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

The proof is in the police report and in Lestor's statements. He literally told the police he opened the interior door and shot him without saying a word. He said to police he was "scared to death" and made no mention to police in his statement that the teen attempted to enter the home. That is all on the video you provided whom the attorney got even the basic facts wrong when he made it.

Below is the link from a local news story that provides a lot of detail. In the article, it says, "Lester opened the interior door and "saw a black male approximately 6 feet tall pulling on the exterior storm door handle," Lester told police." If you as the homeowner opened the interior door, then the charge of attempting to break in becomes null and void under state law. Outer doors under state law do not determine if one is breaking or not because it was clear that both were locked. Since the outer door was made of glass, the teen would have to have least broken the glass door in an attemt to get to the main door for that charge to speak of.

https://www.wdsu.com/article/homeowner-accused-of-shooting-teen-who-rang-his-doorbell/43628968#

 

He was not required to say a word and he states the fear there was an attempted unlawful entry. He KNEW the outer door was closed and locked. Go read that is what the police tell you to do if someone rings your door bell, keep your outside door locked and you can open the interior to see who is there.

No it does not he had a locked outer door.

Do cite me that law that says that.

Locks can be jimmied by someone attempting an illegal entry, stupid burglars think they can yank one open. Storm/security doors can have tempered glass. They can have deadbolts. They are considered a security function not just a storm funcion. The fact remains under the law all he had to have was a reasonable fear someone was ATTEMPTING an unlawful entry. There is as much evidence he did as not at the least. He just shouldn't have fire his gun is not going to get a conviction.

 

**** right off, you're the one who made the statements.

 

Since the guy claimed the kid pulled the handle and must have noticed the door did not open, it does mean your entire idea that "it could have been jimmied" is literally out the door. At that point, the guy knew it wasn't jimmied and stood safe behind his outer door. That means he had no reasonable fear because of that entry. Also you're making crap up. The guy said he feared the size and not the entry. And no reasonable person would be in fear of the size of a 5ft8, 140 pound boy.

To claim a 5ft8, 140 pound kid is a size to fear, is just a typical codeword to unreasonably fear black people. He flat out lied the kid was 6ft. And he's accused of being a racist. That's where we're at.

 

Why would that change anything, the home owner doesn't know it they have a crow bar or a hammer for the unlawful entry the believe is happening. Yes he feared the size because the BIGGER the person the more chance of them forcing the open the door.

The law is ATTEMPTED..................

Your attempt to claim he is lying totally without evidence or basis, self serving conjecture.

 

WTF is this random guessing around with what if this what if that. There is nothing reasonable to just start blowing random people's brains out when they ring your doorbell out of fearing they might have a hammer at all. And this guy was standing safe behind a door and he knew it. And anyways, the outer door was glass. So he saw he was unarmed and everything. And I add: the guy did not claim he fearing this even. WTF is wrong with you lavishly alter the guys testimony for the sake to try and win a point somewhere.

It's unreasonable to be scared of a boy who is 5ft8 and 140 pounds.
If anybody happens to be smaller, it's still unreasonable, because such people are used to such situations that others are bigger.
And 5ft8 and 140 pounds is simply in no way to be considered big. WTF is wrong with you that you push such a utterly false opinion.

I guess it takes a special breed to support a racist trying to blow an unarmed black child's brains out from up close.

 

And I add... https://www.celebsweek.com/andrew-lester/
The guy is 3 inches taller than the kid, 175 pounds, armed and saw the unarmed smaller skinnier kid through a glass door.
And he argued he feared the size of the kid.

So yeah. The guy is lying. He was looking down to a smaller kid and claimed he was bigger. He was armed, his victim was not. He was able to see that. The fear thing is out the window. And so that lying is indeed code word to just go kill a random black person and going for a let me get away with it.

 

The only thing that matters is what Lester perceived. I have no idea the veracity of the Lester description in your link. You have no idea. You don't get to make it up and assign it to him.

 

You don't know what Lester was able to see through the door. You weren't there you are engaged in speculation and conjecture. You don't get to declare what he saw through the door. 5'8" 140lb can assault and kill you. The law does not specific a certain height and weight requirement so that will not be the argument at trial.

 

The hell it is. That thug is going straight to jail if what he perceived was unreasonable. That's where the bar is at. The bar is not lowered to psychotic racist boomers.

