Not in the house according to the shooter.

"He said he shot twice within seconds of opening the door and no words were exchanged.

Lester said it was "the last thing he wanted to do" but was "scared to death" because of Yarl's size and his age.

The probable cause states Lester believes he was protecting himself, but later expressed concern for the victim."

Why be afraid of a young black male…


Consider these two quotes by distinguished Black Americans

If I’m walking down a street in Center City Philadelphia at two in the morning and I hear some footsteps behind me and I turn around and there are a couple of young white dudes behind me, I am probably not going to get very uptight. I’m probably not going to have the same reaction if I turn around and there is the proverbial Black urban youth behind me. Now if I am going to have this reaction—and I’m a Black male who has studied marshal arts for twenty some odd years and can defend myself—I can’t help but think that the average white judge in the situation will have a reaction that is ten times more intense. Judge Theodore A. McKee, U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals.(Kennedy 1998:16)

There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start to think about robbery and then look around and see it’s somebody white and feel relieved. The Reverend Jesse Jackson. (Kennedy 1998, 16)

Pretty much every one of his posts are straight up retarded.  

I'm really wondering, but doubting, if we'll find out the truth at this point- the usual suspects are doing their best to get the court of public opinion decided and to incite vigilante justice against the homeowner.  Maybe the old dude did just start shooting, it wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened and if that's the case then let justice take its course, but a thinking person would wait to try to find out what actually transpired between the kid and the old dude before the shooting occurred.  I'll wait on more information before passing judgement one way or another.

The information was released. Including statements the shooter made.

Bad shoot.

Glass broken. Or shot through the door.

If that's the fact's. Bad shoot.

Don't blast some dude on your door step. Crump makes me question

Opened the front door and shot through the storm door.

Plus, shooting through a door violates 1 of the 4 rules of firearm safety.

ETA: it was a glass door

He looks old and weak like Biden.

Shooter also had a camera system.  That hasn't been functioning since June 2022.

From the PC:

Attached File


Source:  

***This is a key section from the PC Affidavit.***  

This comes directly after Lester said he just laid down in bed when he heard the doorbell ring.@kmbc pic.twitter.com/gOf1AAL078

Matt Flener KMBC  (@MattFlenerKMBC) April 17, 2023

Dumbass isn't allowed to just blindly fire through the front door..

What's he think he is, the FBI?

Nothing to do with state line.  Some metro cities use the KCMO grid system, others don't. This is true on both sides of the state line.  When they don't use the same grid system, the numbered streets can run the same direction or the opposite direction.  Going off memory, Olathe KS uses the grid system, but Grandview Mo doesn't.  KCK, however, does do what you say, so in the downtown area, you are correct.

If the jury believes that the shooter was afraid for his life - which will hinge on believing the shooter’s statement that the stranger was tugging on the outer door handle - there is a chance he’ll be found innocent. If that happens, multiple cities are going to see some nasty rioting.

Isn't it ironic.

Trying to open the glass door(not forcefully, mind you) doesn't make it an attempted burglary. He rang the door bell, then, like any normal person, probably tried the glass door to knock on the main door.


This is a sad situation all around.

That super sucks for the kid, and I feel worse for him with his legal representation. He's now going to be a clown in their circus.

If dude was 84, he probably doesn't have the greatest eyes, ears, or mental processing speed anymore. He likely did think someone was trying to break in, probably didn't see that the kid was black, much less shoot him because of it.

Sometimes bad shit happens to good people. This spectacle isn't going to change that.

So he allegedly was pulling on the handle... not guilty, if he can prove it.

I'm always leery about opening someone's storm door for this exact reason. The kid thought he was at the right house, but the owner didn't have that context.

I am seeing a lot of assumptions and hearsay on what the law actually states on this issue. This is Missouri, we have "stand your ground" law, not castle doctrine in this state.

If what I saw earlier was truly his statement, he should be covered in his justification by Missouri law.

That being said, his statement is textbook "what the lawyer would tell you to say". He will still get his ass sued for sure.

Here is Missouri statute 563.031 word for word. "Appearance doctrine" will weigh heavily in this case, as will disparity if force.

Use of force in defense of persons. — 1.  A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

 (1)  The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:

 (a)  He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

 (b)  He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or

 (c)  The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

 (2)  Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

 (3)  The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

 2.  A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

 (1)  He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;

 (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

 (3)  Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

 3.  A person does not have a duty to retreat:

 (1)  From a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining;

 (2)  From private property that is owned or leased by such individual; or

 (3)  If the person is in any other location such person has the right to be.

 4.  The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

 5.  The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.  If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.

Double tap

Attached File


This is so much different than what many on here are even trying to make it.

Imagine being 85 and living in what was a decent area. You hear some shit and go to open your door after going to bed. You're on arfcom, so you have some sort of weapon. You give the person the benefit of the doubt for some reason and open your main door, knowing that the storm door is locked. They don't say anything, but start pulling on your flimsy ass glass storm door.

Yeah, ok, I'm sure you'd give them an opportunity to explain their actions this day and age. You're stupid if you do.

That makes a lot more sense than the narrative that he was just ringing the doorbell which the media is running with. I think this will get ruled a bad shoot.

