Black teen shot after ringing the wrong doorbell while picking up his siblings, police say

[pastera]

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.

He was going to pick up his siblings (assuming a split family) at their house.
Are you telling me he didn't know where they lived?
He passed no trespassing signs (reported) to get to the house.

Had he just done a WTF check instead of blindly following a GPS entry he wouldn't have ended up in the wrong place.

Assuming the shooter's TIMELY and unprompted statements about pulling on the door to be true then he should have been more cautious if he didn't recognize his surroundings.

I do admit the shooter's pre incident stupid ranks very high though - WTF open the inner door at all. A good yell of who are you follow by wrong house, beat it would have avoided any issues

 

[Tinkermatic]

He was going to pick up his siblings (assuming a split family) at their house.
Are you telling me he didn't know where they lived?
He passed no trespassing signs (reported) to get to the house.

Had he just done a WTF check instead of blindly following a GPS entry he wouldn't have ended up in the wrong place.

Assuming the shooter's TIMELY and unprompted statements about pulling on the door to be true then he should have been more cautious if he didn't recognize his surroundings.

I do admit the shooter's pre incident stupid ranks very high though - WTF open the inner door at all. A good yell of who are you follow by wrong house, beat it would have avoided any issues

This is the one time a “GET OFF MY LAWN!” may have been warranted and solved everything.

Also, I walk past no trespassing signs all the time, if I think I’m supposed to be there (customer has invited me)then they don’t apply to me. Also, he was at the correct address, kind of. He had the right number, right street name, kind of, but from what I read it was a matter of being on ‘Maple Ave’ and not ‘Maple St.’ which I have also done numerous times in my time driving around.

 

[pastera]

This is the one time a “GET OFF MY LAWN!” may have been warranted and solved everything.

Also, I walk past no trespassing signs all the time, if I think I’m supposed to be there (customer has invited me)then they don’t apply to me. Also, he was at the correct address, kind of. He had the right number, right street name, kind of, but from what I read it was a matter of being on ‘Maple Ave’ and not ‘Maple St.’ which I have also done numerous times in my time driving around.

I agree but it doesn't change the fact he was NOT authorized to be there.
If a customer has told you to enter the property then you aren't trespassing.
Yes, the kid was understandably at the wrong address but he was still at the wrong address.
Sometimes bad shit happens because everyone involved has a reasonable buy wrong understanding of the true situation at hand.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Pretty s***** reporting. You mean to tell me this kid did nothing other than ring the doorbell and got shot for it? I find that hard to believe. I want to know what kind of interaction occurred between the kid in the homeowner before I passed judgment. The media these days cannot be trusted. Anytime someone of One race gets shot by another race they intentionally leave out very important context and other information to drive their narrative. They have a social justice and an anti-gun narrative they're trying to advance. Nothing they say can be trusted.

The homeowner is innocent until proven guilty. And that means it was a Justified self-defense shooting until it can be proven otherwise. So let's see what kind of interaction existed between the kid and the homeowner and see if the evidence establishes guilt.

 

[meh]

Pretty s***** reporting. You mean to tell me this kid did nothing other than ring the doorbell and got shot for it? I find that hard to believe. I want to know what kind of interaction occurred between the kid in the homeowner before I passed judgment.

Well, this is from the defendant's statement to the police (from the probable cause affidavit). I apologize for any typos that are mine. Let me know if you see any, and I'll edit it.

He stated on April 13, 2023, he had just laid down in bed when he heard the doorbell ring.LESTER stated he picked up his gun (a .32 Smith and Wesson 1888 revolver) before responding to answer the door.He stated the front door of his residence consisted of an interior main door and exterior glass storm door, both of which were locked.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.LESTER stated the male ran away and he immediately used his home phone to call 911.He stated he observed a car in the driveway he believed to be the male's vehicle LESTER stated he had never seen the male before.He stated no words were exchanged during the incident and the male had not said anything prior to pulling on the door handle.LESTER stated it was the last thing he wanted to do, but he was "scared to death" due to the male's size and LESTER's age (84) and inability to defend himself.He believed he was protecting himself from a physical confrontation and could not take the chance of the male coming in.LESTER was visibly upset and repeatedly expressed concern for the victim.

