Wonder if the NRA defense fund will defend this idiot? Or people here?

[KansasVoter]

I am sure many here will say this is a case of "Stand Your Ground". NRA defense fund to the rescue!!

KC man charged in fatal shooting of backyard prowler

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/01/24/2606404/kc-man-charged-in-prowlers-death.html#ixzz1BzA2tSxj

Jackson County prosecutors charged a 46-year-old man with murder after he allegedly shot a prowler in his back yard early Saturday.

Officers found Ephram Merrit-Esquivel, 43, dead in an alley in the 6200 block of E. 11th Street about 1 a.m. Saturday.

His body was found near an open gate to a chain-link fence. A go-cart had been pushed halfway out of the fence and Merrit-Esquivel’s footprints were found both behind and in front of the go-cart, according to court records.

The resident of the home, Oscar A. Cena, said he was awakened early Saturday by his dog barking. He looked outside and saw a man in his back yard. Cena had been burglarized several times in the last year and “was sick of it,” according to court records. Cena fired a rifle twice from his window, and one round hit Merrit-Esquivel in the head, court records said.

<snip>

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/01/24/2606404/kc-man-charged-in-prowlers-death.html

[rrneck]

1. Looks like a bad shoot to me.

People are more important than stuff.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MineralMan]

2. Well, naturally. The go-cart is the moral equivalent of the horse.

They shoot horse thieves, right? There you go. :sarcasm:

[shadowrider]

3. Let me be the first to crash the party

If the perp was not presenting a clear and imminent threat of harm to the man or his family, he had no business shooting the guy and should be charged.

Is this Kansas City, Mo. or Kansas City, Ks.?

Or do you care?

[KansasVoter]

8. So protecting your property is not worth killing someone? You must be a liberal NRA member!

[one-eyed fat man]

22. There is a problem.

Apparently you have no knowledge of Kansas state laws concerning the use of deadly force. If you had gone to the concealed carry class like you said countless times you were going to you would have learned that shooting people to protect your property is a crime.

Having that kind of knowledge would dampen your glee at posting stupid flamebait. The only NRA member who seems disappointed is YOU. That is assuming you are not lying about being a member too.

http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_21/Article_32/21-3213.html

The relevant Kansas statutes are readily available on line, but it seems you find reading them is nowhere near as much fun as spreading misinformation....

[shadowrider]

25. Nothing like trying to educate someone who refuses to be educated n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

38. Try the wire brush of knowledge .

No guarantees , but it works most of the time .

[AtheistCrusader]

30. And you must be an enormous troll

[FBaggins]

4. How would this be a case of "stand your ground"?

There doesn't appear to be any self defense or claim that personal injury was expected involved here.

[KansasVoter]

9. Isn't killing someone to defend property OK in some states?

[FBaggins]

10. Real property can be...

...but I can't see an application here.

"A person who is lawfully in possession of property other than a dwelling is justified in the threat or use of force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with such property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof as a reasonable man would deem necessary to prevent or terminate the interference may intentionally be used."

[GreenStormCloud]

13. Texas allows it.

That doesn't mean that it is a good idea.

[provis99]

14. yep. In Texas, the man wouldn't have even been arrested.

People have shot repo men for repossessing vehicles ie. Repo men were killed by homeowners for taking vehicles that did not belong to the homeowners.

If Texans thing my post is another Texas bash, I say: well, it's your law.

[Katya Mullethov]

17. Our version of midnight basketball .

And a far sight more effective .

[lepus]

64. Have the repo men quit acting like thieves in the night.

They know the law just as well as every one else.

I have sympathy for a repo man shot during the day. Little for one shot at night.

Until a vehicle is on the truck, it is still considered the property of the homeowner.

[Deep13]

24. No.

If someone is in your home or business, there may be a strong presumption that said person is a threat to your life or to the lives of others in the house. But self defense and the defense of others means the defense of persons, not property. If the story is correct and the burglar was leaving when he was shot, then there really is no case for self defense. Having said that, it is unlikely that the jury will side with a burglar over a home-owner.

[KansasVoter]

27. Texas allows it! Read the law!

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Too bad you missed the entire state.

