Subscribe
Shop Local
Magazine
Gas Prices
Today's Poll!Steedman resident takes shots at intruders
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
A Steedman farmer who had been the victim of theft several times could face charges after firing on intruders on his property Tuesday morning. Two of the intruders were arrested on charges of stealing and trespassing, while a third is still at large.
Jacqueline Kemp
John Atterberry
The Callaway County Sheriff’s Office received a call from Carl Norris of Steedman reporting he had caught three individuals on his property attempting to steal items, and that he had two of them detained at gun point.
Upon arrival at the scene, deputies learned Norris had fired shots into the suspects’ vehicle, although no one had been injured. Also in the vehicle at the time was an infant — the child of one of the suspects, Jacqueline Kemp.
“We had been getting several calls from Mr. Norris recently for stealing. A vehicle showed up on his property today with three occupants and an infant,” explained Sheriff Dennis Crane. “(Norris) shot at the vehicle and struck it a couple times.”
Taken into custody at the scene were Kemp, 21, Mokane, and John Atterberry, 38, Portland. Both were arrested on charges of misdemeanor stealing and first-degree trespassing. The third suspect had already fled the scene before deputies arrived, and a search for that individual was unsuccessful.
Kemp and Atterberry were taken to the sheriff’s office where they were interviewed and processed through the Callaway County Jail. Kemp was released on summons. Atterberry was released after posting $1,000 bond.
Norris also was interviewed at the sheriff’s office in regards to the shooting. Additional charges could possibly be filed concerning the shooting.
“A lot of people are under the impression you can shoot to protect your property under the castle law,” Crane said. “You still have to be able to articulate that you had fear for your own safety.”
Marry Me
Comments
mia 11 months, 1 week ago
This is the screwiest place I have EVER lived. Its OK to rob someone but not OK to give a warning shot? Its OK in this county to shoot a gun in a highly residential neighborhood, scare the heck out of the neighbors but not OK to defend your property? I have feared for my own safety at times but sure don't want to end up in jail because of the ridiculous laws in Callaway. Its the wild wild west here. I know that the Castle doctrine says they have to more or less be in your home but I am beginning to think that the crooks have it made.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 1 week ago
It is important to remember that a warning shot should be fired into the air after at least one verbal warning. You don't fire a "warning shot" into someone's car where there might be, you know, a baby or something. Mr. Norris may belong in prison.
This is another really bad story. It would be nice to have more and better information before making any decisions. One of the many things missing from this story is whether Mr. Norris is really a theft victim or if he is "just" the neighborhood crank. There is nothing in the story to tell us if the three people in the car have police records or if there was stolen property in the car.
mia 11 months, 1 week ago
Look their records up.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 1 week ago
I did. Did you? There's nothing relevant or recent on case.net.
John 11 months, 1 week ago
You NEVER EVER fire a warning shot "into the AIR." Most training classes, most police and tactical training classes, teach that you never fire a "warning shot" at all. You warn verbally and loudly (preferably multiple times) that you have a weapon and will fire if the subjects keep up with their actions).
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 1 week ago
I will defer to you on that.
spelchek 11 months, 1 week ago
This story never happened. Crimes like these almost never happen and then subsequently reported. Right?
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 1 week ago
Which crime? Petty theft or attempted murder?
JCNYer 11 months ago
Boy, the economy was bad, but I didn't think it was that bad. She couldn't even afford a babysitter to go to work as a thief.
mia 11 months, 1 week ago
So they are both out of jail and this poor schmuck in going to have to go to court. Give me a break in life. NO wonder people act the way they do. And no offense but we need a new Sheriff here. We have had so much luck with their officers but their so called Sheriff is something else.
Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago
The law can't allow people to go firing shots out into a dark yard or into a car, no matter how many times the guy had stuff stolen out of his yard. He didn't know what or who he was shooting at, and any responsible gun owner will tell you that's a no no.
He was upset, understandably. But Crane is right about the law. You can't use deadly force to protect property. I think we can all understand why.
