Shooter on Trial--St. Louis County, MO

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kleanbore said:
Property owner went outside in the dark to investigate a noise. An argument ensued. Shooter said he "felt threatened" and fired a "warning shot" at a truck.

No injuries. The shooter is on trial. Claims self defense. Outcome expected soon.

Could have been worse. Could have been more than one out there, perhaps armed.


Click to expand...
Here it is illegal to enter private property to go through the trash. I was under the impression it is legal when the barrels are in the street but a friend recently told me the recycling barrels (every property is issued three separate ones, for recycling, yard trimmings, and household trash respectively) are illegal to go through even in the street because the city makes money by recycling the contents.

Personally I would not go outside to "investigate".
 
Not sure of the fine points of MO self-defense law, but using racial slurs is never gonna play well in court to establish a self-defense case by portraying yourself as a "reasonable man" in how you assessed the threat and responded.

Juries do funny things some times, but I would not be optimistic about a white man who used a racial slur and then shot at a black man as the black man was retreating.
 
old lady new shooter said:
Here it is illegal to enter private property to go through the trash. I was under the impression it is legal when the barrels are in the street but a friend recently told me the recycling barrels (every property is issued three separate ones, for recycling, yard trimmings, and household trash respectively) are illegal to go through even in the street because the city makes money by recycling the contents.
Click to expand...
It may be, and if it is not illegal it is certainly not a good idea, but that is completely irrelevant to the shooter's defense of justification

Personally I would not go outside to "investigate".
Click to expand...
Good.
 
Last edited:
Shooter said he "felt threatened" and fired a "warning shot" at a truck.
Click to expand...
Don't laugh. We have folks here all the time who say, "Officer, I felt threatened! I was afraid for my life," or whatever will suffice to make a self defense claim solid.
 
Sam1911 said:
Don't laugh. We have folks here all the time who say, "Officer, I felt threatened! I was afraid for my life," or whatever will suffice to make a self defense claim solid.
Click to expand...

And remember, it's not whether you felt threatened. It's whether a reasonable person would have felt threatened. And that could ultimately be up to a jury.
 
Frank Ettin said:
And remember, it's not whether you felt threatened. It's whether a reasonable person would have felt threatened. And that could ultimately be up to a jury.
Click to expand...

Correct. However I don't see anything in what's available to indicate the shooter felt threatened. A guy going through the garbage or even stealing something from a trailer doesn't constitute fear of death or serious bodily injury unless there was something else we aren't being told.
 
Surely, assuming the guy isn't convinced to plead guilty and ask for clemency, he's going to have to present whatever reasons he might have had for feeling threatened. It's pretty par for the course that we'd have none of that information available at this point, just from news reports.

We can all imagine what the scene looked like and either decide he was in the right or that he was tragically intemperate, but we could pretty easily be totally wrong in either direction, having almost zero to go on.
 
Kleanbore said:
Property owner went outside in the dark to investigate a noise. An argument ensued. Shooter said he "felt threatened" and fired a "warning shot" at a truck.

No injuries. The shooter is on trial. Claims self defense. Outcome expected soon.

Could have been worse. Could have been more than one out there, perhaps armed.


Click to expand...


If the person had no firearm they would not be bold enough to investigate get into argument and be on trial.
Lesson>>> call local police department instead of investigating suspecious activity yourself.
 
Kleanbore said:
It may be, and if it is not illegal it is certainly not a good idea, but that is completely irrelevant to the shooter's defense of justification
Click to expand...
I did not mean it to be a defense of the shooter. I did think it provided more context to the situation though. If the activity is also illegal in the jursidiction where the case will be heard, it could make a difference to the jury's perception of the scavenger, more than if the activity is only considered "not a good idea" there.
 
paulsj said:
If the person had no firearm they would not be bold enough to investigate get into argument and be on trial.
Lesson>>> call local police department instead of investigating suspecious activity yourself.
Click to expand...
I would absolutely NOT go outside to "investigate". I would observe from INSIDE the house what was going on, and if the creature going through my trash was not a four-legged one I would call the police. However I would also prepare to defend myself in case Mr Scavenger decided to try to break in before police arrived.
 
Yep. Obviously I did not hear the testimony, but based on the information that has been made public, I see no lawful justification.

I would consider the case an outlier.

