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

jdholmes said:

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...

Click to expand...

The use of deadly force is authorized when your life is in imminent threat of life or limb.
One being in the house, upstairs and the thief was stealing a go-kart by pushing it, how would one explain they were in fear for their life?

Granted in Texas if one can use deadly force to protect their property but I do not think that is the case here, nor would I shoot unless my life was in peril.

BigDave said:

The use of deadly force is authorized when your life is in imminent threat of life or limb.
One being in the house, upstairs and the thief was stealing a go-kart by pushing it, how would one explain they were in fear for their life?

Granted in Texas if one can use deadly force to protect their property but I do not think that is the case here, nor would I shoot unless my life was in peril.

Click to expand...

Seems to me that deadly force is only deadly force if it's deadly. . Read my post...I didn't try to justify deadly force.

BigDave said:

The use of deadly force is authorized when your life is in imminent threat of life or limb.
One being in the house, upstairs and the thief was stealing a go-kart by pushing it, how would one explain they were in fear for their life?

Granted in Texas if one can use deadly force to protect their property but I do not think that is the case here, nor would I shoot unless my life was in peril.

Click to expand...

jdholmes said:

Seems to me that deadly force is only deadly force if it's deadly. . Read my post...I didn't try to justify deadly force.

Click to expand...

You wrote

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?

Click to expand...

Reread your statement, upstairs window, high ground, pick your shot, head shot not likely an accident, If I felt I had to shoot, aim for lower body mass, shoot him in the butt, the leg, whatever stop him....this is all saying you would shoot him and have no cause but that you felt you could.

How did I read this wrong? You stated this is what you would do and I simply asked how could one justify such a shoot when it is not legal to use deadly force in protection of someone stealing your property as a go-kart.

Oh I see you are from Nevada, enough said...joking here.
though this incident is from Missouri and we probably should stay with in that realm of things.

BigDave said:

You wrote

Reread your statement, upstairs window, high ground, pick your shot, head shot not likely an accident, If I felt I had to shoot, aim for lower body mass, shoot him in the butt, the leg, whatever stop him....this is all saying you would shoot him and have no cause but that you felt you could.

How did I read this wrong? You stated this is what you would do and I simply asked how could one justify such a shoot when it is not legal to use deadly force in protection of someone stealing your property as a go-kart.

Oh I see you are from Nevada, enough said...joking here.
though this incident is from Missouri and we probably should stay with in that realm of things.

Click to expand...

Again...I was not advocating deadly force. I was simply advocating stopping a crime using 'reasonable force'. If a person felt the only way to do so would be firing their weapon then he should not have shot to kill...

Maybe that doesn't make sense to everyone...and I'm not even saying it would be the right call in his situation.

jdholmes said:

Again...I was not advocating deadly force. I was simply advocating stopping a crime using 'reasonable force'. If a person felt the only way to do so would be firing their weapon then he should not have shot to kill...

Maybe that doesn't make sense to everyone...and I'm not even saying it would be the right call in his situation.

Click to expand...

Suggesting reasonable force is to shoot someone in the butt or leg, sorry that is deadly force regardless of ones intent not to cause death.

If you use a gun, it will be seen as "deadly force," even if you choose to "shoot to wound." It is the potential lethality of the weapon that will make the force deadly. Even a leg shot could kill--quickly. If you hit the femoral artery, the thief could bleed out before help could arrive. Also, not everyone is a crack-shot under stress. At a distance and at a height, there are scant few degrees of difference between hip and heart.

If you admit to choosing to "shoot to wound," you further complicate your legal woes by providing evidence that you were not in a situation that required deadly force, even though "shooting to wound" could constitute use of deadly force.

"Shooting to wound" is sheer idiocy. Shoot only when death would be an acceptable outcome, legally and morally. And then, shoot to stop. That would be center mass, with the full knowledge that death could result.

If you can stand the consequences of the perp dying, shoot. If not, find some other course of action.

Never never never ever ever ever "shoot to wound."

Assuming that the brief description of the details of this incident revealed in the initial published report were accurate, as a JUROR - I WOULD VOTE TO AQUIT.

A good defense attorney would stress the HISTORY of this citizen's home, person, and personal property being targeted for a period of time by the gang activity, plus the fact that local law enforcement was either unable or unwilling to effectively eliminate the organized criminal activity . This was not a one-time, isolated criminal offense. As reported, this was an ongoing problem involving a continuous pattern of organized criminals activity directly targeting this man. There is no certainty that they would limit future plundering to property items in his garage, out-building, or yard. There is no reason to presume that a future assault upon this man's property would not involve entry into his home, and some level of physical assault upon his person.