And you shouldn't fire a weapon when you don't know what you're shooting at.
Frankly I'm disturbed about all these stories of people so anxious to use their guns. Cheering them on like this is irresponsible.
I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. I don't believe this guy was responsible. He recklessly endangered human life.
Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago
Kinda bothers me that the NRA, and some people on this forum, have alleged that so called "liberals" want to "get rid of the 2nd amendment" and take guns out of the hands of responsible gun owners.
I've seen no evidence to support such an allegation. But never mind that.
Interestingly, neither do I see that any of the people on this forum who allege that others "want to take their guns away" and who go on and on about how most gun owners are good people EVER appear to condemn irresponsible gun owners. Instead, they get on here and cheer each and every incident of gun violence (unless non-white people do it... then they're "thugs" and "scum").
What's the difference between people shooting up the parking lot at a club at 4 am and this farmer guy? Maybe the thugs were just shooting at guys who stole from them too. Isn't that okay with you guys?
I hope we don't have to wait and see how bad things get before the NRA starts taking more responsibility for themselves.
This is WHY we end up needing regulation.
spelchek 11 months, 1 week ago
Perhaps if the losers weren't stealing on this mans private property a gun would have never been brandished. Ever think about that? You are choosing to attack the victim in this case rather than those who borrowed trouble. This man didn't invite them to his house or to his property. Why does Mr. Norris require regulation when he was minding his own business until someone else made their business his? How long did it take for the deputy's to arrive after he called for help and held the losers at gun point? The story indicates they'd been there before and were apparently emboldened. Who knows what they could have done the next time...The liberal mind set towards fire arms and their ignorance of them is simply astonishing.
JMO 11 months, 1 week ago
If they were coming in his home, if they were even coming at him, and he reasonably believed he was in danger, I'd have no problem with him shooting them. But they weren't. And like it or not, the law doesn't allow you to shoot at people just because they took your stuff! And you certianly shouldn't shoot at a car when you have no way of knowing an innocent person isn't in there!
Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago
You can't shoot at someone without objective reason to feel that yourself and others were in danger.
Of course I thought about how the theives are responsible too. But that doesn't legally justify any and every action that the farmer took. Just having people show up uninvited on your property, outside your home, is not enough to justify deadly force. That's the law in the State of Missouri.
I guess that's what burns me up. I'm talking about what is actually the law in the state of Missouri, and you call me a "liberal." Its the law, dude, not liberalism. If you're so well trained on firearm use, why do you call a statement of the law (which you should know) a "liberal mindset toward firearms"?
Do you know the law or not? What I'm saying is not "liberal gun ethics" it's "the law." This is what I'm talking about.
When you take a concealed carry class, does the instructor say, "You can go ahead and shoot at a target you can't see. Anyone who says otherwise is just a liberal." I don't think so.
The story doesn't actually say that these people were responsible for previous robberies. Good chance they were, BUT, that doesn't justify the reckless use of deadly force. Nothing the losers did in this case justified firing shots into the car. Period.
I'm surprised that people who talk about all their firearms training are arguing with me about this. Oh right, I'm a "liberal."
JMO 11 months, 1 week ago
...and completely correct!!!
John 11 months, 1 week ago
The "Castle Doctrine", as interpreted in many states, DO allow the use of deadly force for the protection of property as well as in fear of life situations. Are you sure that is not how it is used in MO as well? Perhaps the PA is looking for fodder for public image???
Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago
Castle doctrines, I think, gives greater latitute to the use of deadly force "in a dwelling." The issue here is that the farmer was outside, not in a dwelling.
But the castle doctrine is not about protecting the physical property in your home. It is establishing that you have no duty to retreat out of your home. It isn't about using deadly force to protect property, it is about a legal presumption that a situation where a person would reasonably need to flee their home IS a reasonable fear of life for himself or others.
