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 ...
“Therefore he was not charged for the shooting itself.”.........
Those darn felonies keep getting in the way of getting off scot free. Just have to figure a way to get around those.
No felon anywhere in the United States can own a firearm pursuant to federal law. Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence can’t own a firearm under federal law and further, anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault (if it was against someone considered to fall into a category of a domestic relationship) is also prohibited under federal law. It’s ridiculous, IMO.
On the other hand if someone has broken into your car which is approximately seventy feet away from you how do you know that he will not pull out a weapon and shoot YOU at a distance of seventy feet? I would say that there is reason for fear in that circumstance. Hitting something human sized at seventy feet is not any great feat of marksmanship even with a .380 and it only merits comment because most .380 caliber handguns have a very short barrel and very poor sights. With a decent .22 revolver with a four inch barrel a shot like that is child’s play. With a .22 rifle I used to shoot the eyes out of squirrels in trees more than seventy feet off the ground using open sights and I was doing that by the time I was twelve years old.
By the standard you pose, would it be ok to kill anyone you see in St. Louis, since how do you know they aren’t about to shoot you from a distance?
For moral and practical reasons, I’d rather avoid shooting anyone, feral or otherwise, even if they “deserved it”, unless I or someone else is in genuine, immediate peril, with no reasonable alternative. In this case, the “fear” doesn’t seem reasonable; the thieves didn’t seem to know the shooter was even there. Had he missed, he might have attracted return fire. Calling the cops seems like a reasonable alternative; at minimum it would save yourself an enormous hassle.
Felon can’t own guns.
Felon shoots kid.
Kid dies.
Felon goes back to jail.
Pretty simple
Such a decision is strictly subjective since no one thinks like you. Everyone reacts differently to different circumstances........
In a perfect world, there would have been a perfect response to the situation. And in a perfect world, the 13 year old kid would have been at home studying...........
As a side note, there obviously was no mention of this kid having prior records since he is a juvenile. What are the odds that he does?
Reporters still can't be bothered to learn anything about self defense law.
The Castle Doctrine, like Stand Your Ground, only refers to whether there is a duty to retreat before using deadly force. It doesn't address the other elements of self defense, which still have to be met for the shooting to be legal.
The law requires both an imminent deadly threat and an objectively reasonable fear of it. Subjective feelings aren't enough.
And a good lawyer would argue the same and based on the actual facts that you aren't aware of, could ultimately get an acquittal of the shooter..
“By the standard you pose, would it be ok to kill anyone you see in St. Louis, since how do you know they aren’t about to shoot you from a distance?”
That is absurd and I think you know it, I made it clear my question concerned someone who has broken into your car, that is far different from “anyone you see”. Why would you even ask such a ridiculous question?
It’s a rhetorical question, meant to be absurd. The obvious answer is “No”, followed by examination of why it’s different. A significant percentage of the urban St. Louis population are gang members, and current or former criminals, quite capable of posing a real threat; they even dress to identify themselves as same, as a form of threat. We can’t shoot them on sight, legally, unless they are doing something specific that actually threatens your life and limb. In my opinion, pilfering from your car 70 feet away completely sucks, but absent threats, going for a weapon, etc., does not present an immediate mortal danger.
If your opinion is otherwise, that’s fine. Let’s not waste further time on this.
Sounds like St. Louis has gone to blazes.
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.