This was the result of a "informal cursory interview" of the victim (referred to as PY):

PY stated on April 14, 2023 he was told by his Mother to respond to 1100 NE 115th St., Kansas City, Clay County, Missouri to pick up his brothers. The actual address his brothers were at was 1100 NE 115th Terrace, Kansas City, Clay County, Missouri. PY stated he parked in the driveway and walked up to the front door. He stated he pressed the door bell and waited outside the front door. PY stated the male inside took a long time but finally opened the door holding a firearm. He stated he was immediately shot in the head and fell to the ground. PY stated while on the ground he was shot a second time in the arm. PY advised he did not pull on the door and this was the first time coming to the residence. He stated he got up and ran away to keep from being shot. PY stated the male who resides at 1100 NE 115h St. stated, "Don't come around here". PY stated he went to multiple residences asking for assistance and telling people to call police. Police showed up a short time later. PY suffered a gunshot wound in the left forehead and right arm.

I'm thinking the incident should have ended better, and simply would have but for the extraordinary speed with which the homeowner made the decision to start shooting. The phrase "within a few seconds" probably means in reality much faster if he perceived it as such. Imagine what might have happened if there had been time for an exchange of words or if there had at least been a delay of a few more seconds for both participants to come to a better understanding of the situation they were in.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Well, this is from the defendant's statement to the police (from the probable cause affidavit). I apologize for any typos that are mine. Let me know if you see any, and I'll edit it.



This was the result of a "informal cursory interview" of the victim (referred to as PY):



I'm thinking the incident should have ended better, and simply would have but for the extraordinary speed with which the homeowner made the decision to start shooting. The phrase "within a few seconds" probably means in reality much faster if he perceived it as such. Imagine what might have happened if there had been time for an exchange of words or if there had at least been a delay of a few more seconds for both participants to come to a better understanding of the situation they were in.

Thanks for the additional context, I didn't see that in the original article. I find the homeowner's story to be plausible. But he shouldn't have opened the door. A "who is it" while you stand on the side of the door (not in front of it) may have cleared it all up.

Sucks for both of them.

 

[pastera]

Well, this is from the defendant's statement to the police (from the probable cause affidavit). I apologize for any typos that are mine. Let me know if you see any, and I'll edit it.



This was the result of a "informal cursory interview" of the victim (referred to as PY):



I'm thinking the incident should have ended better, and simply would have but for the extraordinary speed with which the homeowner made the decision to start shooting. The phrase "within a few seconds" probably means in reality much faster if he perceived it as such. Imagine what might have happened if there had been time for an exchange of words or if there had at least been a delay of a few more seconds for both participants to come to a better understanding of the situation they were in.

Imagine what would have happened if the homeowner had hesitated and the kid had actually intended harm...

The better method of dealing with the kid at his door was to not open it in the first place. But opening your door isn't illegal nor does it negate self defense against a home invasion, real or reasonably perceived.

 

[Bonesinium]

Imagine what would have happened if the homeowner had hesitated and the kid had actually intended harm...

The better method of dealing with the kid at his door was to not open it in the first place. But opening your door isn't illegal nor does it negate self defense against a home invasion, real or reasonably perceived.

Your position that going to the wrong door is the equivalent of a home invasion is extremely ridiculous. There is no evidence thus far of such. The homeowners statements don’t support that. And there seems to be quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.

Shooting someone through a closed and locked door because you don’t know what they want or why they’re there probably isn’t justified anywhere.

And if some black kid is knocking on your door, it’s UNreasonable to perceive that as some sort of home invasion by itself. It’s much more reasonable to believe he’s got the wrong address, his car broke down and phone is dead, he’s spotted smoke billowing from your house and is warning you of a fire, or many other situations.

 

[whatluck]

 

[whatluck]

 

[meh]

Imagine what would have happened if the homeowner had hesitated and the kid had actually intended harm...

The better method of dealing with the kid at his door was to not open it in the first place. But opening your door isn't illegal nor does it negate self defense against a home invasion, real or reasonably perceived.

I think such situations are going to sort almost entirely into two bins, one of which is that the scenario was lost when he opened the door and the other being one where there is substantial slack time. The situation you are implying, one that is only survivable once the inner door was opened by opening fire when he did, is balanced on the head of a pin.

You say reasonably perceived, I say unreasonably perceived, and that's why we have courts. It isn't outrageous that they're going to try the case. We just need to keep an eye on it to call out any chicanery.

 

[pdm]

View attachment 744444

Of course. Millions of years of evolution, countless sacrifices on the part of his ancestors to end up with... that.

 

[headednorth]

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.

I've done the same. I've even entered the wrong apartment a few times over the years. It wasn't at night, and the occupants weren't in their 80's and I don't belong to a demographic which unfortunately has more than earned a reputation for violence.