In other words, I don't think castle doctrines are an exception to the law that you can't use deadly force to protect property. The are just a presumption about what constitutes a reasonable fear of death.
John 11 months, 1 week ago
I just wrote that some states do allow the use of deadly force to protect property as well as protect life. You start you response with an "I think," which is reasonable. Then you write the crux of your arguement in absolute statements.
You also state that you "have no duty to retreat out of your home." While that is true, there is also, in several states, no requirement to retreat from ANY location. My initial question was, are you (a genral you not specifically directed toward you) SURE that Missouri's Castle Doctrine does not provide that latitute? Is it not possible that the PA is using this to build a rep or make a political statement?
In the 80s the, then, PA attempted to prosecute a man for murder when a bullet he fired passed through the rabbit he shot and struck a woman. It was an acccident, a horrible accident, just like those terrible accidents on highways. In the overall view, very very very few of them are prosecuted.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 1 week ago
I could only find two states that allow deadly force to protect property. MO is not one of them. The PA has to run for re-election so he has to pick his battles.
John 11 months, 1 week ago
Great Tonto, I did not know you are an attorney. I would caution you, because of REACTIONARY courts and REACTIONARY lawyers, it is quite often not a matter of simply reading to understand the law. Lawyers and courts can, and do, often litigate their perception of the law.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 1 week ago
I am not offering legal advice. If you have better information, please share it. If all you have is sarcasm, that is noted.
John 11 months, 1 week ago
You offered legal advice that "MO is not one of them."
There was no sarcasm, believe me, you will know if I use sarcasm. My point was, and remains, valid. The simple "letter of law" is not necessarily valid when reactionary prosecutors and reactionary courts, control the definitons as they desire.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 1 week ago
Did I try and bill you? Think about it. The existence - or lack - of specific statutory language is a skill set far lower than that of an attorney.
mia 11 months, 1 week ago
Yea, we use guns at a shooting range, I am WELL aware of laws. I think Callaway needs to get a grip on people that fire guns in their backyards wildly. NUTS. Recklessly endangering a human life? ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not sure people that steal from others are human but more vermin.
JMO 11 months, 1 week ago
The baby in the car wasn't vermin. I don't know why you aren't concerned about shooting at a car that has an innocent in it! What if one of those shots had hit that child? I bet then you'd see how reckless it was. A "warning shot" is fired in the AIR, not AT someone!
lovemykids 11 months, 1 week ago
WHO put that infant in harms way? ALL 3 of the people who KNOWINGLY took an infant on a robbery. This man had no way of knowing that a stupid woman would bring her child! No, that should NOT be pinned on him. Yes he should be more careful.
Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago
"This man had no way of knowing that a stupid woman would bring her child! No, that should NOT be pinned on him."
If he pulled the trigger that shot the bullet that hit the baby, then yes, he should. The infant does not deserve to die because the baby has a stupid mother.
lovemykids 11 months, 1 week ago
Thank God we are speak of a "could have happened" instead of a "this is how it happened"
lovemykids 11 months, 1 week ago
All I am saying is that it is the parent's responsibility to keep their child relatively safe. You do not take your infant on a robbery then turn around and blame the home owner if your child get's hurt. We put our kids in car seats, we use baby gates, we put them in life vests, we put locks on our cabinets to keep them away from cleaning supplies, and we put outlet covers on so the kid doesn't shock themselves. This woman blatantly dis-regarded her responsibilties to keep this child safe. SHE put it in harms way by taking it on a robbery.
John 11 months, 1 week ago
It is interesting, however, that I do not hear any of you jump up and down about law enforcement personnel firing at an automobile. They, also, do not know who else may be in the vehicle. Not too many years ago the Cole County Sheriff fired at a vehicle in a parking lot outside of, what used to be, The Jeffersonian. Nobody jumped up and down then about his actions. . . . While I concur that this event in Steedman MIGHT have been reckless, (I still do not know all of the facts upon which to make a case for or against), I think many of you are using selective indignation.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 1 week ago
We give uniformed peace officers a little more latitude but we expect good judgement from them. I doubt any of them would shoot at someone for being in a car on someone else's property.
