenuous is you know damn well he did not break the door to open it and there is zero proof he even opened the door. More to the point why did he shoot through a glass door if it was open and the boy was holding the door open?

This is what the media have reported Lester as saying to the police:

“Lester stated he opened the interior door, and saw a black male approximately 6 feet tall pulling on the exterior storm door handle. He stated he believed someone was attempting to break into the house, and shot twice within a few seconds of opening the door,” according to the police statement. Lester told police he was “scared to death.”

If you believe the above why did he even open the door. How would he see through the door to know the boy was trying to break in? Why would he not have called police and waited to see if in fact the boy was trying to kick the door down and not shoot until the boy actually kicked the door in?

He opened the inner door. How fearful was that? Why would he help someone he feared breaking in get in unless his intent was to initiate a deliberate confrontation and shooting and not wait for police? That is not the act of someone waiting and using his gun as a last resort. Yah in your world you should own a gun and be able to not know from training you are only supposed to shoot as a last resort because if you are frightened or angry you may hurt yourself with the gun or not be able to use it properly. Right, he can own a gun but would never have been trained that to use a gun properly one must be calm and in control of their actions to lessen the chance of an unintended consequence. Hell no not in your world.


The evidence does not match the glass door being open at all because he shot through it. Using your argument even if he had opened it, how far could it have been opened if he shot through it?

Get real. He did not call or wait for police. He did not wait behind a closed door and scream out go away or ask him what he was up to. Through a closed door where he could see nothing he assumed a break in without seeing a damn thing. He opened the door and then argues since it looked like the boy had started opening the door he had the right to shoot him? Hello-had he kept the interior door shut and waited for police there would have been no reason to shoot. He never asked "what do you want?". He made no effort to use his shooting as a last resort remedy with no other choices available.

Yah you think that stupid reckless behaviour is understandable and reasonable. Got it. If that was your son and the man behind the door was black something tells me you would not be defending that shooter.

Yah its not a race issue. Hell no. His skin colour is a coincidence. It was his "six foot size". When he said "you don't belong here" after he shot him that's what we expect someone to say when he is afraid of someone's size and not an utterance such as "you scared the **** out of me".

What makes it even more interesting is that the very way you try misinterpret the law to assume a crime if someone opens a door was in fact REJECTED by the Missouri legislation-see

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/in-missouri-shooting-stand-your-ground-law-at-forefront-of-case

which explains:

"Last year, (2022) Missouri lawmakers considered legislation that would have presumed shooters claiming self-defense were acting reasonably — a measure dubbed the Make Murder Legal Act by a prosecutor opposing it. The bill failed.

Why do you think it failed and now you try argue its the law?

Here is a recent picture of the boy who was shot:




Ralph Yarl stands at 5 feet, 8 inches tall and weighs 140 pounds according to his lawyer pictured above sitting with him.

see: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/us/kansas-city-ralph-yarl-shooting-wednesday/index.html


look at this monster

 

Oh I forgot its Biden's fault. It is true in 2013 he made a statement advising a shot gun was better than an assault weapon if you were going to use it to defend yourself or your property and advised his wife to use a shot gun and shoot at the door. The full context was in regards to scaring the supposed intruder away although it could also be interpreted to repel the person with deadly force of course.

It became an actual defence by someone who shot at people claiming he was protecting his property and did what Biden said to do. The defense did not work.

The statement by Biden has proven to be very ill advised yes. Now to resurrect it to blame him for what happened or state this is why what Lester did was ok is I suppose expected since Biden invited the boy who was shot to the white house and has been calling for stricter gun control now.

To say Biden does not deserve a reminder of his comment would be unfair. Its fair play but I would argue its as useful as quoting all the idiocy from Trump and Cruz and all the other pro gun politicians who have said similar dumb things. In Trump's case my favourite is his recommending teachers be armed at schools.

The real point is trying to blame Biden or Trump for this is not productive. If we want to point the finger there are a lot of politicians preventing proper gun controls that would assure people are properly tested for gun competency every year and are required to take monthly training at a gun club and prove to that self regulating gun club they can still use the weapon safely. I argue gun clubs should take on the work of the government and test people regularly and train them regularly. Its a win win. I know some people do not trust gun clubs or hunting associations but I for one think they can be recruited and be part of the better gun control and prevention of accidental shootings. Many are doing this on their own.

The question is at times not just other gun regulations but those that promote proper training and competency when handling and storing weapons.

My question is should any 85 year old person have a gun unless they are tested and supervised to make sure they are not a danger to themselves and others. Owning a gun like a car should be a privilege not an entitlement.

 

Yes they do sometimes say what you can do along with what you cannot do such as attempt to unlawful enter a defendable location.

If a locked door his trying to be breeched that is an attempted unlawful entry. A person can defend their home against such an attempt. That is the law that must be dealt with here like it or not.

The defendant must assert they had a reasonable belief an unlawful entry was in process. That in itself is a criminal act.

The only thing that matters is what Lester believed to be occurring. I think the Yarl thought he was at the house he was supposed to be at. I think he was trying to pick up his siblings and not getting a response. I think he did then try to get that locked outer door open thinking he would just go in since he was expected and they would know who he was. I think Lester hearing that and being apprehensive already with a door bell and or knocking and opened the inside door to see someone trying to get through the outside door.

That's the best I can make out of it from what we know which is very little at this point. Does that sound reasonable?

The law is ATTEMPTED unlawful entry.

This is what the media have reported Lester as saying to the police:

And that is what the prosecution will have to overcome. He immediately called 9/11 not reporting someone shot, all he knows is that he fired, but that someone was trying to break into his home. He had that fear when he acted stating someone trying to get through the outer door.

