• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Lake St. Louis homeowner faces murder charges

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
Point 1) never talk to police w/o attny and even then know then that whatever you say to help your case will never see the light of a courtroom--only things that hurt you will

Point 2) the law needs to change ... wherein a person should have the right to shoot anyone on his property -- making the police query very simple: was the guy shot on the guy's land or not (in this case it appears he was on his land). Many states have or had this Napoleonic Code idea into their state laws, so this idea is nothing new.

Was the guy killed actually a car thief? Who knows. But even if so, it likely will not win the day for this guy unless someone like me is on his jury - but it would simply result in a mistrial and in a re-trial may be found guilty.

My guess? 5 yrs for manslaughter will be the plea deal ... he'll serve 2.5 yrs.

And for nothing more than defending his property.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Point 1) never talk to police w/o attny and even then know then that whatever you say to help your case will never see the light of a courtroom--only things that hurt you will

Point 2) the law needs to change ... wherein a person should have the right to shoot anyone on his property -- making the police query very simple: was the guy shot on the guy's land or not (in this case it appears he was on his land). Many states have or had this Napoleonic Code idea into their state laws, so this idea is nothing new.

Was the guy killed actually a car thief? Who knows. But even if so, it likely will not win the day for this guy unless someone like me is on his jury - but it would simply result in a mistrial and in a re-trial may be found guilty.

My guess? 5 yrs for manslaughter will be the plea deal ... he'll serve 2.5 yrs.

And for nothing more than defending his property.

Should the value of the personal property have bearing on the legitamacy of the shoot? Is there more justification to drop the hammer to defend an $80,000 vehicle than a $900. clunker?
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
I can't condone his actions any more a government agent in the same circumstances. I do believe his home owners insurance would have covered the car though.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,623
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Shot/killed the guy stealing his car. Forgot the key words n' tricky phrase, "I was in fear for my life."

http://fox2now.com/2016/11/16/lake-...r-charges-after-shooting-suspected-car-thief/

Even with making the claim of "fear," in my state the "reasonable man" doctrine (IF there is such a thing as a 'reasonable' man) would apply and if this mythical 'reasonable man' would think the action to be unreasonable then charges would be supported and defendant found guilty of appropriate charge. Seems the prosecutor here is hoping for a 2nd Degree Murder charge but will settle for 'manslaughter' as the defendant has been charged with both felonies! Defendant certainly would have an easier time legally if BG had been inside the home instead of the car and backing away from the defendant as stated in the report.

Don't know who it was near the end of the linked news story... "Privilege of owning a gun"? Gee, I thought we 'THE PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms which shall not be infringed'!
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,623
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
Should the value of the personal property have bearing on the legitamacy of the shoot? Is there more justification to drop the hammer to defend an $80,000 vehicle than a $900. clunker?

Well if your insurance has a $0.9K deductible ... you would recover almost all from the 80K car theft and none for the .9K car theft ... and you'd be equal in loss. ?odd huh?
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
Correct but that is what much of law is based.

"...... with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong...."
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/moral



MORAL

1. Pertaining or relating to the conscience or moral sense or to the general principles of right conduct. 2. Cognizable or enforceable only by the conscience or by the principles of right conduct, as distinguished from positive law. 3. Depending upon or resulting from probability ; raising a belief or conviction in the mind independent of strict or logical proof. 4. Involving or affecting the moral sense; as in the phrase “moral insanity.”

Definitions from Black's Law Dictionary


Morals and laws change ...
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
Although this is not directly applicable, I think it worthy of mention. Note, I do not subscribe in total to this as it is written.

The Texas Penal Code allows the use of deadly force to protect personal property - Sec. 9.41-9.49
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

Tennessee V Garner limits the use of deadly force by police officers on an escaping felon. I would suspect those same limitations would apply to private citizens despite Texas Penal Code.
 