However this trial turned out, I think there are some things that one clearly should not do in such incidents:
  • Go outside to investigate a noise--particularly alone
  • Get into an argument, using uncivil language
  • Fire "warning shots" at a moving vehicle
  • Fail to notify law enfacement as soon as possible.
I would be interested in knowing how much the defendant spent on his defense.
 
The reason for the trial and its unexpected outcome being the subject of the story here is that the defendant was not ambushed and seriously injured after having gone ouside, and he did something to cause charges to be filed.

The incident as it started to unfold bears some resemblance to the case of the airline mechanic in Texas who heard a sound outside one night, and, after asking a visitor to call 911, armed himself and headed out to investigate. He came upon someone with a knife who was apparently not a disabled veteran. He was accosted in the dark, attacked with the knife and shot with his own gun. This happened in 2009 or 2010. The report is no longer on the web.

The perp was never apprehended. The mechanic lost an arm and the ability to work.

Whatever it is that causes some people to believe that having a gun in hand or in a holster makes them immune from ambush in the dark is a trait best unlearned.
 
I am glad he got acquitted, but I think he was in the wrong. MO is pretty supportive of self-defense. I think in a lot of other states, things would have gone differently. It does not seem was not in danger of "the use or imminent use of unlawful force," which is the MO standard. Although the MO statute does provide some leeway in the case of trespassing. And the incident is complicated by the exchange of racial slurs. If it were me, I would have called the police and not gone outside. As has been pointed out, if the trespasser had a gun, the defender could have easily been ambushed.
 
Kleanbore said:
What do you mean by that?
Click to expand...

Noted in bold:

"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...
 
jmf552 said:
"2. A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

... 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.
Click to expand...
Don't try to interpret that one out of context.

That's part of the law addressing the defense of persons; it says that one may not use deadly force unless, but it does not say that one may use deafly force if; and the burden of proof on the state is to prove beyond 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.

The jury instructions say the same thing. The law does not permit the use of deadly force simply because someone who is not welcome is on the property or in the abode.

Nothing to do with trespass.
 
...Shooter said he "felt threatened" and fired a "warning shot" at a truck.
Click to expand...

Normally "warning shots" are fired into the air and not "at" a vehicle that might have peope inside that could be killed or injured by the shot.

Yeah, nobody was hurt and the shooter's story was believed by the jury, but this could have easily gone another way. Frank Ettin makes the point in these cases the shooter's decision to fire will be reviewed by a jury - a jury that I will point out will be sitting in a calm, safe, air-conditioned conference room far removed from the fear, urgency and uncertainty of the night the shooter claims to have felt compelled to fire.

I was taught to never brandish a weapon, much less aim it at or actually shoot a person, unless there was no other alternative.

Someone may have a "good shoot" and later be found "not guilty" and may even escape liability in the civil suit that will inevitably follow (where the evidentiary burden is different), but the shooter's "wallet" will be several thousands - perhaps tens-of-thousands of dollars ligher as a result. That reality alone may impact the shooter's ability to buy a car, buy a house or retire. The decision to pull the trigger is life-changing regardless of what the court system ends up saying about the shooting and it is a change most of us would prefer to avoid.
 
Kleanbore said:
Don't try to interpret that one out of context.

That's part of the law addressing the defense of persons; it says that one may not use deadly force unless, but it does not say that one may use deafly force if; and the burden of proof on the state is to prove beyond 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.

The jury instructions say the same thing. The law does not permit the use of deadly force simply because someone who is not welcome is on the property or in the abode.

Nothing to do with trespass.
Click to expand...
Not sure how your can argue that. I think "unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual..." is the very definition of trespass. Also if you are correct about "the burden of proof on the state is to prove beyond 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," that is huge. SD is by default an affirmative defense, meaning the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove he did "reasonably believe..." If the wording of this statute changes the burden of proof to the state, and I read that the same way BTW, that is a game-changer in favor of the defendant.
 
Kleanbore said:
Don't try to interpret that one out of context.

That's part of the law addressing the defense of persons; it says that one may not use deadly force unless, but it does not say that one may use deafly force if; and the burden of proof on the state is to prove beyond 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.

The jury instructions say the same thing. The law does not permit the use of deadly force simply because someone who is not welcome is on the property or in the abode.

Nothing to do with trespass.
Click to expand...

Your interpretation seems to insert an AND where the actual law uses the word OR.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top