Yeah, this guy is guilty like Trump for crimes that don't exist.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Black teen shot after ringing the wrong doorbell while picking up his siblings, police say
- Thread starter Reptile
- Start date
SwampYankee42
NES Member
Any hint of objectivity or not assuming the old man had hatred in his actions is raycis.
The NES black caucus said so
Black Caucus is straight trippin' yo
Asaltweapon
NES Member
You should get that problem looked at.
TBH, I don’t feel like doing a deep dive into the state law on this. Branca discussed it to some degree, but I was just skimming his video after he got the fact pattern wrong and it was apparent to me that he had chosen this case as yet another to get outraged about when the shooter loses in court. Apparently deadly force is allowed in at least some circumstances where there is attempted forced entry, but is reasonable belief of the attempt even sufficient? Or might this provision only apply when proven?
You can read the Missouri law here. I've seen that, but I'm not going to hunt down the case law that draws a box around how it has been interpreted in Missouri. My guess would be that Lester's case does not hinge on any putative right to defend his curtilage, rather on his belief that he was in physical danger. We've definitely seen much cleaner, clearer cases of it. There was the Jeffrey Lovell case here in Massachusetts , and another more recently where a man's daughter's ex tried to force entry after being turned away. It's a bit more like the Yoshihiro Hattori case, but even in that case the homeowner did not open fire without uttering a word of warning first.
Stringing the sections from your link together and deleting those that conditions that do not apply here yields:
*563.031. Use of force in defense of persons.
- A person may ... use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he ... reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself ... from what he ... reasonably believes to be the ... imminent use of unlawful force by such other person.
- A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless ... Such force is used against a person who ... attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned ... by an individual.
- A person does not have a duty to retreat ... From private property that is owned by such individual.
Bigfudge16
NES Member
Sell that damn house and start living in vrbo's or on cruise ships for the remainder of life
Jason Flare
NES Member
A friend drove my wife to a grocery store in Key West and when she came out of the store she got into the wrong car on the front passenger side and closed the door.
The driver said, “Excuse me?” And she looked at the driver and saw that it was the wrong person and let out a scream. (Probably not a super loud scream but a girl scream from being startled.)
Both she and the driver laughed. She could have been killed.
The driver said, “Excuse me?” And she looked at the driver and saw that it was the wrong person and let out a scream. (Probably not a super loud scream but a girl scream from being startled.)
Both she and the driver laughed. She could have been killed.
Bigfudge16
NES Member
she should sue the driver for emotional damages...
This is exactly why it is necessary to hunt down the case law and figure out how it has been interpreted by judges in the state in the past. Note that "reasonably believes" is only used in 2(1) and is absent in 2(2) or 2(3), suggesting that these apply when it is part of the fact pattern of the case, not merely a matter of belief. The circumstantial evidence, the evidence at the scene, and Lester's own statement imply considerable doubt that there was an actual attempt at unlawful entry. Granted, the state has the burden of proof here, but it's not looking good for Lester.
I did not mean to imply in any way, shape, form, or fashion that warning was required. Rather, that in all those other cases disregarded warnings went a long way to establish reasonableness of belief that the defender was in danger. Reasonable belief is usually defined as what an ordinary and prudent person would think under the same circumstances.
KBCraig
NES Member
Another shit take from Branca, who has no more access to the facts than any of the rest of us. But be sure to tune in to his show!From Andrew Branca:
In the late-night hours of April 13, an 84-year-old homeowner living alone was awoken by someone banging on his front door. Lester prudently armed himself with a .32 caliber pistol, and opened his front door to respond to the person outside.
Before him an unknown 6-foot-tall male was attempting to force entry through his locked storm door--an apparent forcible home invasion. The homeowner shot at the attempted intruder twice, and the intruder fled. The homeowner then promptly called 911 to report the event.