[Katya Mullethov]

37. We don't just allow it

We encourage it with a steady flow of parolees and probationers from our turbine powered revolving doors of justice . I would be happy to illustrate .

[zinnisking]

56. As long as it's a Texan, it's win/win.

I hope that it is a Texan who has a chauvinist bigshot attitude like yours. I would watch the illustration with gusto and then I would LOL. Do you live stream?

TIA

Neheheheheee

[zinnisking]

61. Do you support a state sponsored death penalty for thieves?

[Deep13]

49. A statutory citation would be good.

I was assured in law school that such was not the case. Granted, that was 20 years ago, so something might have changed. I do not doubt that as a practical matter, DA's don't seek indictments for it and if they do, juries don't convict for it. That's different than black-letter law.

[oneshooter]

53. Try this.....

Deadly Force to Protect Property

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"


http://legalselfdefense.blogspot.com/2008/08/texas.html


Texas laws on defence change depending on if it is day time or night time.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Deep13]

54. Wow. Well, okay then. Thanks. nt

[shadowrider]

5. You won't get anyone to defend this guy KV. Try again with a different incident n/t

[X_Digger]

7. When did you stop beating your wife?

..Ask a leading question, get a leading question.

[hlthe2b]

11. Well, we've had those defending the shooting of the Halloween

trick or treater at the front door (who happened to be an Asian foreign exchange student), the unarmed owner of the dog that peed on the old cranky gun toter's grass, the unarmed teen burglers shot in the back as they were fleeing.

So, yeah, I'm sure we will have some gleeful gun supporters ready to defend this shooter. NOTHING is more important, after all then guns...We always do.

[shadowrider]

12. Wrong sparky

Gleeful gun supporters will not support this guy. You see, we have a tendency to do this thing called "critical thinking" which anti's sometimes sorely lack. The guy was wrong to shoot. No one will defend him.

I call it gleeful when someone posts pointless flamebait in an attempt to start an argument. I can just imagine the smile when he posted this.

[hlthe2b]

15. Wrong Sparky...

Several here defended the homeowner shooting those unarmed burglarizing teens in the back and killing them as they ran from his house.

[shadowrider]

18. Ahem. Reread my post. I said NOTHING about either incident

I addressed the issue of "gleeful".

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. That's the first *predictive* straw man argument I've ever seen:

So, yeah, I'm sure we will have some gleeful gun supporters ready to defend this shooter.

-2 for factual inaccuracy and naked bigotry. I won't defend Cena (the suspect), and no one else will either.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

16. No. N&U for bigotry on parade.

:nuke:

[guitar man]

19. throw the book at him

It's just a damned go-kart. I don't own anything that is worth killing somebody over, and as maddening as it may be, it's only a thing, it can be replaced. I'll never agree with anybody killing somebody simply over material posessions and I would never agree with any law that says it's ok. Only if threatened and put in fear for my life or the lives of my family members would I shoot somebody.

Had he been doing this at my place, by the time he got through running from my dog he'd never want to come back and try to steal anything.

[shadowrider]

20. The only, only way this would have been justified, again I don't know if it's

Kansas or Missouri (different laws apply) is if the homeowner went out to retrieve his stuff and the perp turned on him with a knife, gun or let the homeowner know he was in imminent danger of loss of life.

Since he shot from the house, he's guilty, no ifs, ands or buts.

[guitar man]

21. Exactly

If I saw somebody stealing my stuff I'd go out to confront the perp too, and I wouldn't go unarmed. If he ran away or didn't brandish a weapon or otherwise present an imminent threat to life and limb, I wouldn't shoot him, not over property. And you're 100% correct, the guy being inside the house and armed, there's just no way he could make the case that he felt the guy stealing his stuff represented that kind of threat.

He knew what he did was wrong or he wouldn't have ran and hid his weapon and made up a story about it.

[RamboLiberal]

34. +1 - and he did himself no favors by running and then trying

to get his friends to lie.

[Tejas]

36. Then don't steal a gocart in Texas.

[guitar man]

39. Probably not a good idea

I don't plan on stealing anything, I abhor thieves and thievery.