You're the one making whatever up to support a white dude who was standing safe behind a door, with justifying to blow the brains out of a unarmed boy. I'm keeping to the fact that the guy was scared of the size of the guy, and we know there is nothing to be scared about. As for my source proving the guy himself is bigger: you're free to prove me wrong.

 

I do get to declare what he saw through the door, since we know it's a freaking glass storm door.

Indeed. Point stands still firm that it's unreasonable that a taller, bigger, armed man standing behind a locked door, seeing an unarmed smaller pushover of a kid got so fearful of his life that he just had to blow the kids brains out. And it gets worse for him: nobody should have been scared to death of that kind of size in the US in general even if there was no storm door in between.

 

You weren't there, you don't know what is his eyesight, you don't know what was the lighting. Anything you say as such is pure conjecture and juries do not convict on conjecture.

 

The law is based on what the person claiming self defense perceived to be occurring not what you do. I have made the case he was behind a closed and locked outer door and that anyone attempting to force that door open would be engaged in an attempted unlawful entry. I await to see how the prosecutor will try to overcome that at trial. So far we have not seen any evidence of what occurred other than the conflicting statements between to two persons involved.

 

On Race and Crime, a Counterfactual Narrative
Heather Mac Donald, City Journal




The notion that blacks are at elevated risk for existing while black is true—but not because whites are killing them. Read More

 

Again and as NPR is reporting the facts as we know them and the law



In Missouri shooting, ‘stand your ground’ law at forefront of case

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Andrew Lester had already gone to bed when the doorbell rang a little before 10 p.m. He got up, grabbed a gun and went to check it out. Seeing a Black male appearing to pull the handle of the front door, police say the 84-year-old white man opened fire. No questions asked.

Lester told police he believed someone was attempting to break into his house.....

Missouri’s self-defense law
A 2007 Missouri law allows people to use deadly force under certain circumstances, including against someone who “attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence or vehicle” that is occupied. The legislation, backed by the National Rifle Association, was passed overwhelmingly by the Republican-led Legislature....

...Missouri’s law “provides wide latitude for people to use lethal force,” said Robert Spitzer, a professor emeritus of political science at the State University of New York, Cortland, whose research focuses on gun policy and politics and who wrote the book “Guns Across America: Reconciling Gun Rules and Rights.”

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

THAT is what the prosecution will be up against to get a beyond a reasonable doubt conviction. Of course there could be a plea to a negligent manslaughter or criminal assault but the law about self defense in a home, which is different from self defense of a person, clearly states "attempted" unlawful entry.

 

So this story is still dominating the news cycle?

Has anyone heard a peep about what's going on in East Palestine Ohio lately?

 

Poor eyesight is no REASONABLE excuse to go blasting kids through their heads in fear of their smaler size.
And I note you're just inventing excuses for a racist psycho to come up with a way to just blow black kids brains out.
There is undoubtingly an agenda behind this.

 

The law is not based on what a racist psychotic is perceiving, they must be REASONABLE.
And the kid's size is not any kind of reason to go blow it's brains out.
The psycho claimed it was his reason. And since that's unreasonable, it just ends there.

Trying a freaking handle has nothing to do with specifically forcing open anything. That's opening without force.

 

The legal defense does not end with simply asking whether Lest was frightened and then that fear justifies what he did.

The legal questions that must then be asked to determine if that fear was sufficiently reasonable to justify the shooting would include asking questions such as:

Does a reasonable man with fear not call police? Does a reasonable man with fear not ask behind his closed door what it is the person at the door wants?

Does a reasonable man with fear wait for the police and also wait to see if the person knocks down the door or breaks it open before shooting?

Does a reasonable man with fear take steps before he shoots to ascertain the shooting is necessary. Does a reasonable man with fear in fact place himself in a direct line of danger opening his locked inner door?

Does a reasonable man with fear open an inner door exposing himself to a life threatening situation and then shoot with no warning?

How does a reasonable fearful man shoot through a glass door if it was open? Does a reasonable fearful man when opening a door and seeing someone has no gun, no weapon, not speak with him before shooting him in the head point blank?

Your statement renders a judgement the fear was reasonable without considering all the above legal considerations that go into determining reasonability,

Your statement also makes the assumption Ralph Yarl by ringing on a door bell was engaged in unlawful entry.

You statement makes the assumption if someone knocks on one's door or ring's their door bell, that in itself is sufficient to justify shooting them.