For this, the homeowner, Andrew Lester has been immediately targeted for racial arson by Benjamin Crump and others of his ilk, with a full-blown propaganda campaign raging across Twitter and news media demonizing Lester for having shot 16-year-old Ralph Yari simply for the "crime" of having rung Lester's doorbell.
Within a day Lester was charged by Prosecutor Zachary Thompson with the Life felony of first-degree assault, as well as 15-year felony armed criminal action.
Notably, Prosecutor Thompson informed the public that "It's been my goal from the very beginning to get justice for the child involved in the case." No mention was made of any interest in justice for Andrew Lester.
Join me LIVE at 1 PM ET to discuss this newest travesty of justice being promulgated by Attorney Crump against yet another vulnerable victim of the racial grievance industrial complex. You can join the YouTube stream by clicking the image or link below:
Elderly Man Defends Against Home Invasion, Charged with Life Felony
We'll also be streaming this live on our Twitter account, @LawSelfDefense, as well as on Rumble and, of course, the Law of Self Defense Member Dashboard.
Last edited:
KBCraig
NES Member
Your period caught you by surprise again, huh?
Remember, he, as is Crump, is very good at what he does. Branca is trying to keep people from going to jail by educating them. He has a philosophy. You can watch his youtube videos that are now truncated, sign up for the School of Self Defense on his website or even take his webinars. Both of them lawyers, are trying to earn a living.
I don't see anything in the post above that makes his statement 'shit', though.
KBCraig
NES Member
Other than claims without evidence?
Don't you know how the internet works?
BTW. "it has been widely reported" that the probable cause statement had the door pulling, bullets flying, no threshold included. Remember, the yewt was in the hospital so the police only had the shooters statement.
The criminal complaint. Also, I haven't listened or read any of Andrew's work in a while.
Read the Criminal Complaint
Andrew D. Lester, 84, has been charged with assault in the first degree and armed criminal action in the shooting of Ralph Yarl.
You don't put exculpatory statements in the complaint.Don't you know how the internet works?
BTW. "it has been widely reported" that the probable cause statement had the door pulling, bullets flying, no threshold included. Remember, the yewt was in the hospital so the police only had the shooters statement.
The criminal complaint. Also, I haven't listened or read any of Andrew's work in a while.
Read the Criminal Complaint
Andrew D. Lester, 84, has been charged with assault in the first degree and armed criminal action in the shooting of Ralph Yarl.www.nytimes.com
It's just a statement of facts as perceived by the prosecution.
pastera
NES Member
Reasonable belief is the standard
You don't have to have perfect knowledge
If a guy is robbing people in a restaurant at gun point and a patron pops him through the back of his skull is it's still a good shoot even it the gun was later show to be unloaded, non-functional or a replica.
If it is reasonable to believe under the same circumstances that the person did pose a deadly force threat then deadly force defense is legal.
In the case at hand the totality of the circumstances would be reasonable for an 84 YO frail man awoken at night by a large young man ringing his bell and tugging at his door to believe he was under a deadly force threat (disparity of force) and the state law allows deadly force to repell an attempted forced entry.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 136
- Likes
- 204
One of the first things you learn in a decent, firearms training class are the concepts of
"Ability, opportunity, jeopardy", and a new addition, "no other choices".
From Ayoob's book, In The Gravest Extreme,
"American laws universally condone homicide,
"ONLY WHEN UNDERTAKEN TO ESCAPE IMMINENT AND UNAVOIDABLE DANGER OF DEATH OR GRAVE BODILY HARM.
Some states allow homicide in other instances, but any person who chooses to use a firearm to protect property, or to stop the commission of a felony is treading onto very thin ice.
You need to check off these four boxes before you can even consider using a firearm in self defense.
1. Ability. The perpetrator has to have the ability to inflict death or grave bodily harm. A three year-old, holding a baseball bat, doesn't likely have the ability to hurt you. A 300 pound football player holding a baseball bat DOES have the ability to harm you. You MIGHT be able to shoot the football player. If you shoot the three year-old, you're likely screwed.
