Missouri man charged with murder for shooting thief on his property.

eye95:

My Previous Thread Enumerates 'Else-where', however; Missouri Law is Sketchy.

aadvark

*** I still Think, as a Matter-of-Principle, that, The Shooting was JUSTIFIED. ***

Is it only the letter of the law that matters here? What about the morality of it? Does anyone think the shooter was morally justified in killing this man? Personally I don't think so. I think when we have the means to use deadly force on another person we need to exercise above average judgment so we can avoid something like this happening. The shooting may end up being legally justified or he may end up in jail for some time but he still will have to live with the memory of killing someone because they decided to steel his go-kart.

The law allows physical force but also appears to give a higher threshold for the use of deadly force. I imagine they use the different wording in order to allow a property owner to tackle and/or restrain someone who is shoplifting or stealing. It is confusing but after reading through all the subsections, that's what I take from it.

Hopefully if it gets to a jury, this man will be set free. I wouldn't be surprised if the murder charge is used as a frightening leverage in order to get the shooter to plead down to a lesser charge.

FarNorth said:

Is it only the letter of the law that matters here? What about the morality of it? Does anyone think the shooter was morally justified in killing this man? Personally I don't think so. I think when we have the means to use deadly force on another person we need to exercise above average judgment so we can avoid something like this happening. The shooting may end up being legally justified or he may end up in jail for some time but he still will have to live with the memory of killing someone because they decided to steel his go-kart.

Click to expand...

I have to assume that murder was not his intent when he fired his weapon (innocent until proven guilty). What in your opinion would be a reasonable sentence even if he admitted an intent to kill? Remember the news segment said this guy had been targeted by gangs, his house and property vandalized and who knows what else. I can't put myself in his shoes, who knows how much he feared for his life or even his family prior to and while this was happening.

FarNorth said:

Is it only the letter of the law that matters here? What about the morality of it? Does anyone think the shooter was morally justified in killing this man? Personally I don't think so. I think when we have the means to use deadly force on another person we need to exercise above average judgment so we can avoid something like this happening. The shooting may end up being legally justified or he may end up in jail for some time but he still will have to live with the memory of killing someone because they decided to steel his go-kart.

Click to expand...

Legal or illegal does not equate to correct, right, moral, etc. Many laws are simply idiotic. What some incorrectly call vigilantism is more properly called vengeance and true justice, when properly applied. Simply if your dumb and willing to risk your life to enter a mans/woman's property and your end goal is to cause harm being physical or financial harm you deserve every bullet you get.

You have to live with what you do, if you're good with killing someone over property then fine. No skin off my nose.

aadvark said:

The Thief was on HIS Property in The Middle-of-The-Night! To me..., this one is Easy...,
[...] The Self-Defense was JUSTIFIED.

Click to expand...

why are you considering it "self defense" if the man was pushing the kart off his property, away from the home when he was shot?

Again..., The Matter at Hand is PRINCIPLE!

I, Myself, Questioned The Legality, at Length, in Previous Posts, Authored by Myself, in Part 1 of this Thread as to The Justifibility of such an Action.

Needless to say..., Opinions are Mixed on this Subject-matter, however; NO MAN should Stand to have HIS Property Forfeit..., Property He has to WORK for..., due to The Actions of a Thief at-Large in His Community.

Thou Shalt NOT Steal, Remember?!

Hard-Working People do Eventually 'Grow Old' of Criminals Walking Away with Property, and then, Walking away with a Slap on The Wrist form The Criminal Justice System as well.

If you've set your threshold of taking a life at your property being stolen then great, you may have to live with that decision some day.

I tend to agree with FarNorth. Given only the information that's been given to us... I would not agree w/ the shooter personally.

The thief was leaving his property. I would have called the police and studied the thief as well as I could to give an accurate description.

Had the thief stepped BACK onto my property and came towards my house, then I'm reaching for the trigger rather than phone.

I could not live with myself having killed a man (scum or not) for stealing a go-kart.

The big question people ask is whose life is worth taking over personal property? The question is answered every time when scum like this makes the choice that breaking into a person’s home or property. They have personally decided that said item is worth the risk of being shot at and or being killed in the process of stealing said item. The only person at fault for that man’s death was the one bleeding on the ground; he rolled the dice and got snake eyes. I hope that blood stain concrete is a constant reminder to other thieves to really consider if the risk of an item is worth their life. If i was on the jury I would vote not guilty every time a homeowner shoots and kills or wounds a robber. If you want to commit a crime you better be damn sure they are not home or armed because if they are I hope you catch every single bullet fired at your chest. I am very simplistic on this, don't want to get shot at or be killed by a home owner than stay the hell out of peoples property. Its really a magical thing, you don't try to take things that are not yours you live to see another day...WOW Simply magical. I have made my peace when I was over seas and i have been in some nasty situations, I do not have trouble sleeping because i had to take a life. I do not regret taking ANY mans life on foreign soil or here, they made the choice I simply reacted to said threat and moved on. Sorry I don't have a bleeding heart for criminals and fools,my heart goes out to the family's that these scum bags hurt.

