Martinez Smith-Payne - 13 yrs - He Lost 4 Fingers While Playing With Fireworks When He Was 10
Frances Smith-Woods - 'mother'
Posted on 12/22/2015 8:53:13 AM PST by Da Bilge Troll
ST. LOUIS - Prosecutors filed on Friday a charge against a man from St. Louis they say fatally shot a teenager rifling through his car last month - not for the killing but for being a felon in possession of a gun.
Prosecutors have been reviewing potential charges against Lervurance McDade, 60, in the death. But it appears that the shooting of Martinez Smith-Payne, 13, may be considered legal under Missouri's 2007 castle doctrine statute that permits use of deadly force in the face of "reasonable fear."
The shot was fired from a distance of more than 70 feet away, police sources said.
Documents charging McDade with unlawful possession of a firearm say he handed a Colt .380-caliber pistol to police Sgt. James Kenny five minutes after the shooting. McDade was arrested and admitted that he owned the gun.
He had pleaded guilty of illegal possession of a weapon and unlawful use of a weapon on Nov. 21, 1989, in Pemiscot County, Mo., court documents say. He also was sentenced in 2013 in St. Louis County Circuit Court to five years on probation on a felony charge of being more than 12 months in arrears on child support.
Bail for McDade was set at $30,000 cash.
Martinez's mother, Frances Smith-Woods, said Friday that she was happy about the gun charge but still wanted to talk to McDade.
"I just know that it still will not bring back Martinez," she said. "But I would really want to ask him why did he just shoot instead of coming out and scaring them or yelling at them? I know my son. If (McDade) would have come out and said, 'Get out of here!,' my son would have ran. He didn't have to kill Martinez. He took a big piece of me away."
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
An attorney I saw interviewed about this story said that Missouri's Castle Doctrine Law applies to "anything with a roof" on your property. Therefore he was not charged for the shooting itself.
So, presume that if his car was a convertible, with the top down, castle does not apply.
“If (McDade) would have come out and said, ‘Get out of here!,’ my son would have ran.”
If you knew him so well, you might have tried telling him it’s not right to rifle through other people’s belongings.
In which case, he wouldn’t have had to ‘ran.’
“... shoot instead of coming out and scaring them or yelling at them... “
Yeah so they can steal more and graduate to home invasion/rape/murder.
Frances Smith-Woods
“why did he just shoot instead of coming out and scaring them or yelling at them?”
Yes, you are such a good mother. I’m sure that would have worked out really well! How about raising a son who stays out of trouble!
Mother: Frances Smith-Woods
Son: Martinez Smith-Payne
He also was sentenced in 2013 in St. Louis County Circuit Court to five years on probation on a felony charge of being more than 12 months in arrears on child support.
...
That shouldn’t prevent you from owning a firearm.
“The shot was fired from a distance of more than 70 feet away, police sources said. “ Good shot with a .380.
Or.
Perhaps your son would have pulled HIS piece and shot the homeonwer dead on the spot.
Yeah. THAT day.
Agreed, that is the problem with ‘cookie-cutter’ categories for denying 2A rights.
Felons can’t own? We’ll make ALL crime a felony, and also, broaden the categories of ‘crime’.
Mentally deficient can’t own, well we can broaden that definition too.
No-Fly-List can’t own, whoa, this is getting easier.
My thoughts EXACTLY.
The guy should be given a job teaching the local PD how to shoot.
Just ponder that a moment.
so apparently we are allowed to protect ourselves, BUT we WILL be charged with SOMETHING and made a criminal in the process
Martinez Smith-Payne - 13 yrs - He Lost 4 Fingers While Playing With Fireworks When He Was 10
Frances Smith-Woods - 'mother'
She knew her son ... and he was a thief in his heart and that didn’t bother her as much as society not accepting her twisted son and just warning him whenever he exercised the nature she recognized in him. Sorry, mame, you were raising a criminal to prey upon others.
“...but for being a felon in possession of a gun.”
If you’re too dangerous to have a gun, you’re too dangerous to be out of prison. If you’ve served your time, you should be allowed to defend yourself.
Absolutely. ANYONE deemed worthy of mingling within general society should have the ability to defend their naturally given ‘right to life’. Anyone considered too dangerous for ‘mingling’ should be locked up until deemed not dangerous but once released restored their ability of defense.
Surprisingly, many here would argue against you on that point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.