Imagine the anti gun bull shit the NFL will air when they're in town next week. The kid is already out of the hospital. They're gonna parade him around saying this is what racism and gun violence looks like.

For a few weeks they won’t stop cranking out articles about random people being shot for no good apparent reason in the USA.

This time in New York State. Generally when they do that it’s before a gun control push. Apparently this time for driving into the wrong property

https://www.lematin.ch/story/abattue-pour-setre-trompee-dallee-843408818354

If there's anything we can all agree on, it's that this case is a shitshow, whether or not it's the fault of the homeowner, the kid, or the MSM and lawyers.

Kid says he didn’t pull on it. It’s a he said he said. Camera system not working means no video and no witnesses.

Attached File

That might be 'normal' for you, but it sure as fuck ain't 'normal' for me to try to open any door to somebody else's home at night. Here's a tip:

Don't come to my house at night and try to open any of my doors.

As expected, the Kansas City TV stations are in full-retard, congratulatory mode this morning, promoting the hell out of Ben Crump's narrative, gleefully showing the old man's house being spray-painted and vandalized, bragging about upcoming "unity walks," etc etc etc.  Not one single word permitted from the defense . . . not even mentioning that there is a defense.  The old dude, in their minds (and maybe in reality) has already been found guilty.

They're really happy that FJB called the kid, and was raving about justice (and probably pudding, and maybe the smell of young men's hair) even BEFORE charges were filed

In the last couple weeks alone, KC has had at least six or seven homicides . . . one in which a 5-year-old kid was shot (not killed).  Those were black-on-black shootings, however, so they don't count

Wouldn't be the first time a prosecutor has lied... seems common in STL.

Well... he wasn't the one at the wrong house, so he definitely can't pull that one off.

Unfortunate if the facts represented are true. Definitely should be tried.

Well, that changes everything. .32 S&W? Clearly the old man didn't intend to hurt anyone. That has to count for something . . .

This has only reinforced my view to never open my house door unless I know them or they have a warrant.

Not quite; I'm sure by now given the news coverage of the case, whatever forensics unit that's responsible would have printed the door handle all over to see if the kid's prints were on it anywhere. Assuming all those years of watching CSI didn't lie to me.

The kids go fund me is already at $2,747,630.  He is already out of the hospital.

Damn!

While the night part makes it a little sketchy, in many instances, you can't hear whether a door bell rings or not, so people will also knock.

Yeah, opening the storm door aka screen door to knock on the main door is pretty normal.

The world you live in must be terrifying

Yeah, but the flock of Race Pimping Vultures circling around him will make sure he never actually sees a penny of it.

Y'know....expenses.

So not one but two locked doors and he opens the first and fired through the second.

I’m sympathetic to the homeowner and I don’t think it’s murder at all but he’s also dumb for opening the door and then shooting through a second locked door.

Talk through the door people. The life you save may be your own.

ETA forgot the kid survived

Every night there's this program that comes on that's called "The News"....I dunno if you've seen it recently, but there's a lot of stories about push-in burglaries and robberies, and they're usually carried out by people that the news won't recognize by race or other characteristics. Never mind youtube is replete with ring videos and other home video camera clips of certain groups trying to get in after knocking on doors and assuming no one is home (hell there was a big thread here only a few weeks ago about someone who's neighbor had their ring camera catch just such an attempt). Edit - not saying only one particular group is known for this...just saying just about every video/news story/etc of this happening, it's usually one particular demographic. I'm certain other demographics do the same thing. Anyway...

If what he says is true and the kid was yanking on the door to get in, I'm gonna go with "terrible but understandable" and a no-bill. Hell even I know not to try to open doors that don't belong to me, especially at night, especially when the home owner is on their way to the door; and I'm an idiot. What was that kid's excuse?

Maybe stop watching the news? Home invasions are rare. Unless you live in the ghetto and/or make yourself a target your risk of home invasion is near zero.

I’ve delivered newspapers. I’ve sold candy & magazines door to door for fundraisers. I’ve redelivered misdirected packages. I’ve knocked on strangers doors to return their lost pets. I’ve knocked on strangers doors to tell them their neighbors house was on fire.

It is common to ring the door bell and then open the screen door aka storm door to knock on the main door.

- trolling -

Don't tell people in GD that. That's a shootable offense to some folks around here apparently.

It’s amazing I survived my paper route

Opening a storm door to knock on the main door of the house after no response to a pressed doorbell is an everyday, normal, and legal occurrence.

So, you're knocking on someone's door, they open it, see your hand raised, fear for their life, and shoot you in the face?

Let a jury decide but seems like a bad shoot

Sorry for the young man's family but I really don't understand why there has to be a controversy every time someone is shot.

It's really pretty simple.  If the shooter shot him due to cause, then he shouldn't be accused, arrested, or demonized.  If he did not have due cause and shot the young man due to bitterness or hatred, then he needs to face the harsh consequences he deserves.

Either way; provoking the community to riot over it, feeding the race-baiters, and creating controversy - is absolutely wrong.  Let the family grieve.  Let law enforcement do their job and see how the justice system addresses it.