“ Could Missouri’s ‘stand your ground’ law apply to the Super Bowl celebration shooters?”

“Could Missouri’s ‘stand your ground’ law apply to the Super Bowl celebration shooters?”

“KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — The man accused of firing the first shots at the Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl rally told authorities he felt threatened, while a second man said he pulled the trigger because someone was shooting at him, according to court documents.”

“Experts say that even though the shooting left one bystander dead and roughly two dozen people injured, 23-year-old Lyndell Mays and 18-year-old Dominic Miller might have good cases for self-defense through the state’s “stand your ground” law.”

“Trial attorney Daniel Ross described the stand your ground law as a “formidable defense” that he and many other Kansas City defense attorneys anticipate will be used in Mays’ and Miller’s cases. He said the law puts the onus on the prosecution to disprove claims that a shooting is lawful self-defense.”

“Collateral damage under Missouri law is excused if you’re actually engaged in lawful self-defense and there’s other folks injured,” he said.”

“Kansas City already was grappling with the shooting of Yarl, a Black teenager, who survived a bullet wound to the head when he went to the wrong house in April 2023 to pick up his brothers. Andrew Lester, an 85-year-old white man, is planning to claim self-defense when he goes to trial in October. His attorney said the retiree was terrified by the stranger on his doorstep.”

“Missouri has few firearm regulations”

https://apnews.com/article/chiefs-pa...430dd9ae6d602d

If this defense worked for Rittenhouse and Zimmerman, why not these two dimwits, if they thought they were protecting themselves just like Kyle and George?

Seeing under Missouri law they may have been acting in self defense, does that make them “good guys with a gun?”

And what defense does those in the vicinity or anyone have if everyone is defending themselves?

 

What ground were they standing? Did it belong to them? Were they legally carrying at the time of the shootings? Lots of open questions. Even if they thought they were invoking self defense, how does that negate their responsibility for the folks they shot up and killed?

 

Rittenhouse and Zimmerman were not on their own house or apartment.

 

Standing your ground does not include shooting up 20+ other people who had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Nice try though....

 

If they somehow get a pass on this, then it's open season at every event from now on.

 

And Rittenhouse was very fortunate he was carrying legally. If I recall he's also very lucky the prosecution went for 1st degree murder charge and there was video. Without the video he probably goes down, he was fleeing and being chased, these guys were fighting.

 

Irrelevent. The law allows for self defense. Do you deny this? Stand your ground is a different legal standard. Which is why I asked the questions that I did. Why not try addressing those instead of trying to invoke whataboutism?

 

I do believe that is yet to be determined

 

It wasn’t already? Getting more and more difficult every day to find a common space that hasn’t been a scene of a shooting

 

But his case was self defense, couldn’t not at least one of these dimwits claim the same?

 

This is why we need more guns. If all of the innocent bystanders would have been strapped this could have easily been prevented. Said the typical republican

 

No. Let's say you are in a crowd of 100 people. Someone shoots at you, so you return fire in self-defense. You don't know who or where the shots came from, so you shoot all 100 people standing around you just in case? No.

 

What does the ground have to do with it? Rittenhouse and Zimmerman weren’t at home, was the ground relevant to their defense? And their responsibility to those in the area wasn’t a factor in either of the other cases in considering self defense, Rittenhouse was firing in an open area with others in the vicinity

 

The difference is that Rittenhouse was firing at his attackers. These other two idiots were firing indiscriminately.

 

Sounds about right, but what with guns sounds right

It not be relevant under Missouri’s stand your ground laws, as with the other cases, the defense rests upon the dimwits thinking they were using force necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to themselves, not others

 

Rittenhouse second victim was past of a group chasing him after he shot the first guy, and he fired into the group, and again, if stand your ground is about doing what was necessary to defend yourself where they fired may not be relevant

 

IF, what the say is true, the wild shooting (IMHO) would constitute "Stand your ground". But this is where is gets sticky, if you harm others while you "stand your ground" you are liable for your own actions, so they are still liable for what happens by their hands

 

Like I said, if these two idiots somehow get a free pass, it will be open season from now on. Hey, look at me, I'm at a large outdoor event. Oh crap, someone is shooting! Is it directed at me? Well, I can't be sure, but I must defend myself, so these other 200 people in my general vicinity have to be killed.

 

Very good point.

Rittenhouse got off, so is that "precedent" ?

 

Perhaps you don't understand the difference then in the law. Self Defense is legally different than stand your ground. Why not take some time to make yourself familiar with them before blasting away...

 

Hope not, but in those States with less defined Stand your Ground Laws, and lenient outlooks toward guns, who knows

 

In most states with Stand Your Ground laws or Castle Doctrine, your first legal option is the duty to retreat, not to just start blasting.

 

Is not self defense the basis of all stand your ground laws? the justification for stand your ground laws?

One can not separate the two, cite us a case, or even a hypothetical situation, where stand your ground does not rely on the principle of self defense

 

But apparently not Missouri

 

Rittenhouse should have never have been there in the first place. But that's all old.

The issue is how to properly execute the stand ones ground law.