John 11 months, 1 week ago
And that of course completely sidesteps what I wrote. You all villify someone because he shot at a truck, on his property, late at night,, and endangered a baby. You make a big deal about "shooting at a vehicle" and raise the presence of a babby as a major reason why it shouldn't happen. I mention a sheriff doing just that and you all write it off. Amazing. . . simply amazing.
John 11 months, 1 week ago
The vehicle at which a sheriff discharged his weapong did NOT contain a child. I did not make that clear in my statement above. However, he DID shoot at a moving vehicle not knowing IF MAYBE it contained someone other than the drunk driver.
january 11 months, 1 week ago
Cole County Sheriffs will discharge their weapons for any reason. From a toilet to a man on his cell phone both are just as likely to be shot.
John 11 months, 1 week ago
There is only ONE Cole County Sheriff at any one time. I also think your statement factually incorrect.
january 11 months, 1 week ago
Ok, I concede, a toilet is slightly more likely to be shot.
sickandtired 11 months, 1 week ago
" If he pulled the trigger that shot the bullet that hit the baby, then yes he should". I guess the parents?adults(Use that word with questionable clauses) should also be charge with accessory to the cause and child indangerment for bringing the child with them while doing the robbery. By the way I love how all they got charged with was a misdemeanor.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 1 week ago
The child should be in protective custody, that's for certain, but the person who pulls the trigger - and no one else - is responsible for where the bullet goes.
JMO 11 months, 1 week ago
Well of course the people who took the baby put it in harms way. But you don't shoot at a car for that very reason! You have no way of knowing who may be in there who had nothing to do with it. Not to mention that you simply don't shoot at people running away from you! Deadly force is called that for a reason. You have the right to protect yourself or other people. You don't have the right to kill someone because they took your stuff!
And incidently, I'm not a big gun-control advocate. I have no problem with guns. I have a problem with stupid people shooting at other stupid people.
muleman 11 months ago
Stupid people shooting at other stupid people improves the gene pool :)
John 11 months, 1 week ago
Again, one should NEVER EVER fire a warning shot.
mia 11 months, 1 week ago
ummmm, into a dark yard? You apparently don't live in Callaway. Anything goes here. OH except firing a warning shot at thieves, thats OUT.
Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago
“(Norris) shot at the vehicle and struck it a couple times.”
That's NOT a warning shot. That's reckless endangerment or attempted murder.
Regardless of the intent of the adults, that farmer, if he's not a psycopath, would never forgive himself if he had killed that baby.
Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago
The prior police records of the people in the car are NOT relevant evidence as to whether the farmer acted lawfully.
John 11 months, 1 week ago
No but they are relevant evidence answer as to the subjects. Granted you said nothing was in the story. . . . well, Mia told you how to answer the implied interogatory.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 1 week ago
I did. There's nothing there. Maybe they just didn't get caught before, or maybe they got arrested but not convicted. Either way, it does not justify shooting at a car.
spelchek 11 months, 1 week ago
Listening to a liberal explain gun ethics is like getting dating tips from a nun. Just keep nodding your head up and down until they stop and go away feeling better about themselves.
dokeus6 11 months, 1 week ago
I know the feeling. Thats the same way I feel when I hear a conservative right wing nut talk about anything. I just nod my head and act like I'm even interested to what they are saying because of the lack of knowledge coming from their spicket
dokeus6 11 months, 1 week ago
It's not the lack of education, it's the lack of ability to admit when they are wrong!!