He had the locked outer door as security, he did not have to wait to see if the person trying to get in would indeed being possibly harmed. ATTEMPTING the unlawful entry is all that is needed under the law.

Yes we know that and does not require my argument, it was his extra security and unlawful for someone without permission to enter the house to attempt to open.

 

That never happened, period. The teenager was ringing the doorbell. The outside door was never opened, or tampered with per the police report. The homeowner is the one who opened the door, saw him, and then shot him, feet away from the door, with no attempt whatsoever. He may have thought it, even believed it, but the facts are the teenager was acting politely much like a Japanese person who went to the wrong house and was shot through the door in Louisiana. Different states, different results unfortunately.

 

It's a scheme that people play sometimes, and it is taught now in the so-called self-defense classes. But there is nothing that the teen did that was aggression. He rang the bloody doorbell, and that is it. Yes, he went to the wrong house, and so did a lot of other people accidentally from what neighbors have said. And his story, verified by the police checked out that he was there by honest mistake. It is a perfect example of never assuming because if you assume, you pretty much will make an arse out of yourself, and in this specific case, legally I might add. Again, cultural norms are not going to be allowed into the discussion and will be objected to by the prosecution if it goes to trial. It will simply be a matter of self-defense and what he thought and what the actual actions and evidence there are. And the evidence is probably going to be overwhelming against him. But everyone is also entitled to their day in court. The reality, it rarely goes well for the defendant.

If you are afraid of anyone and everyone, that is no way to live. Might as well not leave the basement of your momma's house then. But what you are using is more of an excuse than a reason, and that is most illogical. This is not the movie, never has been, and never will be.

Lester never spoke through the closed door, he simply opened it after the doorbell rang, and pretty much-opened fire almost instantaneously the moment Lester opened the door. The outside door was never opened. And you can tell that from bullet projectors. Lester should not have shot the boy period. He could have never responded to the doorbell rang, or could have spoken through the closed front door, or somewhere in between.

 

Fact: He did immediately call 911 and waited for the police.

Fact: Missouri law specifically says deadly force is justified and legal if someone is trying to gain entry to your home. So, yes, trying to open the door is attempting to gain entry to the house.

Cry all you want.

 

Imagine that: crappy/dirty politicians that are completely soft on crime scare the hell out of honest citizens by turning up the heat on racism and someone gets killed.
The taxpaying citizens of our country are going to regret letting the politicians divide us sooner rather than later.

GOD help us.

 

Again: Keep your ****ing racialist bullshit out of my mouth. I didn't IMPLY a ******ned thing you ****ing liar.

 

Well do give us your proof of this. Do you have a video? Do you have a third party witness? And the bolded is what matters under the law.

 

And as I have been making the point THAT is what a prosecution will havto overcome.

Yet we have posters claiming they know exactly what happened at that door that night and declare Lester guilty.

 

So I can mow down Girl Scouts for opening my storm door to knock? Bull ****. Cry all you want.

 

Following on from your logic, anyone trying to open a locked garden gate can be shot

 

No my logic does not lead to that conclusion although such an entry could be a criminal trespass.

Missouri law as previously posted when deadly force can be used

(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

 

Do you support shooting Girl Scouts for opening storm doors to knock or no? How about Mormons? Boy Scouts? JWs? Traveling salespeople?

 

Which ones of those would be doing at 10PM? Most locations ban such soliciting after sun down you know. And you know what I bet all those people are told NOT to try and open any closed doors. You can knock on a storm door just as easily and as loud if not louder than an the second entry door. AND there is a very apparent NO SOLICITING sign on his door which people who engage in lawful door to door soliciting are told it is against the law for them to even knock let alone try to open a locked outer door.

Deal with THIS incident don't try to make it something else.

 

So trying to open a storm to knock is only "unlawful entry" past a certain time? And, no, I don't know that those people are told not to open a storm door to knock on the door behind it. I know, for a fact, that the opposite is true.

 

WRONG!
The prosecution merely has to prove the required elements of an ASSAULT Charge...
That should be very easy given the details of the case...

 

Doing so at that hour certainly gives the home owner more reason to be apprehensive as it by all reasonable judgement NOT going to be a girl scout at the door.

You know for a fact that persons are told to open closed doors and try to open locked doors to house they are soliciting even when there is a no soliciting sign posted? Prove it then. What solicitation group tells it's people that knocking on a door at 10pm is OK and you can trying to go through a locked storm door.

 

Fear of assault, the assault does not have to take place, which or course if someone is fearful of someone trying to gain an unlawful entry at 10PM is a given.

 

You continually pretend to not understand what a storm door is. If I were to go pick up my sister and no one answered when I tried to ring the doorbell, I wouldn't think twice about opening the storm door to knock on the door. Nor would anyone who has encountered a storm door in the past.

 

The victim would not have been in the dwelling if he opened the storm door; he would have to enter through the main door to enter the dwelling. The locked gate is analogous to a locked storm door

 

That may weigh into sentencing, but it does not necessarily weigh into the guilt or innocence phase per the law.

Second, he opened the interior door. The exterior door was never opened. He saw the guy and immideately opened fire through the screen door while he was several feet away. Hence, it is going to etremely difficult to show reasonable doubt that the person was in fact attempting to gain entry into the home unless you think any tom, dick and harry is doing that if they either knock on the door or ring the doorbell.

 

I am not the one making the case. The person who is making this is another poster named "Death" who is using the euphamism of "cultural norms" and that you should be afraid on everyone no matter what.