The report does not clarify whether or not the thief had abandoned the "go-kart" . This would be a critical element to consider by a jury. The property owner has a RIGHT to apply reasonable counter-force in confronting the thief in order to prevent the loss of property that is in the process of being plundered, or stolen. There is no information in the report indicating that the thief was known by the property owner to have abandoned control of the "go-kart"- a fact that would argue against the use of deadly force. If the facts support the reported ongoing gang involvement, then this man would reasonably be considered to be confronting a potentially significant desparity in force. Bottom line is this thief is deceased as a result of HIS OWN CRIMINAL CONDUCT. HIS blood is on HIS HANDS.

In any of the 50 United States a person has a COMMON LAW RIGHT to confront, and and exert sufficient force in order to STOP the theft of his/her personal property.
If the thief was known to have abandoned the "go-kart" , and presented no other immediate threat to the person the shooting would be legally unjustifiable - but , as a JUROR I would still vote to aquit -because citizens are going to have to resort to this method in order to stop the national epidemic of piracy, plunder, and violent assault.

IMO a second degree murder charge for Cerna is as ridiculous as the concept of hate crimes. I think he should be charged with murder (first degree) or not at all.

The D.A. will never get a murder conviction on this one, and a manslaughter conviction will even be a challenge. D.A. can make Cerna's life miserable, and waste alot of his office's budget, but in the end - is there really any pay-off for the D.A. in return for the cost of prosecuting Cerna ? The whole affair constitutes an embarrassment to the KC Metro PD , and the D.A. doesn't want this case staying on the public's radar.

The details -as reported- surrounding this incident resemble the Indian Ocean piracy epidemic. A ship has just been attacked by pirates, and the pirates are attempting to escape the scene with plundered ship's cargo. The ship's crew possesses the means to possibly stop the theft, retrieve the cargo, and/or prevent future attacks on the ship - at least by this particular boat-load of pirates- by opening fire on them as they attempt to escape with the cargo. The ship's crew has a RIGHT to use deadly force UNLESS the pirates are considered to be the "victims".

In the U.S. on average only 5% of all violent felony convictions result from going to trial. The remaining 95% are plea bargained. D.A.'s dangle "probation" in front of defendents as an enticement in order to get the defendents to CONVICT THEMSELVES, thereby enabling the D.A.'s office to focus its resources on cases that look good on their conviction record -come re-election time. This is why there are so many recidivist scum-bags on the streets requiring armed citizens like Cerna to do what the State is either unwilling or unable to do- GET THEM OFF THE STREETS.

this is bullcrap.

it should not matter AT ALL if the thief was leaving his property or not. he was trespassing, robbing (and a forceable felony at that. im sure a go-kart is over 500$).

who knows if the robber was armed or not. it shouldn't matter.
the additions to missouri law extended the castle doctrine to the property line so that includes your yard now...as before it was just your home.


he did nothing wrong at all. the thief got exactly what he deserved.


and it doesnt matter where you shoot him. you dont have time to stand there and say...Hmmm maybe i should aim for his leg, or wait maybe his foot.

Lokster said:

I think he should be charged with murder (first degree) or not at all.

Click to expand...

But, what's the criteria for murder in the first? Premeditation, and an intent to kill, generally. As far as we know, the guy didn't camp out there waiting for some thief to take his stuff so he could blast 'em.

Anyway, here's a few philosophical questions for everyone: We all agree that objects, like go-karts (or whatever) generally aren't worth a person's life. However, suppose it was lawful, and socially acceptable, to shoot and kill someone if they were found stealing one's property. As with many of our own 'castle' laws, the property owner would be immune to criminal prosecution, or any civil liability if the shooting was found to be lawful. If there were no abuse of this law, would that necessarily make such a civilization a worse, less moral place? Would it force the question "is this (blank here) worth my life?" to the front of the would-be thief's mind, before the commission of his crime? What consequences would there be for society?

kylemoul said:

this is bullcrap.

it should not matter AT ALL if the thief was leaving his property or not. he was trespassing, robbing (and a forceable felony at that. im sure a go-kart is over 500$).

who knows if the robber was armed or not. it shouldn't matter.
the additions to missouri law extended the castle doctrine to the property line so that includes your yard now...as before it was just your home.


he did nothing wrong at all. the thief got exactly what he deserved.


and it doesnt matter where you shoot him. you dont have time to stand there and say...Hmmm maybe i should aim for his leg, or wait maybe his foot.

Click to expand...

It appears you are misreading the castle doctrine and self defense laws for Missouri, take a listen to the news report. http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-nei...-thief-was-justified-20110125,0,3392677.story

Do you have a reference supporting your statement? I would like to read it.
Thanks.

CO-Joe said:

But, what's the criteria for murder in the first? Premeditation, and an intent to kill, generally. As far as we know, the guy didn't camp out there waiting for some thief to take his stuff so he could blast 'em.

Anyway, here's a few philosophical questions for everyone: We all agree that objects, like go-karts (or whatever) generally aren't worth a person's life. However, suppose it was lawful, and socially acceptable, to shoot and kill someone if they were found stealing one's property. As with many of our own 'castle' laws, the property owner would be immune to criminal prosecution, or any civil liability if the shooting was found to be lawful. If there were no abuse of this law, would that necessarily make such a civilization a worse, less moral place? Would it force the question "is this (blank here) worth my life?" to the front of the would-be thief's mind, before the commission of his crime? What consequences would there be for society?