muleman 11 months ago
He was shooting at a car
mia 11 months, 1 week ago
And thank you LOVE MY. If you only knew of the scuz we encounter here. WHO would take a baby to a burglary?? I know the laws very well. I would never shoot at someone or at their vehicle. BUT Callaway has such twisted laws. My neighbor can shoot a high powered rifle inches from me and thats legal. I feel endangered but thats OK, its legal. This man had apparently had ENOUGH. We live in a nice area with scuzzy people down from us that have robbed in three counties. You learn to arm yourself here. Liberals.....boy, isn't that right. An answer to everything but you can bet they would never pick up a firearm. This man carried this too far but I can tell you that he probably feared for his life. And I can ONLY guess what they were going to rob him of.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 1 week ago
If you know the laws very well, why do you say that Callaway has twisted laws? In Missouri, laws are statewide and uniform.
mia 11 months, 1 week ago
Excellent point spelchek. We have called authorities only to have NO ONE show up. But then again, we have called and they came to our aid and acted in a professional manner. After some of the drugged out people I have seen here, I can tell you that I would be very afraid of someone on my property. Most of those farms are out in the middle of no where. You have to remember this is the area where a man is accused of killing three people in cold blood.
viktorkowski 11 months, 1 week ago
if this person hadn't fired a shot these people would of taken his property, pawned it or sold it to the metal recycling place, bought meth, and came back and robbed him again. perhaps mr. norris understands what goes on in callaway county better than any of us. He would of been told "too bad you got robbed but we just don't have the resources to track down your property"
mia 11 months, 1 week ago
Bingo
jeffcitygirl 11 months, 1 week ago
How did he know they weren't there to attempt to take HIS life?
JCNYer 11 months ago
I am not Christian, and I have shot someone stealing from me once. A 13 year old teenager with a knife tried to steal my car, I approached him with my gun out, he told me to back off, swung his knife at me and I shot him in the leg. I was arrested, but released with all charges dropped. You should have the right to protect your property, but this was a little excessive. But don't throw around "there was a baby in the car". I'm sure he didn't know that, and only a irresponsible human, to put it nicely, brings their kid to a robbery.
jdfarmgirl3020 11 months, 1 week ago
I live with in 5 miles of where this took place. I have no problem with what Mr. Norris did and would have done the same thing. There are WAY to many meth heads at this end of the county and way to much stealing going on. We have had stuff stolen out of our sheds and property damage to our fields. If you pull into my driveway in the dead of night, you can expect to be greated with me and my 12 gauge...PERIOD! I may not use it, but it WILL be in my hand. My husband knows that I am serious enough about it that if he is coming in late from work he makes it a point to call me to tell me what time he will be pulling in the driveway and my neighbors now too. morus- I don't know what being a Christian has to do with any of this, but I am one and will defend my family, my home and my property. It sad that there was a baby in the car and I am sure Mr. Norris feels remorseful for that, but the mother of that child should be charged with child endangerment and that child should be taken and put in a safe place. Why is it that criminals have MORE rights then their victims?
JCNYer 11 months ago
Lawyers.
hudson 11 months, 1 week ago
If I catch anyone steeling on my property I may go to trial, but they will not be there to testify against me !
viktorkowski 11 months, 1 week ago
callaway county should award mr norris a medal. this man was able to do what the county sheriff wasn't able to do. he apprehended someone who, apparently, has been robbing rural properties. He has saved the county money, insurance companies, and future victims from having their property taken from them by a serial criminal.
linoge 11 months, 1 week ago
Anyone with night hunting experience knows that it can be tricky to hit your target between the hours of dusk and dawn. The moonlight can play tricks on your eyes and things aren't where they appear to be. Like spearing a fish that is underwater. I encourage Mr. Norris to practice and work on his technique. One suggestion is to aim low rather than straight at your target. Better luck next time and keep up the good work!
PatsyDecline 11 months, 1 week ago
Lots of speculation here.
I'm just glad nobody got hurt. Everyone seems to have a gun these days but damn few seem to understand how to use them.
