Skip to comments.Homeowner Shoots, Kills Teen In Backyard After Break-In Attempt
Posted on 02/16/2013 6:47:30 PM PST by EXCH54FE
ST. LOUIS, MO (KTVI) A teenager is shot to death and his friend is charged with murder, even though he didnt pull the trigger.
The circuit attorneys office issued warrants for second degree murder and attempted burglary against 17-year-old Michael Bryant.
Police say Bryant and 15-year-old Demetrius Murphy were trying to break into a home on Tennessee early Friday morning.
Investigators say the 33-year-old homeowner heard them, went outside, and confronted the suspects.
The homeowner then shot and killed Murphy.
The homeowner was questioned, but not arrested.
Under Missouri law, if someone is killed while a felony is being committed, other suspects involved in the crime can be charged with murder. Thats why the accomplice, Michael Bryant, was charged with second degree murder as well as 1st degree attempted burglary.
Murphys mother says her son was mentally disabled. She says he was coming back from the store with a friend and she has no idea how he wound up in the backyard of the home.
>>Murphys mother says her son was mentally disabled.
Obviously he was...he tried to rob someone.
Don’t do the crime.
Was the home owner a white hispanic? Then there might be some trouble.
WOW...in OREGON the homeowner would likely be in jail
Shoot his mother too!!
Typical Greek Irishman.
A memo needs to circulate around St. Louis maternity wards that the name Demetrius is now again available for use.
A young thug. Too bad the community supports this.
He was turning his life around... 3,2,1...
Hope the homeowner didn’t use an AR (AKA, “Assault Weapon”) - Missouri Democrats will be coming to take that away from him soon...
The dead perp was 15 years old and mentally disabled. I would guess that he admired his older friend, and just went along with him on the burglary attempt. Probably sounded like an exciting game.
If so, then the police are probably right to charge the older boy as responsible for his murder, because the older boy, who should have known better, led the kid into trouble.
“She says he was coming back from the store with a friend and she has no idea how he wound up in the backyard of the home.”
Did he go to buy skittles???
Uhhhh ... because he's mentally disabled and hangin' wit' bad people doin' bad things ?
He was probably mistakenly looking for a midnight basketball court.
Another happy ending.
Different play, but, same cast.
Surely you mean Amish.
Based on what charge? What about due process and the right to a trial by jury? You know, the constitutional stuff...
“Based on what charge? “
Raising a thief!!
Does anyone else have a problem with this? Regardless of who committed/was commiting the crime, it seems like the DA is just looking for a bigger charge.
Same outcome in California, too.
"No property is worth taking a life..." is the absurd justification.
Lost on those idiots is that risking a life is the felon's choice that triggers the tragedy, and often enough ends the innocent victim's life.
“Was the home owner a white hispanic?”
Do Metrius be carryin’ skittles?
Many states have this law. If you get into a shoot out with cop while doing an armed robbery and the cop shoots you and kills you, your buddy who is driving the get away car in the parking lot will be charged with the homicide. It would be the same as if he had pulled the trigger himself. When you engage in criminal activity and someone is injured or killed it is all on you.
if the mom knows the kid is mentally disabled, why does she allow him to be roaming with another minor, and not an adult? i mean, c’mon here. like an adult who knows how to get the kid back to the correct house and not try to break into someone else’s house, if we are to even buy the premise offered?
it’s always right to charge any surviving criminals with murder if a homeowner shoots one in self-defense. always. i wish this was a nationwide law. make some of the dumb idiots contemplating their boredom to maybe think twice about a murder sentence to serve, before they’re a hardened career criminal.
We have all been hearing the same demented laments for decades from the friends and families of dead criminals....
“Why did he/she/they (the not so helpless victim) have to kill him? He was just stealing/raping/beating on...etc”
All the more reason to charge his buddy with murder. You can testify for the prosecution at his trial, Murphy's mom.
Nope, no problem at all. A lot of states have a law like that. If someone dies during the commission of a crime, even if it's a perp that dies, all of the surviving perps go down for murder 2 or manslaughter. There is an easy way to avoid that.
Good shooting and a GREAT mizzzou law!
He was “an aspiring rapper”.
In many (most) states, even a getaway driver sitting in a car can be charged with murder if one of his cohorts who is robbing the bank shoots and kills the security guard.
A lot of states would arrest the homeowner here. The general rule is the bad guy must be in your home and you must have legitimate fear of personal harm to you or your family.
If a thief is walking out of your home with a TV set, you cannot shoot him in the back.
Not true in PA, it can be in the mall, at the gas station or on the golf course.
The castle doctrine extends to where ever you are, and you can protect your life and property.
If someone is in my home, trying to steal a $10 radio, I'm in fear for my life and his life span is going to be dramatically shortened.
My life was threatened by the mere presence of a perp.
“Under Missouri law,[as it is in most states] if someone is killed while a felony is being committed, other suspects involved in the crime can be charged with murder.”
I know this horrorfies the writer but it is how things go when you start out to break into a person’s home.
If the criminals put him in fear for his life once he went outside to inquire why they were attempting to break into his home instead of going straight to their own homes, then the shooting was legal. If they were attempting to break in and did not immediately turn and flee, then I applaud the decision to shoot. The only reason not to run at once is because the criminals were considering attacking the law-abiding homeowner.
More accurately, a lot of local District Attorney's in many states would press charges, even if a state has a Castle law and/or stand your ground law. Most states have a Castle law and a growing number have stand your ground laws. It doesn't mean liberal DA's won't make your life a living hell for defending your property or life.
Marc, I think your analysis is spot-on.
The mom’s crack use fried the kid’s brain in the womb.
One less problem for the world
I always liked the Felony Murder Rule.
Thats why you should live or move to in a place where the prosecutor is more likely to shoot an intruder than you are. (Like me)
Since it’s their law (as it is with many other states), I would have a problem if they didn’t charge him with murder.
Oh, sure, I’m familiar with the felony murder rule. I didn’t mention it because I just took it for granted. What I was saying is that in this case it’s not only what the law says, but that it is especially fair and applicable, because he had an extra share of responsibility for drawing the kid who died into it.
My life was threatened by the mere presence of a perp.
One can’t control everything one’s child does. Every man bears his very *own* guilt or innocence.
There are some in this forum who have relatives, children or parents who are liberal. So, if some child/parent/relative was to commit some crime, would you recommend the other parent/relative/child be co-incarcerated or executed?