We'll see if they bring the heavy hitters from out of town and they raze the Plaza.  If nothing else its is a good distraction from Kim Gardner in St. Louis.

No, it's not.
Particularly if there's a doorbell button button right next to the door.
No doorbell? Knock on the doorjamb.

Yes, it is.  Everyone I know through my life has opened the outer door to knock on the inner door if they knock.  Most people I know will knock after the doorbell brings no answer.  And none of this freaking matters anyway.  That is not what happened here.


Some of you are pretty fucking unhinged.

Black teen Ralph Yarl was shot twice, in the head and arm, after going to the wrong home in Kansas City, Missouri, to pick up his younger brothers.

Andrew Lester, an 84-year-old white man, told police he fired at honors student Yarl, 16, out of fear last week. But whether Lester will ultimately claim self-defense in court has yet to be seen. The case raises anew questions about race relations in the United States.


https://apnews.com/article/ralph-yarl-shooting-kansas-city-black-teen-154c4e3275732b83bc9f0026a9981b81

A lot of adjectives in there.

I'll second this - growing up I have always opened a screen door to knock. Same thing for the doorbell - half the dingers don't work anyway, so you have to knock (or yell, which is even worse).

It really doesn't.  At least not the "questions" these shitbags will be asking.  It is what's going to happen more and more as we continue to drive a wedge down the middle and give one group a license to burn and destroy.  People are going to just see a threat.

Democrats are doing a fantastic job of returning relations to the 60's.  

The go fund me is now $3,232,230

Let's assume you're 50 years old. You've had 60 attempted break ins through the front door?

ETA: scratch that, I misunderstood what you were saying.

So why open the front door?

Attached File

So, people are "unhinged" because they've had different life experiences than you?
The part I highlighted in red... my experience has been the exact opposite.
Guess I'm unhinged.  

Because it's his fucking house and he can do what he wants.

doesnt seem like thats working out too well for him

Well, they say that acknowledging it is the first step....

The whole, "We never open someone else's screen door" argument on here is weird.

In my AO, screen doors are of 2 types; thin glass upper half, or all mesh.

Can't knock very hard on the glass without the possibility of cracking/breaking the flimsy pane. Knocking on mesh is retarded. I don't know of ANYONE who insists on knocking on the jamb/frame vs opening the screen door to knock on the main/wooden door.

If even a TV/radio is on, or there isn't a person in view of the front door, you can't knock on the screen door hard enough to be heard. The jamb, also doesn't transmit sound the way knocking on the main/wooden door does.

The whole, "Well, he reacted to a stranger pulling on the door handle, in the middle of the night".

If I WERE to open my main door (while armed) to find a stranger trying the handle of the screen door (which in this case, was supposedly locked? My screen door only latches. There's no lock), IF I perceived that they might be trying to enter my home without consent, I might step back and draw, while yelling, "Who the fuck are you?! Step away from my door!", but I'm not doing a speed draw and shoot drill  unless they have a weapon presented.

There sure seem to be a lot of really skittish/scared/overly high strung folks who want to be able to justify shooting anyone and everyone who scares/startles them (and apparently  ANYONE/EVERYONE they don't know, scares them).

I don't agree with it, but it's these kinds of folks that make me understand why libtards want EVERYONE disarmed (no different than how prohibitionists pushed for blanket/total alcohol bans because of the few idiots who couldn't drink responsibly).

Why Andrew Lester's Shooting of Ralph Yarl Was Lawful!

This was like a block from my sister's house, maybe 20 min from my house.

Dude didn't have anything to worry about in that neighborhood.  It's nice middle class suburbia.  He's a moron and he's incredibly lucky the kid lived.

Horribly fucked up situation all around, that is being blown into an even bigger mess by the race baiters.

While I don't really think (with the exception of a small number of nuts) that there are a lot of folks looking for a reason/excuse because they actively want to be able to shoot someone, there seem to be a lot of folks (even on arfcom), who seem to think that they should justifiably be able to shoot anyone who scares them, for any reason.

Look at all the folks in the original Arbery thread, trying to justify arming up and using pickup trucks to corral someone for jogging through their neighborhood, because "he doesn't fit in".

Included all sorts of BS excuses like, "See? His record shows he did something, at some time, somewhere. Therefore, it's OK to chase the dude down with guns. Hit him with your truck while trying to corral him. Then shoot him, and claim he was coming right at you".

If the old man was genuinely been very afraid, why open the locked main door? That makes no sense to me. "Well it was HIS door. He can do whatever he wants with his own damned door". Most definitely. But again, being rational, and reasonable, if I suspected that someone in the midst of attempting a home invasion, I'm not opening my locked front door. I might yell through the door, "Whoever the fuck you are, I AM armed, and will shoot, if you continue trying to break in!".