BubbaD 11 months, 1 week ago
They are often wrong and it is typically due one of two reasons. They think that truth is always simple, so they neglect details and nuance. They are inflexible when it comes to change.
wcywing 11 months, 1 week ago
no one was hurt, what about castle law? maybe he should have let the intruders invade the property? hopefully he gets a good lawyer. that being said, when one pulls out a gun and fires, things will never be the same. beware.
jeffcitygirl 11 months, 1 week ago
Okay this is odd for me, but I agree with what the homeowner did! And I dislike guns immensely, but if someone has repeatedly broken into my home, and I do not know if they intend to harm me or not , I have to wait until they get all the way in my house and then take a chance that they will harm me or my children without attempting to keep them out? If someone is attempting to come into my home I'm sure I'd be panicked, thinking they were going to physically harm me by their threatening presence. Now I know I have to wait, let them come in and see if they are nice enough to indicate to me their intentions are towards my stuff, not me, before they try to kill or rape me or hurt my children in the process of their crime. Why don't I just hand them the duct tape to tie my family up while we're at it and let me hand them the good silver in a gift bag. Sheesh.
John 11 months, 1 week ago
THAT is exactly one of the problems with the "fear for your life" stipulation. Stress can help to elevate fear to a level for where "reasonable" has a completely different meaning from someone NOT in that situation.
jeffcitygirl 11 months, 1 week ago
My issue how am I supposed to know if they "intend" to harm my (or my families) life or just take my "stuff", that is not theirs? I feel just being on my property committing a crime of any nature is enough for me to assume they have no ethical qualms about hurting me to get to my stuff.
John 11 months, 1 week ago
That sounds reasonable to me . . .
John 11 months, 1 week ago
Actually, despite what MORUS wrote, NOBODY in the public sector knows for sure what the timeline was nor what any specific individual was doing. As for "They didn't break into his home -- they were in the yard..."
My land IS part of my home. Whether it be my corral for calves, my 200 acre South hayfield, or what. It IS MY HOME.
Sequoia 11 months, 1 week ago
John, legally, that's not true. Your 200 acre south hayfield is not your "dwelling" or your "house" as far as the law is concerned. You just bust out statements without any idea of what you're talking about, in this and other topic areas. Just because in your gut your land feels like part of your home does not make that a true legal statement, which is what we're talking about here.
You need to take some responsibility for the information you are putting out. People might make decisions based on something you say. Serious ones, in this case. You ought to be more careful.
John 11 months, 1 week ago
Let us examine which of us is busting "out in statements without any idea of what you're talking about." or "responsibility for inormation you are putting out."
I believe, yep, I checked, and I am sure, I wrote, "My land IS part of my home." I did not write or imply anything about my "house" or "dwelling."
I cannot quite figure out if your misleading statements, misquotes, implied falsehoods are purposeful or if they are from ignorance, purposeful or otherwise.
John 11 months, 1 week ago
And MORUS, you are building yet another strawman. It is quite simple, I wrote "my land" (notice I did not write my "house" or "dwelling") and "my home." (Again, notice I did not use the terms "house" or "dwelling") I did not write my "house" or "dwelling." You can change anything around you like, but you cannot change the facts. I wrote (and you can check it out, it is still in here), "My land IS part of my home. Whether it be my corral for calves, my 200 acre South hayfield, or what. It IS MY HOME."
John 11 months, 1 week ago
No, MORUS, the relevant detail here is what I wrote. After all, I was sharing my thoughts, not yours. Therefore, MY words are the relevant point.
After all, it was MY WORDS that you and Sequoia misquoted. It was MY THOUGHTS being exprressed through MY WORDS. That is how you and your cohorts work. You build straw man arguements by misquoting, misleading, and obfuscation. When you cannot argue the point you simply try to change the debate. Nothing is so disturbing as, halfway through your arguement, you realize you are wrong. Solution: "Change, mislead, misquote, misattribute, everything in the debate. . . .
muleman 11 months ago
Try buying the house without buying the land it sits on
John 11 months ago
This entire thread does not hinge upon a "home invasion." It has to do with a farmer protecting what is his. You and your cohorts jump on a wagon and run your mouths about things which you know nothing.