2. Opportunity. The perp has to be ABLE to inflict harm. If that 300 pound football player is standing 21 feet away, he has the ability to pull off an assault. If he is standing 100 yards away in the opposing end zone, he doesn't. You MIGHT be able to shoot him at 21 feet. You are NOT justified 100 yards away.
3. Jeopardy. The perp has to be acting in a way that a reasonable man (an actual legal definition) would conclude that he meant to do the victim harm. The 300 pound football player holding a baseball bat like a walking cane, chatting with his friends in a calm, quiet manner is not likely acting in a way that hints that he wants to do you harm. He could be waiting for the start of a baseball game with his friends. The player screaming threats at you in a demonstrable rage, closing the distance, and sending provable, pre-assault cues IS acting in a way that a reasonable man might decide suggests that he means to do you harm.
The fourth concept is a new one, and was included due to the inclinations of progressive prosecutors to destroy anyone who uses violence in self-defense against a criminal. (We've seen this in NYC, Austin, and other far-left, woke jurisdictions). The victim should only shoot if there are no other safe ways to avoid the interaction. Never mind any moral considerations, practical ones suggest that if you can find a way to avoid shooting someone in any way that keeps you safe, that is by far, the best choice. George Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin was investigated by the police, and the local justice officials. and was deemed justifiable. Once Benny Crump and Ryan Julison got a hold of the case, their manipulation got Zimmerman arrested, jailed and charged. The criminal and civil trials cost him well over a million dollars. They destroyed his life, and made him pretty much unemployable. They also put his life in danger from tens of thousands of racist nutjobs that believed that he shot a cherubic, child, skipping to the store to buy candy and iced tea. Not putting himself in a position where he had to interact with Martin would have been a far better choice than choosing to get involved.
Look at Kyle Rittenhouse. His decision to carry an AR rifle, and volunteer for policing duty to protect businesses during BLM riots, earned him millions of dollars in legal fees, a nasty criminal trial, civil lawsuits, a worldwide reputation as a murderer, and a whole host of hassles, stresses, and risks to his life. It wasn't even his city or his property. My thought would be to let the paid police do their job, and I would have stayed home with my dogs and laptop. Why on earth would I play cop, and not even get paid for it? As they say, "Not my circus. Not my monkeys."
Another example. you wake up at 3 in the morning to the sound of someone stealing your car. You grab your gun, and head outside. The guy seems to reach for a weapon, and you shoot him. He's Crumpy's son. It's now your word against Crump's, and he's out hunting for your scalp. It would be far more prudent, and financially viable to stay inside, call the police, and then the insurance company. I know. I know. The left has emasculated the police, and some departments won't even respond to a theft in progress call. I'd still deem it smarter to stay inside, and buy a new truck. Had both of the shooters in these two cases not gone outside, or not answered the door, they'd still be sleeping in their own beds, eating their own food, and going about their daily routine.
I'd prefer to shell out $60,000 for a new truck, rather than the obscene costs of a shooting in this day and age. Better yet, I'd rather lock the truck, keep it behind a fence, keep some dogs who will bark if an intruder enters my property, and live in a neighborhood which has a low crime rate.
Finally, I can easily do the Monday morning quarterback thing here on these recent cases, but we all have to remember that Crump, Julison, and the mainstream media that is in bed with those two, are trying these cases in the press before any investigation is complete. The only intelligent, reasonable thing to do here is let the authorities do their jobs under our watchful eye, and let the facts be assembled. It is possible that an untrained old man fired at these people from bare fear, and are guilty of a crime. OR, it's possible that something far more nefarious took place, and the shootings will prove to be justifiable.