We had a case nearby, 2 years ago. A woman alone had someone repeatedly trying to break in. She yelled that she was armed, and was calling 911. The person continued attempting to breach the door. The 911 recording, captured the sounds of the perp repeatedly battering the door, along with the woman yelling, "I've called 911, and they're on the way! I have a gun! If you break in, I'm going to shoot!". She actually shot the guy THROUGH the door, as he continued trying to break the door in. No charges were filed.

I guess I just don't understand the, "I was so afraid, that I decided to open the door" (and shoot) argument/rationale.

I do agree that it's a sad situation all around, but as responsible gun owners, we have a responsibility to not be on a hair trigger over every little thing, whether it's the morons who got their daughters shot over road rage, or something like this.

Hate these retards.

Saw an interview with the (black) Mayor;
"I'm upset that the shooter had been released on bond. This is definitely about race".

Yeah? Like all the POCs released without bail, because reasons?

Stop living in an Era where facts overrode feelings.

"The only evidence against that is Ralph Yarls self-serving statement".  



Both statements are self-serving.  Lester's claim the door is being jimmied is self-serving, and given the door was shot through it was not opened nor opening.  Yarl's statement that he didn't try to open the door is also self-serving and without witnesses it will be difficult to ascertain that he was indeed trying to enter.  This a long video that predicates on Yarl trying to force open a door.  

I would not agree with his take that touching the door or door handles is a justification for killing someone that has knocked or rung the doorbell due to castle doctrine in Missouri.   Being so concerned with this visitor that you are ready to kill them for being there and opening your main door to them are incongruent in my opinion.  There is also a perfectly reasonable response of closing that door and locking it if you feel suddenly threatened, but THAT might not really be required by statute though it's far more reasonable than just opening up on someone that I have no information on other than they are here and recently rang the doorbell.

KC mayor is a 100% motherfucking scumbag.  Elected by a city full of scumbags that like being protected by a scumbag.

I guess it's impossible for a person to first be curious (open the door of his own home), and then be in fear of his life (seeing the kid yanking on outer door)?

Have you never investigated a "bump in the night"?

It's not impossible to then close/lock that door, and in fact, would be a far better overall option than standing within the frame of your door blasting at person's unknown.  Should the assault on the door continue you are in a far better position if there are signs of that to be seen than having nothing beyond your now contested statement that it is so.  All that aside, again, what evidence is there that the door was being "yanked" here?  

The kid does have a younger brother.  His parents confirm he was sent out to retrieve that younger brother.  He's well liked by students and faculty in his school.  He's described as a 'nerd' in band.  He's personally friends with children of local school district administration.  I know you don't know these people, but I do and I have zero reason to suspect they are covering up for a thug in personal communication.  He's a really decent and good kid by all accounts and he was directed to the wrong address and it is his contention that the door was opened and he was shot.  He's very tall as well so that may factor into the old man's perceptions.  All I can tell you is that his statement is going to be credible and unless there are some clear signs he was 'yanking' on the door to contest it, the shooter's statement might not be so convincing.  

So there may be an argument to make that MO law says you can, by letter, shoot the very second you suspect they might be trying to force their way in but this is still a matter that you will have to present as defense and it needs to convince others it is so.  I think we're going to find that in most people's minds who will try this case attempting to force entry is going to mean more to them than "it's possible he touched the screen door handle and left prints there".

IANAL so... It's my opinion but I think the guy deserves a cell for this personally based on the facts I have so far.


ETA: I can point to only one event where I was concerned enough to come to my front door with pistol in hand and the very last thing I was interested in doing first thing was opening my main door.  Once I was able to tell the noise on the porch was a police officer when we talked through the door (our doorbell didn't work at the time and he was walking around pretty noisy late at night) I put the pistol away and only then did I open the door.  He wanted to let me know it looked like my hose was still running and much to my embarrassment, it was.

If he shot the kid when he was already down, he's going to have a hard time.
He already has to convince the jury that a reasonable person would be in fear of their life to shoot.
Arguing you were in fear of your life and that a reasonable person would be when the target is already on the ground is a major stretch.

Probably just a tragic situation for everybody.  Likely not a crime.  The people that should be charged with crimes are Crump and Co. plus every black race-bating politician in KC (the USA)....

Because people think theyre John Wick with superior tactics and training.

In reality, theyre Joe Wick, John's slow brother that had his umbilical cord wrapped around his neck causing them permanent brain damage.  The gun gives them a false confidence;  that despite opening the door and standing in the fatal funnel to an unknown number of assailants, with unknown armament, and unknown intent... theyll somehow have the upper hand in a gun fight.

In reality, this tactic only works (or has worked) for them because they using it on people that have no intent on doing harm to them in the first place. ie people at the wrong door, children, etc. At any point they use this tactic with person(s) that have ill intent or an ounce of gunfighting skills, they lose.

Attorney Andrew Branca high profile defense attorney has a different take. He thinks Lester will walk based on the elements. Listening to the podcast now.

Especially when the homeowner has a mechanical knocker on the main door, which seems to be the case here.