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
I remember reading somewhere in MO law that use of such force can be utilized to stop the commission of a felony, and grand theft auto is a felony.

would have to find such section again as I don't recall exact location but I am pretty sure it is in the 20.xxx sections along with the concealed carry permit laws.

Update: Cannot find it, may have been removed under new legislation.

guy is up a creek. KYBMS.. always

however I am biased and side on the accused, he worked hard for his money that he used to purchase the vehicle, the thief should know full well possible repercussions of such theft if caught at time of such event to include deadly force, whether by hand, blunt object, or firearm.

been thinking of putting up a large document that places liability of such results in the hands of thief, essentially stating that should they engage in theft of property of owner of land parcel, they remove any liability from property owner for injuries sustained from owner defending such property, removal of liability extends to family and prosecuting members of state.
 
Last edited:

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
The statue in MO let's you defend against a forcible felony, not any felony. This guy is in a world of hurt, because car robbery does not qualify. And that would be whether or not he opened his big mouth.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
Although this is not directly applicable, I think it worthy of mention. Note, I do not subscribe in total to this as it is written.

The Texas Penal Code allows the use of deadly force to protect personal property - Sec. 9.41-9.49
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
Then please make your link to the applicable and applicable...http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000411.html?&me=563

In other words, the afore mentioned, by Griz, reference to, "I feared for my life" would have sealed the deal.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
...:banghead:

agree, he could have left out why he fired at the vehicle, and said he felt threatened, and left it at that.

since after all losing the sense of security that should be provided within the boundaries of your residence/real estate property is rather threatening.

or even better, he could have KYBMS until he talked with an attorney, privately.
 
Last edited:

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,041
Location
St. Louis, MO
Education is key. Having a right is one thing, having the knowledge to exercise that right within the confines of law is another, especially where it comes to the often contentious issue of firearms.

This guy either didn't get educated on use of force in Missouri, or he declined to pay attention to it. Training (including use of force) is required to get a CCW permit in Missouri, but I haven't seen anything confirming if he did or not.

I teach use of force law and representation in the St. Louis area, and I can attest that aside from getting a VERY sympathetic jury, he will be paying for his ignorance/disregard for a very long time.

As others have stated, he MAY have had a chance if he had pleaded the 5th and let an attorney tell his story, but as it is, what you do and say can and WILL be used against you.

Ignorance is not bliss.
 

Va_Nemo

Member
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
653
Location
Lynchburg
Yeah, bad shoot from hammer going backwards. No reasonable argument to claim shooter was fearful of of death or injury.

Loss of property outside the castle or not from the person does not validate loss of life .

Nemo
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
Yeah, bad shoot from hammer going backwards. No reasonable argument to claim shooter was fearful of of death or injury.

Loss of property outside the castle or not from the person does not validate loss of life .

Nemo

Relating to chooting a thief of a felony? I would not have a problem with allowing folks to choot them. Each will have their own opinion.

One could argue that if "fear" was the requirement then a scardy-cat would have more rights than a person who does not feel fear at all.

I'm certain that we all do some things that others would not just due to fear of injury or death. We all assess risks associated with different actions all differently.

"Fear" is a mind-related thing. Some folks may find everything fearful (like lizzurds thinking that a OCer is threat to them).

So I don't think that "fear" is a good metric, its really not even a thing that is easily (or at all) measureable.

"Tell me Mr. Johnson, on a scale of 1-10, how fearful were you?"
Oh boy, he better say 11, right?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
--snipped--

One could argue that if "fear" was the requirement then a scardy-cat would have more rights than a person who does not feel fear at all.

I'm certain that we all do some things that others would not just due to fear of injury or death. We all assess risks associated with different actions all differently.
This all refers to Use of Deadly Force. In many states justification or excusably will factor into the mix.

Fear in this circumstance = the reasonably held belief that another has the capacity, the will, the intent, that such action is imminent and would result in serious bodily injury or death to yourself and/or loved ones.

Dan Hawes (user on this forum) has said it more precisely, but the exact quote avoids me.
 
Last edited:
Top