You won't find a stronger defender of the right to keep and bear arms in self defense than I. However, I don't believe it is right to kill someone just for stealing. Yeah, the guy was probably a real scumbag but I don't believe in making myself judge, jury and executioner over stuff. My Dad, who gave me my first .22, shotgun and when I came of age, my first handgun said "son, I don't own anything that's worth killing anybody over no matter how damn sorry they might be." it's always stuck with me. And he was a native born Texan himself.

At the same time, I feel no obligation to shrink from intruders on my own property. While I may not believe in shooting somebody just for stealing that doesn't mean I'll cower in my house and wave goodbye to my property either. I'll go confront the person(s) who are lifting my stuff, prepared to defend myself. If they make the wrong move then, there's a good chance they could get themselves shot, not for stealing, but for presenting a threat to my life. That's as fair as I can be about it.

But to just open the window and kill somebody for stealing a go-kart. I can't support it. No matter what the law says to me it's morally wrong.

[Tejas]

41. Maybe someone else here knows the terminology, but

it's got to do with the potential of the thief returning for more loot or to possibly commit a more heineous crime than theft. As far as the "material goods don't matter that much", I do NOT subscribe to that so we'll just have to disagree.

In the end, if the theft is occuring outside the house, I would rather scare the thief off with well placed shots. If they are inside the house, well.......

[guitar man]

44. If they are inside the house

I'm going to be in fear for my life and the lives of my wife and daughter so there's a good chance they will get their ass shot, that's if they make it past the alarm and dog. If they are outside, I'm going to grab some heat, have the wife dial 911 and the dig and I are going to confront them. Since the dog os a lot faster than I am on my old beat up knees, she will be the first one they meet and I guarantee she's going to ruin their day, she's quick, quiet and stealthy so they will never know she's coming :evilgrin:

And I agree about putting a couple well placed shots behind them to make them move along. About 10 years ago my previous dog woke me up in the middle of the night, some little punks were I'm my shed trying to help themselves to some power tools. I grabbed my 1873 Winchester , pulled on my boots and out we went. The dog ran them out of the shed and as they were running through the yard toward the front gate I put a couple rounds in the ground right behind their heels. Haven't had any problem with theiving around there since.

But no way was I going to shoot and kill a couple teenagers for trying to steal my tools. I just don't think it's right .

[KansasVoter]

42. He would shoot your dog with is 32 bullet clip gun.

[guitar man]

45. He'd have to be damn fast

She is stealthy as hell, she doesn't let you know she's coming and she's quicker than greased lightning ;)

[KansasVoter]

47. Sounds better than a gun to me! :-)

[guitar man]

50. Part of a team

I have an alarm, a dog and firearms. They work together. I haven't had any problems for about 10 years but I never know when I might. Across the highway about a mile is meth lab city and there's a skinhead/kkk group based about 2-3 miles west of me. Better safe than sorry.

[benEzra]

52. "Clip gun."

He would shoot your dog with is 32 bullet clip gun.

Clip gun:


http://www.usinenouvelle.com/industry/mezger-heftsysteme-8549/industrial-stapling-plier-p-p37739.html

:D


Sorry, couldn't resist...but the media drone about "clips" this week has me wishing that reporters knew how to use Google. Clips load magazines; magazines feed guns. Those wishing their arguments to be taken seriously should probably use the terms correctly, to avoid looking like they are parroting talking points that they don't fully understand.

[PavePusher]

23. I understand it but, under current laws, can't condone it.

I think it should be legal, but it's not.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

65. Heh, what did I miss? n/t

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RSillsbee]

35. So, are you implying

That the defendant shouldn't be afforded a fair trial before a jury of his peers?

[one-eyed fat man]

40. That would have been covered in class

I am taking a CCW class........

The class filled up, and since I was going for free I backed out so he could sell my spot. So I am going in the spring. Still looking forward to it. For some reason people are mad at me for not going or said I chickened out. Not sure why they are angry!

"Almost every town of any size in Kansas has a class at least once a month.Strange you didn't notice that."

Seems like a spring activity to me.