Nobody knows what was going through his mind when he shot the vehicle. We will find out when/if they drop the charges, prosecute him on some inconsequential misdemeanor, or completely exonerate him in a press release. Regardlss, you and your cohorts build strawmen by misquoting me and others and you try to build somethine that makes someone who is protecting his HOME against theft AND invasion. You try to make him out as a stupid "Elmer Fudd-type" or some kind of monster.
It is actually good to know that folks like you do NOT like Jefferson City and threaten to leave to find some excitement. I somehow suspect that there are more than a few who pray that you DO leave.
dokeus6 11 months ago
You said your land is your "home" John. Your land is not your house that You can go kill someone on . That is illegal John. Now if they were in your house on your land. Yes, then by all means but not on the one foot of the land that is on your 200 acres that lies a thousand feet from your house. Sorry John but you would end up in jail.
John 11 months ago
Actually, DOKE, you make absolute statements that are not true. There are a whole bunch of folks in here who cannot read. I did NOT write that it was my "house" nor my "dwelling." You're actually trying to build a straw man arguement by quoting me and then, in the next sentence, CHANGING a word that I used. I wrote:
"My land IS part of my home."
You wrote something that implies you are only allowed to defend yourself inside your house. That is not true -- point blank -- not true. Also, there ARE states in which the Castle Doctrine is defined as to allow yourself to protect YOUR PROPERTY with deadly force.
I do not believe you are an attorney and I, therefore, seriously doubt you are qualified to interpret a law.
We'll see when all the dust settles as to what the law is in Missouri.
dokeus6 11 months ago
But John I was going by what you wrote and how you wrote it. You want us to take you for what you write not what you meant. You can't have it both ways John. Your the one who keeps reminding us of that.
John 11 months ago
Actually, no you were not. You absolutely misquoted me and you KNOW now as you KNEW THEN that you were misquoting and building a straw man.
dokeus6 11 months ago
I doubt you are an attorney and equally inept at interpreting the law John but I looked it up for you and here is an opinion from the St. Louis Post Dispatch of what the law states instead of me just spouting off about it. Here you go John.
stltoday.com/news/opinion/article_7fd08f97-d951-5596-9f63-7e461d269d07.html,
dokeus6 11 months ago
Seems like he was correct.
Gabrielle 11 months, 1 week ago
There must be several ways to view the United States when one is abroad. NEVER have I referred to or thought of the United States as my HOME. The same holds true for the state of MIssouri - or any portion of it. When I am abroad - I am FROM the United States - or Missouri... or whatever state I am living in at the time. To refer to a country as home is - well - down right odd. morus, it makes me really wonder who is trying to 're-define the literal meaning of the word 'home'.' Now if you would like to elaborate on your 'home' reference, I will read it. I am always open to learning new things ..... or a good laugh - which ever applies.
Gabrielle 11 months, 1 week ago
Does it appear to you that I am?
Paroquet 11 months, 1 week ago
Norris did not endanger the infant by either negligence or through intent; he didn't know it was present. The parent(s) put the child in harm's way. I believe that would meet the criteria for negligence or abuse. Trust me here; you'd be surprised what falls under the legal umbrella of those words.
IMO, the best the Pros could hope for with Norris that has any chance of sticking would be unlawful use of a weapon.
The article says nothing of whether articles were in fact recovered from the perps possession nor if they were in the vehicle at the time the shots were fired. It could be Norris was shooting to disable or indelibly mark the vehicle ensuring better odds on apprehension of the suspects.
The article also fails to mention whether a building or other structure was entered by the perps. That's a game-changer. See below.
=====================================
569.170. 1. A person commits the crime of burglary in the second degree when he knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains unlawfully in a building or inhabitable structure for the purpose of committing a crime therein.