zack991 said:

The big question people ask is whose life is worth taking over personal property? The question is answered every time when scum like this makes the choice that breaking into a person’s home or property. They have personally decided that said item is worth the risk of being shot at and or being killed in the process of stealing said item. The only person at fault for that man’s death was the one bleeding on the ground; he rolled the dice and got snake eyes. I hope that blood stain concrete is a constant reminder to other thieves to really consider if the risk of an item is worth their life. If i was on the jury I would vote not guilty every time a homeowner shoots and kills or wounds a robber. If you want to commit a crime you better be damn sure they are not home or armed because if they are I hope you catch every single bullet fired at your chest. I am very simplistic on this, don't want to get shot at or be killed by a home owner than stay the hell out of peoples property. Its really a magical thing, you don't try to take things that are not yours you live to see another day...WOW Simply magical. I have made my peace when I was over seas and been in some nasty situations, I do not have trouble sleeping because i had to take a life. I do not regret taking ANY mans life on foreign soil or here, they made the choice I simply reacted to said threat and moved on. Sorry I don't have a bleeding heart for criminals and fools,my heart goes out to the family's that these scum bags hurt.

Click to expand...

I'll agree with you on that.

He'd have to lie under oath during jury selection to get on they jury. If he told the truth about the way he feels, no way he gets on a jury.

Me? I'd follow the law if I were on a jury. However, on the question of fact as it relates to fearing for his safety, my inclination would be to believe the defender absent a really strong case to the contrary from the prosecution.

I'm not sure if I would do the same but if I was on the jury. I think I would be leaning towards Jury Nullification. Make a statement to the legislature, the Police, the Prosecutors, and the thieves. You commit an unlawful act, and you will deal with the consequences.

@ Zack

Having to kill someone during warfare is not the same as killing someone as it relates to the subject of this discussion.

Thank you for your service.

Three thoughts: 1) morality is purely personal. And dealing with the emotion of shooting someone for any reason is between you and your conscience. 2) if this was the only means the owner had to deal with the criminal, due to fitness, health, or fear of harm, then I'm not going to second guess. But if he set the property where it would be available and attractive to a criminal (like baiting a trap, similar to what they call an attractive nuisance, such as an unprotected swimming pool), then the charge would be warranted.
3) property crimes essentially go uninvestigated in many places. If he ever wanted to see the property again, we would have to act for himself. If he told the cops "yeah I saw the guy taking it" they'd ask "did you try to stop him?". Owner says "no", everyone figures "then I guess we don't need to try to find it.". It's not right to kill over trivial property, but it's not necessarily wrong either.

eye95 said:

He'd have to lie under oath during jury selection to get on they jury. If he told the truth about the way he feels, no way he gets on a jury.

Me? I'd follow the law if I were on a jury. However, on the question of fact as it relates to fearing for his safety, my inclination would be to believe the defender absent a really strong case to the contrary from the prosecution.

Click to expand...

True, I was thinking about that, too.

I've never been called for jury duty, but I guess I wouldn't have to worry about being on it in a case like this, then.

If this guy was stealing a nuke, he would be shot. This guy was stealing a go-kart. The owner should have issued an order to stop and notified the police... he was not authorized to use deadly force... that is all.

I am not from this area but after reading through this thread and Missouri State Law, the home owner is up a creek with out a paddle.

I know many have talked about what is right, moral or otherwise but when it comes down to it, it is what the law says and if you want it to be other then that then get busy and get the laws changed.

The use of physical force was authorized, deadly force was not as it is reserved for imminent threat of life.

One thing for sure here, you had better to know the law or you may have it used against you if you act outside of it.

I worked for the Department of Corrections for several years and I can tell you there are thousands of people in there with the same story, "They Made Me Do It" what does this say, they acted on emotions not by the law.

Firstly I disagree with the individual who states that morality is based on ones own idea of it. There are some things which are simply right and some things simply wrong.

You can be sincere in your belief of something and be sincerely wrong.

Anyway...to the point of this thread. I am 100% in favor of the ability to protect ones property, ones person, and ones family. My question in regards to this case would be how the man presented himself to the police when they arrived. Did he shoot this man dead because he was on his property and taking his things?

If so, then I would say that his actions were entirely inappropriate. There is a such thing as using 'reasonable force' and 'reasonable restraint'...taking 'reasonable measures' to defend...

Stop the criminal? Absolutely! Shoot him? If I feel I have to. BUT...if I am going to pull a gun on an individual where I have the advantage...a situation like this one...I am going to do my best not to take a life.

Think about it...in your upstairs window; you have the high ground and the element of surprise - you have the time to pick your shot. A head shot is not likely an accident. What would I do if I felt I had to shoot in that situation? Aim for lower body mass...shoot him in the butt - the leg - whatever...stop him...but did you have to kill him? Really?

Was the criminal in the wrong? Absolutely. Was the home owner in the wrong? Quite possible.

Just my take...