The outer door was locked?  How does the victim know this?  By trying to open the door to access the mechanical knocker that the homeowner provided for invitees and licensees to use?

It's perfectly normal for people to knock on the main door, especially if they have pushed the doorbell button and received no response. It's also the reason they put door knockers on main doors. It sure looks like this guy had one on his front door.

Are people unfamiliar with these devices?

Possible the kid had grown impatient waiting for the door to be answered and was outside jiggling the locked storm door handle trying to make noise to get the homeowner’s attention to answer the door. Have to remember the kid thought he was going somewhere where it would be expected he would be arriving to pick up his brother.

I can definitely see someone, especially that is older and not capable of physically defending themselves, being awakened to the sound of someone ringing the door bell at night and then hearing them jiggling the locked storm door as a threat, taking it as they were trying to force entry.

If there are finger prints from the kid on that storm door after he stated he didn’t touch it and only rang the doorbell, though by all means this seems an unfortunate situation, the old guy will most likely be cleared in court.

Jesus.

It doesn't matter whether opening the screen door to knock is right or wrong, normal or not normal.

If the kid was pulling on the door right as the old guy opened his main door, it looks like he's trying to get in. If anyone has ever watched home invasion videos, you will understand how quickly things can go to shit once the victim opens the door. It doesn't take much to yank even a quality storm door open by a determined attacker. If you try to shut and lock the main door, you're likely going to get the door kicked in before it even latches, and knocked to the ground, beat to shit, and/or murdered. Yes, a determined bad guy IS that fast and forceful, because he knows he has to be to control the situation.

This makes the "he was only opening the screen door to knock" argument moot, as it appeared that the kid was trying to enter without permission. BECAUSE IT APPEARED that the kid was trying  to gain entry. This could give even a young able bodied man a pretty good scare. This guy was 85 and facing a larger, much younger possible assailant. Possible with friends "waiting in the wings".

For the above mentioned reason, closing and locking the door isn't necessarily a reasonable option. You can argue that he shouldn't have opened the door in the first place, but a person should be able to open a door freely without worrying about an attack. This was an "investigating a bump in the night" situation, and any man shouldn't feel guilty about checking things out.

If the kid is telling the truth about being at the wrong house, he did nothing wrong (even if he was tryingto open door to knock) . If the old man is telling the truth, he really did nothing wrong, either.

The old man opening the door seeing the kid fiddling with the storm door, was just really bad timing, which resulted in a shit situation for both parties.

If the old man did just open the door and start blasting, and the kid never touched the storm door, then yes, that is very wrong. But we'll have to wait for REAL facts and evidence. Unfortunately, I'm not sure anyone is really looking for anything but the race narrative with this event.

I'm not sure of the exact wording and laws applicable, but generally there is a standard of "reasonable". Is it reasonable to think someone was breaking in because they rang the doorbell then may have touched/tried/jiggled the storm door handle?

Is it reasonable to fear for your life due to those same actions?

It's all going to boil down to the evidence and testimony presented and the argument the defense uses. Hell, the old man might even plead guilty.

Real World Reasonable ? GD Reasonable

This is where I am on this - exactly, word for word. If the kid didn't touch the door, bad shoot. But, if he was jerking on the outer door at the same time the old man opened the inner door, it was just bad timing that resulted in a shit sandwich.

In that case, I can understand the old man being fearful and it would seem to be one of those things you'd characterize as awful but lawful.

The correct thing is to let it be figured out by a jury of his peers. Of. His. Peers.

The old guy pleaded not guilty.

Exact text of Missouri law.

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, [color=#ff0000]or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling[/color], 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.

Not surprised you failed to highlight subsection 2(1) which mentioned "reasonably". Fixed it for you.

Since there is no "or" after subsection 1, to me it reads it has to be sub 1 AND 2 or 3.

1 party is claiming the person attempted to enter.

1 party is claiming they didnt.

While it is the duty of the state to prove their case, it sounds to me that unless evidence surfaces to the contrary, theyll be able to prove behind reasonable doubt that shooters actions werent reasonable.

While ive seen similar cases go to a jury and the shooter gets acquitted, its going to come down to the actions of both people and if the response was reasonable or not.

He’ll plea to a lesser charge

I highlighted the wording that may have taken place in this instance and would apply to what may have APPEARED TO BE attempted unlawful entry. If he opened the door to the kid pulling on the storm door, it would APPEAR that the kid was trying to gain entry.

Can he prove that the kid was pulling on the door? I don't know. Can the kid prove he never touched the door? I don't know that either. All I know is, if the kid WAS pulling on the storm door, it could APPEAR  that he was trying to get in, regardless of his intentions.

Appearence of a situation can totally make his actions reasonable, still wrong, but justified.

There is no evidence the victim was trying to unlawfully enter the dwelling, so it seems the question then becomes whether or not it is reasonable to think touching a screen door handle means someone is trying to unlawfully enter.