"Here is the Overland Park schedule (that's close to you, isn't it?) There was one 2 days ago and 4 more in the next 60 days. I'll pay your fee if you'll agree to go."

Nice offer, and I appreciate it, but I will get it this spring! And post a full report here!

[KansasVoter]

43. Is it spring yet? Where do you live? LOL.

[Kennah]

46. You're going to have to look hard ...

... to find gunowners defending the shooting of fleeing felons.

A "Stand your ground" statute is going to prove tough to argue when you shoots a felon through a window, unless that felon is about to firebomb your home.

[Tejas]

48. Fleeing rapists make excellent targets.

[Kennah]

55. That has more to do with the crime

Rape and child molestation are crimes that many otherwise thinking people just hear the charge and they instinctively react saying "Guilty!"

[benEzra]

51. No, "stand your ground" laws only eliminate the duty to retreat while under lethal attack...

that was a quirk of some states' laws, most notably Florida's. Most states have never had a duty to retreat statute, including most of those with the harshest gun-control laws (including California, AFAIK).

You're confusing "stand your ground" provisions with the Castle Doctrine, but Castle Doctrine did not apply in this case because the prowler wasn't in the home, and wasn't in the process of making an illegal forced entry into the home or into an occupied vehicle.

As it was, the homeowner could have fired only if the prowler reasonably presented an imminent threat of death, serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony to a member of the household, and in this case the prowler apparently did not.

Shooting from the window would have been legally justifiable had a family member been in the yard and the prowler was attacking or reasonably threatening the family member with death, serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony, or had the prowler been attempting to commit arson of the dwelling, but with everyone inside the house and the prowler outside merely looking for stuff to steal (or whatever), self-defense law here is pretty clear.

[zinnisking]

57. When I was just out of high school my friends stole my moped.

Well not really.

I drove my moped to work and parked it next to the building. It was homecoming night. When I went outside for break it was dark out. I went to the picnic tables and noticed the moped was gone.

Then I noticed my name was written on the ground with shaving cream. When I knew it was a prank, I looked around the corner with a flashlight and found it sitting in the pitch dark.

I suppose if I went on break earlier and caught them in the act, I might have assumed they were stealing it. And since it was dark out, I wouldn't have noticed it was my friend. And If I was a trigger-happy bigshot, my friend could have been dead over a $600 Spree moped. Thank gooDness I'm not a tough-guy wannabe who needs to hide behind a gun.

[Straw Man]

58. "If I had been a murderer, I might have committed murder."

That's what you just said. Then you pat yourself on the back for not being a murderer.

Let's tally up your qualifiers: "I suppose," "if," "might have," "if," and "could have." Isn't imagination a wonderful thing?

[zinnisking]

59. That's not what I just said. That's what you just superimposed.

[Straw Man]

60. Sounds like murder to me.

If I was a trigger-happy bigshot, my friend could have been dead over a $600 Spree moped.

But you're not. And neither am I. Can we agree on a little mutual respect?

[zinnisking]

62. Yes we can.

I saw what I consider reasonable answers from NRA members in this thread. I saw one reply from what I consider a trigger-happy unreasonable NRA'er.

My brother is a Republican. He is a 'Dems are gonna take away my guns' uncompromising, paranoid, unreasonable Republican. He owns all types of guns(including a 357 Magnum P.I. (sic) or something, which I shot once and ....wow!). I could never, in his lifetime, imagine him shooting someone who was leaving his property with some stolen material items. Never. HE is not a trigger-happy fool. In fact he is a good person (other than what he was taught about politics and casting votes for insipid gangsters like Cheney bush). There is a difference between him and the smug looking creep in the OP's mugshot.

Yes, maybe you and I can have mutual respect.

[Straw Man]

63. That would be good.

I think what happens here all too often is that people start straying away from the OP and ripping into each other. I misinterpreted what you said as referring to gun owners in general. My apology for that. Let me make clear that I do not condone shooting fleeing burglars.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Francis Marion]

66. Defend the idiot...?

I thought that the idiot was shot and is now beyond defending. N'est-ce pas?