Click to expand...

I am not advocating for murder 1, but premeditation and intent do not require time. Both can form a split second before the shot is fired.

BigDave said:

It appears you are misreading the castle doctrine and self defense laws for Missouri, take a listen to the news report. http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-nei...-thief-was-justified-20110125,0,3392677.story

Do you have a reference supporting your statement? I would like to read it.
Thanks.

Click to expand...

number 3 was added in the aug 28 revisions.
the video seems to have taken down.

2. A person may 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 claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.



(3) "Forcible felony", any felony involving the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual, including but not limited to murder, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnapping, assault, and any forcible sexual offense;


i was incorrect about forcible felony however.

yes he was taking a go-kart, but who is to say he would not try to break in the house next and steal more? i would fear for my protection and family.

kylemoul said:

yes he was taking a go-kart, but who is to say he would not try to break in the house next and steal more? i would fear for my protection and family.

Click to expand...

In this I do not disagree being concerned and posturing or preparing for defense of oneself or family if there was an immanent threat of life or limb then by all means act.

We must also be aware of fear can be viewed in a couple of ways, real and bare fear one you can articulate the other is a fear where there is no articulable threat.
Someone seeing anyone of us carrying openly and was frightened by the view of it would be bare fear.

i guess that is what you argue in court!

i think he did the right thing, and may pay a price for it.

if we dont fight soon they will write the laws to protect the criminals.


there is no room for common sense in law i guess...

kylemoul said:

i guess that is what you argue in court!

i think he did the right thing, and may pay a price for it.

if we dont fight soon they will write the laws to protect the criminals.


there is no room for common sense in law i guess...

Click to expand...

Now is the time to fight for what we want to see the laws to cover not just to accept sitting back for someone else to do it for us.
As we know what the law is and what people feel are often two different things and one can cost you your freedom.

Here in Washington State I and a couple of other citizens have push our local Representative to have bills that will hopefully go through from reducing the age limit to 18 for legal carry to removing restrictions for snowmobilers from carrying a loaded firearm for protection.

If you are waiting for any number of 2nd Amendment Organizations you maybe waiting to long, read, research and gain support.

Just Saw This Thread...

...he SHOULD be charged with homicide.

NOBODY has the moral right to use lethal force unless he, or his loved ones, are in immenant danger of losing their life or limbs; and then...only enough force to eliminate the threat and no more.

My neighbor, who just moved from Texas, was bragging about the Castle Doctrine and how some guy who shot and killed a thief, who was breaking into his neighbors house, was found "not guilty" in a Court of Law. I told him that if I saw someone breaking into his house, I would NOT shoot him...even if he was stealing his Harley...and Harley Davidson is my "other" religion!

Sorry...I know many of you will disagree with me...but that is the "rule" I go by.

rugerdon said:

...he SHOULD be charged with homicide.

NOBODY has the moral right to use lethal force unless he, or his loved ones, are in immenant danger of losing their life or limbs; and then...only enough force to eliminate the threat and no more.

My neighbor, who just moved from Texas, was bragging about the Castle Doctrine and how some guy who shot and killed a thief, who was breaking into his neighbors house, was found "not guilty" in a Court of Law. I told him that if I saw someone breaking into his house, I would NOT shoot him...even if he was stealing his Harley...and Harley Davidson is my "other" religion!

Sorry...I know many of you will disagree with me...but that is the "rule" I go by.

Click to expand...

What some incorrectly call vigilantism is more properly called vengeance and justice, when properly applied. Legal or illegal does not equate to correct, right, moral, etc. Many laws are simply idiotic. Expecting justice from our laws or the laws of any nation on earth is a fool's errand. "It isn’t going to happen." The only justice that happens is when laws are not involved. You can obtain justice on a small village level, maybe, but nowhere else in the world is it likely. Under most systems of laws it is not even an objective. Simple if the man was not trying to steal from a man who has not only had his property vandalized and property stolen. The thief would still be alive. The so called justice system has failed the home owner so many times he had more than reasonable belief that it would have happened again. So he took action that he felt was needed to stop the problem. Guess what it worked. He will not see a conviction even the slightest compliant attorney. It would be one thing if there was no history of criminals being a constant threat and the police doing nothing at all to stop it. Yet there is in his case. The public hates to see people become Victims of a corrupt justice system that is the US justice system. Jurors rarely charge someone who was forced to act on their own because the system has failed to protect his family time and time again.

justified?

I didnt take the time to read every single post on this story but someone asked was a go kart worth a mans life? Personally I think thats what the thief should have thought before he tried!! This poor guy has already had lots of problems with thieves and vandalism in the past,it was time for somebody to make an example out of one of them!! If we continue to let low life scum get away with stuff like this it will only get worse!