20yo Carjacker in St. Louis dies after being shot by victim

[TechBoyJK]

Unless he'd rather have all of it for himself, and ends up robbing you/killing you and taking it from your body.

Pothead logic is soooo awesome man.

He's right though.

Several times on the metrolink in St. Louis (near where this robbery in the OP happened) I've turned what might have been a robbery into a discussion about weed and the drug war. I've (5'9 semi athletic white guy) have been surrounded by black teens talking about Mike Brown and brought up weed, that I like it, etc.. They end up changing their stance, talking about it, etc.

Not saying it will always work, but cannabis has many times been a universal equalizer in what might have been a hostile situation.

It's like no matter your color or race, nobody wants to rob or fuck with a fellow weed enthusiast. I can't rob a dude who'd smoke a blunt with me. Right?

 

[Artdeco]

The legal issue that would be argued if this statute were used would be the meaning of "occupied". If the victim got out of the car and then shot, is he still considered occupying the vehicle for the purposes of the statute?

I think so, the intent of the legislature seems to be to treat your vehicle the same as your home, I don't think Missouri expects you to run from your home if there are robbers.

Ultimately, that will be left up to the DA, and as I said, I doubt they'll even take it to a grand jury.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Homicide? really? What if the victim shot the guy while the victim was still in the car? Would that be self defense?

I wonder what would have happened if the victim opened fire while inside his truck.

 

[Artdeco]

I wonder what would have happened if the victim opened fire while inside his truck.

Well, from personal experience, I know his ears would have rung for several days...

 

[Darwin333]

Homicide? really? What if the victim shot the guy while the victim was still in the car? Would that be self defense?

The guy died as a result of a gunshot, regardless of who did it it is classified a homicide. Even if the police shoot someone in a clear case of self defense/line of duty it's a homicide. The question is if it's a justifiable homicide, I didn't see anything about them bringing charges against the guy.

 

[Darwin333]

The jury would not only refuse to convict, they'd likely line up afterwards to give a high five to the defendant for doing a public service.

You overestimate juries or are imposing what you would do on to your opinion of them.

The judge will tell them that this isn't about their feelings it's about the black letter law and all that jazz. Judges will even do their best to undermine jury nullification if the defense brings it up.

 

[Darwin333]

I do put my time with my family above a lazy piece of shit criminal. We are only given so many hours in life to spend with family. To have them stolen because someone wants to take the easy way? yeah i value my family time far far more.


I go out and work for the items i NEED and want. I do not expect handouts. I do not steal.

OTOH, how much time would the police report, repeated questioning, potential charges, trial, and working to pay your attorney for all of the above cost you with your family?

That is a lot to weigh in at best a few seconds during the heat of the moment in a very high stress situation.

I'm not saying it's right or that the guy should face charges, just playing devils advocate.

 

[Darwin333]

Um, no...

http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000311.HTML

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) 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.

From what I've read so far it looks like they aren't charging the victim which I think is a good thing.

With that said, and just playing devils advocate here, at the time that he shot the guy the victim was no longer occupying the vehicle. Any armchair lawyers want to chime in? Seems like a requirement to use deadly force in protecting your vehicle and it doesn't say "recently occupied" or anything like that.

Personally if I was no longer in danger I would let it go, me going home to the family and kids is my priority and I really really do not want to get into a shootout. Hell I really really do not want someones death on my conscience even if it was completely justified so if the danger is over I'm calling a cab and my insurance company. Not to mention the potential reaction caused by your action, in this case the bad guys accomplices started shooting at him from a moving car and he returned fire. The potential for innocent bystanders being hit just went WAY up. I damn sure couldn't live with the fact that an innocent person died, even if it wasn't by my bullet, because I pulled the trigger when I was no longer in imminent danger for the sole reason of saving my truck. That's just me though and I can't fault people who think differently, especially in the heat of the moment when adrenaline is pumping and fight or flight has kicked in.

 

[Artdeco]

I think the argument could be made that there's no duty to retreat in your home in Missouri, and there would be no duty to retreat if forced from your home at gunpoint, the Missouri legislature made home and vehicle equivalent, so it could be argued the same logic applies.

As I posted earlier, the legislature making homes and vehicles equivalent makes his actions more reasonable/defensible.

Personally, I wouldn't have fired on my own car...

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I think the argument could be made that there's no duty to retreat in your home in Missouri, and there would be no duty to retreat if forced from your home at gunpoint, the Missouri legislature made home and vehicle equivalent, so it could be argued the same logic applies.

As I posted earlier, the legislature making homes and vehicles equivalent makes his actions more reasonable/defensible.

Personally, I wouldn't have fired on my own car...

Even if there is no duty to retreat, the shooter did in fact retreat. Does he then have the right to fire back into the car if he had already gotten himself out of danger? Some places with really really strong castle doctrine laws, like Texas, it's probably okay to shoot in most instances in defense of your own property. I don't think Missouri is that gun crazy. Shooter was probably covered if he fired while in the car, that changes after he got away.