When that property is something big like a home or a car which is necessary to sustain life in a modern society, then it ought to be justifiable self-defense.
If convicted ... a sentence for 2nd degree murder in MO can involve a lot of time.
“If convicted for second-degree murder, a person could face Class A felony charges with penalties that include:
- Life in prison without the possibility of parole.
- 10 to 30-years in prison.”
The marxist administrative state: Turning victims into criminals, one day at a time.
A person's property keeps him alive. This law is wrong. Do they still hang horse thieves in Missouri? No? Well they should, the same as a car thief.
“… but not to protect one’s property.“
Then you don’t own any property. It’s belongs to any punk that wants to take it.
Sounds like Kress has a problem, he chased after the thug. I can’t say if he feared for his life or not, only Kress and God know. MO needs to change their laws so that you can protect property and provide a bounty for chasing down thug criminals and killing them.
Did anyone else hear Lopez say “Give me the car or I’ll kill you!” to Kress?
It’s sad this mad couldn’t continue his life of crime, really. Just sad. /s
If only we allowed or promoted death penalty for these crimes, just like stealing a horse a century ago, then car theft would not occur very often. But it is not. Problem here from what I read is that he chased the thief down to then shot him. That is problematic. That’s no longer self-defense of person or property. Maybe he pleads temporary insanity, triggered by attempted theft of his car. Maybe he has history of being victimized?
A great deterrent against theft.
Maybe God will forgive him. I feel sorry for Kress and his family and the man killed and his family. But, we live in a fallen condition. People should take that in to consideration when committing acts that could get you killed. You can’t depend on your victims obeying laws of any kind. Plus, your victim may just be even more amoral than you are.
Once you start chasing someone, YOU are considered the aggressor. Except maybe in Texas.
I’d vote not guilty.
shot him three times
I would vote for acquittal.
Law or not; steal my property and I reserve the right to hunt and kill
If I am on that jury, he is going to walk away. The world is a better place by a factor of 1. Don’t care if it was a car or a candy bar; the act is the same, the result is the same
One person decides that what belongs to someone else; can be taken. Parasites should be exterminated. They serve no purpose, and innocents don’t need to be prey
Same I heard about Michigan. On WJR a discussion a few years ago led to the giggling moron lawyer laughing (!) about how in MI you cannot protect yourself in a carjacking and the female host said "But a lot of our stories have said the driver and sometimes' their child were killed by the carjacker" and the lawyer said "Still you go to prison if you shoot the carjacker. It's protection of property." She was fuming and said "Well I want to know who the jackasses in the Legislature are who pass idiotic laws like that."
Her first making of a connection between elections and consequences.
Failed the Shoot - Don’t Shoot test.
It is pretty universal that you cannot keep shooting once the thug is no longer an immediate threat.
First offense so hopefully a light sentence, probation sounds right.
The left is actively encouraging crime so that the normal people will react and then they will take their guns and put them in jail. While the criminal is not prosecuted.