Your position appears to justify dangerous hair trigger temper and behaviour leads to unnecessary death precisely because Lester did not ascertain whether shooting Yarl in the head point black was the only option available to Lester to alleviate his "fear".

I would argue that your position justifies a person being unable to control their emotions and using that lack of control by as the sole criteria to assume reasonability which can then be used excuse the shoting an innocent person.

.Let's state it again- owning a gun comes with responsibilities. One of the most basic is self-restraint. Feeling frightened should not by itself give anyone the right to kill. Not withstanding being afraid, gun owners have an obligation to employ reason, sound judgment, and above all common sense when faced with a situation where they think they need to shoot someone.

This mentality where you justify shooting and killing someone without taking any proper precautions because you are "afraid" is nonsensical.

 

Neither were you so your opinion using your logic is equally as meaningless. What we do know is the entire position of Lester at this point is that his fear was based on the size of the boy. That is what he claims is his argument. He argues fear of someone's size alone, is sufficient to justify his actions.

 

You again provided your subjective opinion as to what you think will be the test for reasonability in the Lester shooting.

Let us repeat it again the legal defense does not end with simply asking whether Lest was frightened and then that fear justifies what he did.

The legal questions that must then be asked to determine if that fear was sufficiently reasonable to justify the shooting would include asking questions such as:

Does a reasonable man with fear not call police? Does a reasonable man with fear not ask behind his closed door what it is the person at the door wants?

Does a reasonable man with fear wait for the police and also wait to see if the person knocks down the door or breaks it open before shooting?

Does a reasonable man with fear take steps before he shoots to ascertain the shooting is necessary. Does a reasonable man with fear in fact place himself in a direct line of danger opening his locked inner door?

Does a reasonable man with fear open an inner door exposing himself to a life threatening situation and then shoot with no warning?

How does a reasonable fearful man shoot through a glass door if it was open? Does a reasonable fearful man when opening a door and seeing someone has no gun, no weapon, not speak with him before shooting him in the head point blank?

Even if one argued under Missouri Revised Statutes 563.031. that Lester had he right to use of deadly force in self-defense or in defense of another innocent party its not an automatic right-it doesn't mean any reason or any fear justifies engaging in the shooting. Its not what it says.

You keep misrepresenting the law and instead to not provide it but try pass off your subjective interpretation of how you will think it will be applied as being the law.

In fact your application which stops at assuming if their is fear a shooting is reasonable the law does not say that. It says and anyone can read it and I listed it a person can only use deadly force in defense if they have a reasonable fear that the alleged offender is presenting them, or another innocent person, with an imminent threat of deadly force or bodily harm. Further, a person who is deemed to be the aggressor in a confrontation that turns deadly will be deemed ineligible to raise a “stand your ground” defense.

So your subjective application of how you think the law should be applied IS NOT the law. Stop presenting your subjective opinion as being the law. It is not.

Fear alone does not justify shooting. One has to go on to ask was the fear reasonable, i.e., of sufficient extent and subject matter to suggest shooting was reasonable.

This is precisely why I provided the questions above that will be asked to test reasonability you won't acknowledge.

In fact your whole subjective opinion to base that the fear was reasonable was:
1-the boy looked big
2-he opened a door.

No the court will not like you do jump the conclusion of reasonability based on simply 1 and 2 although its clear you think the law tells the Jury and Judge it can.

Whether a jury skips over any due consideration of reasonability and simply jumps to the conclusions you do remains to be seen.

 

It is absolutely a joke to remove what Biden said out of context from years ago to say this makes what Lester did legal.

To start with you removed the comment out of its context. It was a comment saying no one needed an assault rifle and a shot gun blast would serve as sufficient warning to get a trespasser of one's property. He never stated as you are intimating that someone should shoot anyone with a shot gun.

Next if you are going to cherry pick comments about guns why stop at Biden. How about you provide some quotes from Cruz, Graham, Trump to start with?

The attempt to try take this tragic shooting to exploit it to piss on Biden and turn this into a political issue is a deflection from the actual tragedy.

 

In Canada, we open the door, take the pizza from them and give them a tip. We do not assume the pizza is a deadly weapon.

 

Haven't you convicted Ralph Yarl of break and entry deserving he be shot in the head?

 

You do not know, you assume an unlawful entry was in progress. You are again advised, simply being afraid is not an absolute defence. The fear must be shown to be reasonable.