 

[pastera]

I think such situations are going to sort almost entirely into two bins, one of which is that the scenario was lost when he opened the door and the other being one where there is substantial slack time. The situation you are implying, one that is only survivable once the inner door was opened by opening fire when he did, is balanced on the head of a pin.

You say reasonably perceived, I say unreasonably perceived, and that's why we have courts. It isn't outrageous that they're going to try the case. We just need to keep an eye on it to call out any chicanery.

I'm not the one determining reasonably perceived - that's the legal standard and it's up to a jury to determine if it was reasonable that a person of the shooters age and frailty would under the same circumstances reason that they were the victim of an imminent deadly force attack.

You are allowed to be wrong in your belief as long as that belief was reasonable for the totality of the situation.
Again, I'm not claiming innocence or fault since we have two stories told from the perspective of a person standing to gain from coloring the story to their favor. If and when forensics releases data on the timing of the shots and where the kid was for each shot that will lend credence to one or neither of the stories.

 

[headednorth]

do admit the shooter's pre incident stupid ranks very high though - WTF open the inner door at all. A good yell of who are you follow by wrong house, beat it would have avoided any issues

Agreed, but unsurprising to me.

Over the course of my life I've had various jobs which have required me to knock on thousands if not tens of thousands of doors at this point. In my experience, people always open the door. Old, young, male, female, all races, hoods, nice suburbs, whatever. They may crack it open just a few inches, but once it's unlocked, it may as well be wide open.

Gotta be true 98%+ of the time. Even people who are giving me the stink eye right from square one open the door.

 

[headednorth]

Oyy...Is it too tinfoily to suggest grandpa was set up by his Satanist, dreadlocked, BLM supporting, trans activist grandson?

 

[Reptile]

Chicopee homeowner found not guilty in teen’s shooting death​

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (WWLP) – A judge has acquitted a Chicopee resident of manslaughter in the shooting death of a 15 year-old boy who came to his door back in 2016.


Judge Constance Sweeney announced her not guilty verdict Tuesday in the case of Jeffrey Lovell. Lovell had said that he acted in self-defense when he shot Dylan Francisco through the front door of his Chicopee home in July of 2016.


District Attorney Anthony Gulluni had said Francisco had been headed to visit a friend, but mistook Lovell’s home for his friend’s residence. Francisco banged on Lovell’s door, breaking a pane of glass, after which time Lovell fatally shot him.



Lovell had opted to have a “bench trial,” or one in which a judge weighs the evidence and determines a verdict, rather than the more common trial by jury.

Chicopee homeowner found not guilty in teen’s shooting death

Jeffrey Lovell of Chicopee had been charged with manslaughter in the shooting death of 15 year-old Dylan Francisco.

www.wwlp.com

Jeffrey Lovell shot a teen through his glass door.
Of course, he was screaming at the kid to go away while the kid was smashing down the door and his poor wife was on the phone with her baby begging the police to come.

In the case of gramps - there is less exculpatory evidence.

 

[KBCraig]

Pretty s***** reporting. You mean to tell me this kid did nothing other than ring the doorbell and got shot for it? I find that hard to believe.

My late ex-mother-in-law also carried a .32 revolver, and it was always our greatest fear that this 4'10" woman with declining mental faculties and a lot of paranoia about black men, would just open fire on an innocent person just because of her prejudice.

Thankfully, it never happened. But I wouldn't have been surprised if it had, and I've known many older people who would also react out of fear and shoot first.

When my father was about 9, he and his mother were home alone while his father worked a late night shift.

About 11 p.m., a drunk started pounding on their door, making threats, and promising to kick the door down.

Grandma leveled a .38 at the door and fired one shot through it. Thankfully she was a tall woman, and the drunk was a short man. He left quickly, but at sunup they found his hat on the porch, with a bullet hole through it.

That was a different time (pre WW2), and a much different place. It was not a good choice even then.

 

[Toast]

They keep saying he used a ".32 caliber revolver".

Which .32 caliber? I have a really nice S&W M&P revolver in .32 WCF that belonged to my dad. .32WCF (also know as .32-20) was the .357 Mag of its day. I've never shot it as ammunition for it is a unicorn. If this guy has a line on some ....

 

[Mountain]

They keep saying he used a ".32 caliber revolver".

