No charges after US boy, 13, shot dead for stealing

[DigitalDrifter]

Crazed cracka.......................................................wait........whaa...............................?

Chicago (AFP) - A man who shot and killed a 13-year-old boy as he was stealing from an unlocked car was arrested but US prosecutors declined to press charges, police said.


Martinez Smith-Payne, who is black, was found unconscious and bleeding in a back alley when police were called about a shooting in St Louis, Missouri at 12:47 am Sunday. He died in hospital.

"Investigation revealed the victim, along with two other juveniles, was attempting to steal items from an unlocked parked vehicle when the suspect confronted them, then fired shots at the juveniles," St Louis police said in a statement.

The shooter, who was identified as a 60-year-old black man, was immediately taken into custody. He was released after prosecutors "refused" a police request to press charges, the statement said.

It was unclear if he was threatened by the teenagers prior to opening fire.

Police declined to provide further details about the incident.

Prosecutors called the boy's death a "a terrible tragedy" but said "Missouri law regarding a homeowner’s right to protect himself and his property is complicated."

No charges after US boy, 13, shot dead for stealing

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Here in Missouri we have Castle doctrine laws which say in defense of home or your vehicle you can open fire without being under personal threat. Don't have to give a warning, can just open up. Way it should be.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Here in Missouri we have Castle doctrine laws which say in defense of home or your vehicle you can open fire without being under personal threat. Don't have to give a warning, can just open up. Way it should be.

Does the perp have to actually be in your house before you can take deadly action ?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Here in Missouri we have Castle doctrine laws which say in defense of home or your vehicle you can open fire without being under personal threat. Don't have to give a warning, can just open up. Way it should be.

Does the perp have to actually be in your house before you can take deadly action ?

On your property as I understand it. Or the street if breaking into your vehicle.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Missouri "Castle Doctrine" Law - Online Copy of Final Bill

"563.011. As used in this chapter the following terms shall mean:

(1) "Deadly force"[ means], physical force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which he or she knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury[.];

(2) "Dwelling"[ means], any building[ or], inhabitable structure,[ though movable or temporary, or a portion thereof, which is for the time being the actor's home or place of lodging.] or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night;

(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;

[(3) ](4) "Premises", includes any building, inhabitable structure and any real property[.];

[(4) ](5) "Private person"[ means], any person other than a law enforcement officer;

(6) "Remain after unlawfully entering", to remain in or upon premises after unlawfully entering as defined in this section;

(7) "Residence", a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest; "

etc.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

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 another against death, serious physical injury,[ rape, sodomy or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery, burglary or arson] or any forcible felony; or

(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.

3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining.

 

[The Professor]

Here in Missouri we have Castle doctrine laws which say in defense of home or your vehicle you can open fire without being under personal threat. Don't have to give a warning, can just open up. Way it should be.

I am compelled to clarify your comments lest someone misreads them and thinks that mere defense of property (home or automobile) justifies the use of deadly force in Missouri or any other state. The “Castle Doctrine” applies only when such property is OCCUPIED. Here are the relevant portions of the applicable Missouri statutes (highlights my own):

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. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.

Section: 563.0031 Use of force in defense of persons. RSMO 563.031

Conclusion: If you are returning to your parked car and you see someone trying to break into it, do not use deadly force to protect your property. If you do, you have committed a serious crime. You can expect to be arrested and your only hope is for a sympathetic jury. However, if you are threatened with death or serious bodily injury when you confront the thieves that is another matter. In that case, you have the right to use deadly force in your defense and in a "stand your ground" state, there is no duty to retreat even when safely possible to do so.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Here in Oregon the joke is if you shoot someone on your property make sure they fall into your house at the doorway.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Appreciate that but if someone confused a discussion site post with legally valid advice or counsel and acted on it, screw em.

 

[PredFan]

Crazed cracka.......................................................wait........whaa...............................?

Chicago (AFP) - A man who shot and killed a 13-year-old boy as he was stealing from an unlocked car was arrested but US prosecutors declined to press charges, police said.


Martinez Smith-Payne, who is black, was found unconscious and bleeding in a back alley when police were called about a shooting in St Louis, Missouri at 12:47 am Sunday. He died in hospital.

"Investigation revealed the victim, along with two other juveniles, was attempting to steal items from an unlocked parked vehicle when the suspect confronted them, then fired shots at the juveniles," St Louis police said in a statement.

The shooter, who was identified as a 60-year-old black man, was immediately taken into custody. He was released after prosecutors "refused" a police request to press charges, the statement said.

It was unclear if he was threatened by the teenagers prior to opening fire.

Police declined to provide further details about the incident.

Prosecutors called the boy's death a "a terrible tragedy" but said "Missouri law regarding a homeowner’s right to protect himself and his property is complicated."

No charges after US boy, 13, shot dead for stealing

Think of all the future crime that was prevented and possibly lives that were saved by this thug taking a well deserved dirt nap.

Bravo to the shooter. Nice shot man!

 

[hortysir]

How messed up is it that the law is too "complicated" for prosecutors

 

[dannyboys]

The other two thugs gave similar statements to LE. They both said all three of them had a 'weapon' and they did threaten the car owner. Three 'weapons' were found each having fingerprints of the thug who had the weapon.
Case closed.

 

[bucs90]

Wait.....WHERE ARE THE RIOTS #BLACKLIVESMATTER? ????


An UNARMED 13 year old boy is shot dead....and didn't even threaten a person. And shooter goes free.

A fat ass 300 pound thug attacks a cop and tries to take his gun....gets shot....and you morons burned the city.

This man shoots an unarmed 13 year old dead for petty theft.....and no riots???

 

[dannyboys]

A The shooter is a negro. Black on Black shootings are hardly ever bothered with seriously by LE. There's no point. No one in the community is ever going to 'snitch' on a fellow negro. Not if they value their lives and those of their family.
B The shooter was threatened by three negro thugs each of which had possession of a 'weapon' and he feared for his life so he shot one of the thugs and the other two ran away leaving behind the weapons.
C Matching fingerprints of the thugs were found on the weapons.