ANYONE who thinks that they might have to use a firearm for self defense SHOULD take a comprehensive training class, like Mas Ayoob's MAG 20 or Mag 40. If you really can't spare the money or the time, then read. Do your homework. A gun is not a talisman that through mere possession, wards off evil. It's a high-skill tool that demands practice, understanding, and a whole lot of education to be used in an effective manner. The $1000 for that Mag 40 class might be a bargain compared to the cost of a shooting that you might have been able to avoid had you been better trained.
"Ability, opportunity, jeopardy", and a new addition, "no other choices".
From Ayoob's book, In The Gravest Extreme,
"American laws universally condone homicide,
"ONLY WHEN UNDERTAKEN TO ESCAPE IMMINENT AND UNAVOIDABLE DANGER OF DEATH OR GRAVE BODILY HARM.
Some states allow homicide in other instances, but any person who chooses to use a firearm to protect property, or to stop the commission of a felony is treading onto very thin ice.
You need to check off these four boxes before you can even consider using a firearm in self defense.
1. Ability. The perpetrator has to have the ability to inflict death or grave bodily harm. A three year-old, holding a baseball bat, doesn't likely have the ability to hurt you. A 300 pound football player holding a baseball bat DOES have the ability to harm you. You MIGHT be able to shoot the football player. If you shoot the three year-old, you're likely screwed.
2. Opportunity. The perp has to be ABLE to inflict harm. If that 300 pound football player is standing 21 feet away, he has the ability to pull off an assault. If he is standing 100 yards away in the opposing end zone, he doesn't. You MIGHT be able to shoot him at 21 feet. You are NOT justified 100 yards away.
3. Jeopardy. The perp has to be acting in a way that a reasonable man (an actual legal definition) would conclude that he meant to do the victim harm. The 300 pound football player holding a baseball bat like a walking cane, chatting with his friends in a calm, quiet manner is not likely acting in a way that hints that he wants to do you harm. He could be waiting for the start of a baseball game with his friends. The player screaming threats at you in a demonstrable rage, closing the distance, and sending provable, pre-assault cues IS acting in a way that a reasonable man might decide suggests that he means to do you harm.
The fourth concept is a new one, and was included due to the inclinations of progressive prosecutors to destroy anyone who uses violence in self-defense against a criminal. (We've seen this in NYC, Austin, and other far-left, woke jurisdictions). The victim should only shoot if there are no other safe ways to avoid the interaction. Never mind any moral considerations, practical ones suggest that if you can find a way to avoid shooting someone in any way that keeps you safe, that is by far, the best choice. George Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin was investigated by the police, and the local justice officials. and was deemed justifiable. Once Benny Crump and Ryan Julison got a hold of the case, their manipulation got Zimmerman arrested, jailed and charged. The criminal and civil trials cost him well over a million dollars. They destroyed his life, and made him pretty much unemployable. They also put his life in danger from tens of thousands of racist nutjobs that believed that he shot a cherubic, child, skipping to the store to buy candy and iced tea. Not putting himself in a position where he had to interact with Martin would have been a far better choice than choosing to get involved.
Look at Kyle Rittenhouse. His decision to carry an AR rifle, and volunteer for policing duty to protect businesses during BLM riots, earned him millions of dollars in legal fees, a nasty criminal trial, civil lawsuits, a worldwide reputation as a murderer, and a whole host of hassles, stresses, and risks to his life. It wasn't even his city or his property. My thought would be to let the paid police do their job, and I would have stayed home with my dogs and laptop. Why on earth would I play cop, and not even get paid for it? As they say, "Not my circus. Not my monkeys."
Another example. you wake up at 3 in the morning to the sound of someone stealing your car. You grab your gun, and head outside. The guy seems to reach for a weapon, and you shoot him. He's Crumpy's son. It's now your word against Crump's, and he's out hunting for your scalp. It would be far more prudent, and financially viable to stay inside, call the police, and then the insurance company. I know. I know. The left has emasculated the police, and some departments won't even respond to a theft in progress call. I'd still deem it smarter to stay inside, and buy a new truck. Had both of the shooters in these two cases not gone outside, or not answered the door, they'd still be sleeping in their own beds, eating their own food, and going about their daily routine.