Which .32 caliber? I have a really nice S&W M&P revolver in .32 WCF that belonged to my dad. .32WCF (also know as .32-20) was the .357 Mag of it's day. I've never shot it as ammunition for it is a unicorn. If this guy has a line on some ....

A friend inherited one of those revolvers and oddly enough the deceased was racist A-F and had pointed that .32 at (insert appropriate racial slur)'s on more than one occasion over basically nothing. Yep, that ammo is a unicorn. Ammoseek pulls up all sorts of obscure calibers but nada for .32WCF.

 

[EJFudd]

They keep saying he used a ".32 caliber revolver".

Which .32 caliber?

Supposedly, it was an S&W 1888 Safety Hammerless Revolver in .32 S&W (Short).

Smith & Wesson Safety Hammerless - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ThePreBanMan]

I think such situations are going to sort almost entirely into two bins, one of which is that the scenario was lost when he opened the door and the other being one where there is substantial slack time. The situation you are implying, one that is only survivable once the inner door was opened by opening fire when he did, is balanced on the head of a pin.

You say reasonably perceived, I say unreasonably perceived, and that's why we have courts. It isn't outrageous that they're going to try the case. We just need to keep an eye on it to call out any chicanery.

The kid was trying to open the front door. I don't care who you are, you don't start opening doors into a stranger's home. Even just screen doors.

That's what got him shot. If somebody was on your front porch trying to open your front door, and the Split Second that follows something tells me you would have a very different opinion of the situation.

 

[MaverickNH]

The kid was trying to open the front door. I don't care who you are, you don't start opening doors into a stranger's home. Even just screen doors.

That's what got him shot. If somebody was on your front porch trying to open your front door, and the Split Second that follows something tells me you would have a very different opinion of the situation.

I dunno - lots of services (lawn, oil, etc.) put the invoice in the screen door. If it’s windy, Amazon will put an order in the screen door rather then let it blow away. But only in the daylight. Kids with no smarts don’t deserve shooting, though.

The only time I can recall hearing the screen door open at night and a hard, long knock was the PD looking for my son. When I said he’d been at OSUT at Ft Benning for 22 weeks and just shipped to Ft Brag for Paratrooper school, their jaws dropped. They left without any explanation - clearly fingered wrongly (that time). Motion-activated lights came on and I could see cops and their cruiser parked in the street, so I responded with no firearms visible.

 

[headednorth]

The kid was trying to open the front door. I don't care who you are, you don't start opening doors into a stranger's home. Even just screen doors.

That's what got him shot. If somebody was on your front porch trying to open your front door, and the Split Second that follows something tells me you would have a very different opinion of the situation.

I have those Bing cameras at my house that send you an alert and a vid clip when theyre triggered by motion. I get an alert one day from the cam covering my front door. I have a probably close to 100 year old (exaggerating) wooden storm door with a glass insert that I keep "locked" with one of those simple hooks with the loop attached to the jamb. Woman comes up the stairs, pulls on the storm door a couple of times, pauses and then starts yanking on it hard maybe 3 or 4 times while muttering something in Spanish. She finally shakes her head and stomps off.

No idea how that old door and/or cheapo hook didnt fail. Im watching this and thinking, who tf yanks on a strangers door like that? Any normal person would have pulled once, maybe a second time a little harder in case the door was stuck, and then knocked on the closed door. Made no attempt to knock, never went around to the side door, no idea who she was, what she wanted and she's never been back.

People are retarded.

 

[headednorth]

I dunno - lots of services (lawn, oil, etc.) put the invoice in the screen door. If it’s windy, Amazon will put an order in the screen door rather then let it blow away. But only in the daylight. Kids with no smarts don’t deserve shooting, though.

The only time I can recall hearing the screen door open at night and a hard, long knock was the PD looking for my son. When I said he’d been at OSUT at Ft Benning for 22 weeks and just shipped to Ft Brag for Paratrooper school, their jaws dropped. They left without any explanation - clearly fingered wrongly (that time). Motion-activated lights came on and I could see cops and their cruiser parked in the street, so I responded with no firearms visible.

I think its reasonable for someone to attempt to open a storm door to knock on the actual door, but like I said in my previous post, 1 or 2 normal tugs and then knock on the storm door. No one knows how hard this kid was tugging or how long except him and the old guy and at this point each is going to exaggerate their story.

 

[pinefd]

I think its reasonable for someone to attempt to open a storm door to knock on the actual door, but like I said in my previous post, 1 or 2 normal tugs and then knock on the storm door. No one knows how hard this kid was tugging or how long except him and the old guy and at this point each is going to exaggerate their story.

