self defense shooting in St. Louis

[btmj]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/c...9bb30f31a.html

Note the skewed description of Missouri's Castle Doctrine... but other than that it is reasonably good reporting.

According to the report, the self defense shooter chased the criminal out of the house and shot him. In a general sense, this is not advisable... but we do not know all the circumstances.

Its a good thing the shooter had access to a firearm and was willing to make a confrontation... otherwise we might be reading about the multiple homicides of a 66 year old man, a 22 year old woman, a 19 year old woman, and a 7 month old baby girl.

[rocky.223]

I am thankful to live in a state the still protects the rights of the victims to defend themselves!

[Vermonter]

Just glad no one else was hurt.

[echo7tango]

Unfortunately, Castle Doctrine-wise, I live in California, and there's no way one can chase an intruder down the street and shoot him / her and be protected by the Castle Doctrine.

Funny coincidence but I travel to STL next week for business.

[Frank Ettin]

In general, chasing the BG down the street, after he has left the premises and broken off his misconduct, would not be covered by a Castle Doctrine.

Here's the Missouri law, Section 563-031 (emphasis added):

Use of force in defense of persons.

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:

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:

(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or

(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;

(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; or

(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.

4. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1993 S.B. 180, A.L. 2007 S.B. 62 & 41, A.L. 2010 H.B. 1692, et al. merged with H.B. 2081)

So I wonder if there's not more to the story.

[OldMarksman]

One other thing: the latest relevant jury instructions reportedly add some requirements pertaining to the defender's ability to articulate a reasonable belief of having been endangered; these are not available on-line and are quite costly, and I have not read them myself.

Which takes precedent, the black law or the jury instructions? Hint: the jury instructions have been approved by the Missouri Supreme Court. Guess who would rule on any appeal on the subject.

My take on this case is that the charging authority either used some discretion or made an assessment about the likelihood of a successful prosecution.

[btmj]

... and we don't necessarilly know the whole story. It is possible that the self defense shooter ran outside the home with no intention of shooting anyone, but once outside, one of the aggressors did something to give him reasonable cause to fear.

OldMarksman: That is very interesting information regarding jurry instruction. I was not aware of that.

[TexasJustice7]

Frank Etin: In general, chasing the BG down the street, after he has left the premises and broken off his misconduct, would not be covered by a Castle Doctrine.

Here's the Missouri law, Section 563-031 [moga.mo.gov] (emphasis added):

I would agree, and I think in Texas he would be in serious trouble for chasing him down and shooting him. In my state the castle docrine applies to inside the home, or inside an occupied vehicle. But then it is possible the individual has already created a serious crime and perhaps the homeowner who chased him was attempting a citisen's arrest. (In Texas it is)

PC §9.51. ARREST AND SEARCH

(b) A person other than a peace officer (or one acting at his direction) is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making a lawful arrest, or to prevent or assist in preventing escape after lawful arrest if, before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to and the reason for the arrest or reasonably believes his purpose and the reason are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.

You quoted the Missouri Law for the Castle Doctrine. Unless the homeowner is protected as doing say a citsen's arrest, if Missouri has one, I don't see how come he is not in jail now, unless the prosecutors just don't want to
file charges against him.

[OldMarksman]

I don't see how come he is not in jail now, unless the prosecutors just don't want to file charges against him.

To make a statement like that, you have to assume that what you have read accurately describes what happened, everything that happened, and only what happened.

And that's not usually the case.