I'd prefer to shell out $60,000 for a new truck, rather than the obscene costs of a shooting in this day and age. Better yet, I'd rather lock the truck, keep it behind a fence, keep some dogs who will bark if an intruder enters my property, and live in a neighborhood which has a low crime rate.
Finally, I can easily do the Monday morning quarterback thing here on these recent cases, but we all have to remember that Crump, Julison, and the mainstream media that is in bed with those two, are trying these cases in the press before any investigation is complete. The only intelligent, reasonable thing to do here is let the authorities do their jobs under our watchful eye, and let the facts be assembled. It is possible that an untrained old man fired at these people from bare fear, and are guilty of a crime. OR, it's possible that something far more nefarious took place, and the shootings will prove to be justifiable.
ANYONE who thinks that they might have to use a firearm for self defense SHOULD take a comprehensive training class, like Mas Ayoob's MAG 20 or Mag 40. If you really can't spare the money or the time, then read. Do your homework. A gun is not a talisman that through mere possession, wards off evil. It's a high-skill tool that demands practice, understanding, and a whole lot of education to be used in an effective manner. The $1000 for that Mag 40 class might be a bargain compared to the cost of a shooting that you might have been able to avoid had you been better trained.
Last edited:
Good points. Look, I do agree with Branca on the point that the state is obligated to take the role of truth seeker here and pursue justice for all parties insofar as that is a criminal matter. If the use of force was justified, then it would be a civil case. Unfortunately, I don't yet believe Yarl was pulling on the outer handle of the storm door in the first place, and even if he had reached out to assist with the opening of the storm door, which is doubtful, he had most likely desisted in that before he was actually shot. Shooting him after he had let go would be like shooting the guy with a toy gun after he drops the toy gun. Certainly he had desisted before he was (allegedly) shot a second time on the ground with this single-action revolver.
Another example of why you don’t talk to police.
If he told them both doors were locked and he opened the interior door, leaving the exterior door still locked, and shot the kid through the locked glass door within seconds, that’s a tough thing to defend.
If he told them both doors were locked and he opened the interior door, leaving the exterior door still locked, and shot the kid through the locked glass door within seconds, that’s a tough thing to defend.
pastera
NES Member
Yarl was informally interviewed by Detective Joy on April 14. This is reported on page 3 of the probable cause affidavit. This is the only information I'm personally aware of, but on principle, I agree with the sentiment that Crump is not to be trusted, and his presence will more likely obfuscate the truth than expose it.
We should take Yarl's account with a grain of salt even assuming he is sincere: he was shot in the head and probably had an adrenaline dump on top of that. He could be hole-filling when he pieces together his memory of the incident.
I have questions about where Yarl was when shot, specifically whether he was in arm's reach of the door handle. I assume the storm door was tempered glass, so "shattered" means "shattered", i.e. no bullet holes to help sort out the trajectory. Still, they might infer a lot from Yarl's injury, Lester's height, and where the blood on the porch was found. I got the impression that there wasn't any blood spatter on the frame insofar as none was mentioned and the DNA analysis implied that Yarl was not a major contributor to DNA on the door. The affidavit mentions a fingerprint on the door that isn't Lester's. The affidavit doesn't rule out that it could be Yarl's. They probably did not have fingerprints for him on file, maybe don't even now.
Bad choices on both sides? Knocking on the wrong door is a bad choice now? I’m screwed then, I knock on doors all day and I’ve knocked on a few wrong ones over the years. I guess I’m lucky I haven’t been shot and probably that I’m not black. What’s odd is that none of the neighbors doors he knocked on, (probably yelling and screaming because he’d been shot in the head at this point), shot through their storm doors. It’s almost like stopping for a few seconds to assess the situation, can give you a good idea of what’s actually going on.
Similar threads