Glad you mentioned this, because I was about to. Growing up in western MA back in the day, it was common practice for us, if we rang someones' doorbell, and couldn't tell whether the bell was working or not, to open the screen door and knock on the actual, solid door...or use the door knocker, if there was one. Knocking on the screen (or storm) door would usually result in a wimpy, barely audible knocking sound, which is why we would usually do that. I'm not saying that that's the case here, but it's quite possible.


Frank

 

[meh]

The kid was trying to open the front door. I don't care who you are, you don't start opening doors into a stranger's home. Even just screen doors.

That's what got him shot. If somebody was on your front porch trying to open your front door, and the Split Second that follows something tells me you would have a very different opinion of the situation.

What? Why not just close the inner door back again? Worst case I’m going to open it wide, step back to create distance, take aim, and command. What he did was stone cold stupid, and I hope I am never that stupid.

And I don’t believe Yarl was trying to open anything and have no idea why you do just because an old man who needs that to be true claims it in his defense. We know why the kid was there. Your theory rests on a mystery that usually exists but in this case does not. Play it out. You ring the door bell to a house you’ve never been to before to pick up siblings. Door takes a long time to open but eventually you hear activity and the deadbolt turn. What are you doing? Chances are that is exactly what this kid was doing, so let me propose an explanation in concert with that. A demented old man opens his door to a big scary black guy and blasts away instead of just closing the inner door, not because you, I, or any normal person would, rather because his brain no longer works properly. Then, when he had a chance to process what happened, he realized he might be in trouble, so he invented this story about the kid trying to open the door.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

What? Why not just close the inner door back again? Worst case I’m going to open it wide, step back to create distance, take aim, and command. What he did was stone cold stupid, and I hope I am never that stupid.

And I don’t believe Yarl was trying to open anything and have no idea why you do just because an old man who needs that to be true claims it in his defense. We know why the kid was there. Your theory rests on a mystery that usually exists but in this case does not. Play it out. You ring the door bell to a house you’ve never been to before to pick up siblings. Door takes a long time to open but eventually you hear activity and the deadbolt turn. What are you doing? Chances are that is exactly what this kid was doing, so let me propose an explanation in concert with that. A demented old man opens his door to a big scary black guy and blasts away instead of just closing the inner door, not because you, I, or any normal person would, rather because his brain no longer works properly. Then, when he had a chance to process what happened, he realized he might be in trouble, so he invented this story about the kid trying to open the door.

Wow, you said a whole lot of things. Do you have one shred of evidence to back up any of what you just laid out? Statements you can point to? Medical records for the elderly gentleman? Social media posts? Anything? Anything at all to support your accusations about him, such as him being demented? No... Oh, okay, so your talking out of your ass then and concocting a story based on a narrative you want to advance.

Okay, got it... Too bad CNN isn't hiring.

 

[meh]

Wow, you said a whole lot of things. Do you have one shred of evidence to back up any of what you just laid out? Statements you can point to? Medical records for the elderly gentleman? Social media posts? Anything? Anything at all to support your accusations about him, such as him being demented? No... Oh, okay, so your talking out of your ass then and concocting a story based on a narrative you want to advance.

Okay, got it...

I meant it as a colloquialism for age-related cognitive decline. Moreover, I used the language "propose an explanation" in concert with other known facts, which does not imply that it is a narrative I am promoting. I presented it as an alternative to the conclusion that you so eagerly leapt to. Their accounts are consistent in every detail save two. One is Yarl trying to open the door and the other is what Lester said (if anything) after shooting. The latter does not seem important, but the former is the very crux of Lester's story. One of them has this wrong.

If Lester has it wrong, how would you explain his behavior, hypothetically speaking?

But in any case, do tell why you presume Lester's account is the truth and Yarl's account not? Please note that this is different from play-acting as jury in the criminal case. We know the state has the burden of proof, so as jurors we would be required to give Lester the benefit of any reasonable doubt. Frequently that results, or should result, in jurors voting to acquit in cases where they think the defendant is probably guilty. I presume that is what will happen here, anyway, though Crump and friends will do everything they can to try to bully the proceedings.

 

[MAGA99]

The problem now is one of economics. The police and local government face a choice. Do they barbecue one old guy regardless of whatever facts they uncover or risk being the focus of the rage of the mob to the tune of billions of dollars?

No. You do what’s right no matter the cost. Lock and load and fire when ready.