569.160. 1. A person commits the crime of burglary in the first degree if he knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains unlawfully in a building or inhabitable structure for the purpose of committing a crime therein, and when in effecting entry or while in the building or inhabitable structure or in immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime:
(1) Is armed with explosives or a deadly weapon or;
(2) Causes or threatens immediate physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime; or
(3) There is present in the structure another person who is not a participant in the crime.
569.170. 1. A person commits the crime of burglary in the second degree when he knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains unlawfully in a building or inhabitable structure for the purpose of committing a crime therein.
JMO 11 months, 1 week ago
If you are going to cite statutes, cite the right one. Because it's so long I took out the non-relevent sections.
Section 563.031 Missouri Revised Statutes:
Use of force in defense of persons.
(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;
(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.
Just a note - Stealing itself is not a "forcible felony".
Paroquet 11 months, 1 week ago
There is nothing in the article describing the confrontation in enough detail for an evaluation of how the castle doctrine applies. One could likewise infer from the substance of the article by the Tribune that Norris believed his life to be in danger when the vehicle approached; there is a statute for vehicular assault whereby .1(3) would apply from the statute you cite as it includes "private property that is owned or leased" and is not limited to a building or dwelling as it is in the burglary statutes.
The statutes I cited have bearing on why the thieves appear to have been leniently accused. The disposition of the infant is also not included in the article.
I'm not quibbling with anyone about their emotional rancor. I'm calling attention to the lack of necessity for it based upon the story being too incomplete for a competent opinion to be justified. The prosecutor might even amend the charges later.
The article has holes in it you can drive a truck through.
John 11 months, 1 week ago
I will grant you that it may be seen as such a suggestion. However, it equally may be seen as a suggestion that the gunfire prompted them to ceaae their pursuit of a possible "forcible felony."
spelchek 11 months ago
That's right.
Paroquet 11 months, 1 week ago
Well, that would be robbery. Different chapter and verse of the criminal code. But entering a barn, shed, or other outbuilding, even a tent, would be burglary.
On shooting the car, if they were headed at him, it could most definitely be construed as self defense. If they threatened him, it could possibly meet the criteria for defense, and would absolutely meet the criteria for burglary.
Then we can wax on the plausibility of "intent" which is another hurdle for establishing the veracity of a criminal charge. For example, felony theft occurs above a specified dollar limit (it used to be $750). Trespass A and B both have different criteria, as with burglary A & B.
We can infer all manner of things from the information in the article as it is incomplete and furthermore unlikely to be followed-up on. Anyone can report a story. Only the best journalists know how to ask the right questions in order to ensure their onion isn't hollow.
John 11 months, 1 week ago
And, they (the journalists [sic]) do not have access to ALL the data, regardless of their questioning. Law enforcement and the officers of the court keep certain things to themselves in order to prevent trial by newspaper (well . . . . sometimes they do). LOL We do not know what happened, hopefully it will come out in court. Meanwhile, a guy is in trouble for defending his property, his possessions, and, perhaps, his life.
John 11 months, 1 week ago
Nope, meant it as I used it. Referring to doubtful use of the word "journalist. What part don't you understand? Read the Little-Brown.
John 11 months ago
You really need to read Little-Brown. Again a strawman by stating a definition to pick away at when there are multiple definitions for use. MORUS, you really need to get a job.
John 11 months ago
Then you need to spend less of your employer's money by playing on the internet at work.
spelchek 11 months ago
BAM!!!
sickandtired 11 months ago
morus if you work 60-70 hours a week and only get paid for 20-well you have nobody to blame but yourself for that one.you must like working for free.
lurker 11 months ago
60-70 hours a week? Wow, how do you find the time to post multiple comments on every story, and generally find fault with everything and everyone too?
JCNYer 11 months ago
I'm sure with it being dark out, he couldn't see what they stole, or if they had a weapon. He is clearly trying to make a statement to all the people that have burglarized him in the past: I am fed up. And as long as we keep passing laws that protect criminals, people will keep stealing from this man and others like him. Soon, if a burglar ends up killing a home or landowner, he'll get off by claiming self defense.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.