1ºSteve Jenkins typical. You have no clue who or what I support. Second you don't have to be a genius to understand the law. Only a racist would follow the the narrative of any unsubstantiated claims. There is zero evidence of any racist bias or racial motivation. And in this case the home owner has a legal right to use deadly force baised on state law to defend himself and his property. The law extending the curtilage from inside a home extends 15 feet from the interior of a home. So he was justified in the shooting. It's really that simple. Ignorance of the law or believing the narrative of a corrupt media outlet like CNN shows how inept you are. And calling me a Trump supporter without fact shows how little intellect you have. No different than your comments on the subject matter.
2ºTanya Flores Perez so tell me all the facts and exactly what happened. CNN is not a primary source. I never said the shooter was in the right nor have I “lied”. You are allowing your emotions and assumptions to control you. Perhaps you ought to instead think critically and ponder why in an age where we have cell phones and GPS guided apps that somehow a person mistakenly tried to enter a home at 10pm to later claim he was simply confused and went to the wrong house? You also might want to consider how race is allegedly playing into this when the old man allegedly shot before even seeing the kid. Do you not question what you read or do you just immediately start virtue signaling? Why do you think that people should be able to try to enter homes at 10pm and have a complete expectation of safety? This appears to be a tragedy and neither the victim or the shooter exercised good judgment. The shooter however however appears to have been negligent but at 85 I can extend some understanding and perhaps just conclude he made a terrible error and perhaps had no criminal intent while simultaneously knowing that the kid maybe had no criminal intent either. Please don’t go try opening doors to unknown homes at 10pm—-it is extremely dangerous. You should know that.
3ºDrew Yorel I certainly appreciate the civil tones or our discussion and enjoy the back and forth. Respectfully, you have more confidence in attorneys then I do. I doubt very much that the plaintiff's attorney did any "due diligence" in determining whether he has a valid case. Rather, my experience tells me that he simply followed the adage "sue everybody" threw some inflammatory language together which mimics valid causes of action, but does not in and of itself state a valid claim and hopes that he can get the HOA's insurer to throw money at the plaintiff so as to save on cost of defense and to avoid the negative publicity to the HOA. If the insurance company will not throw money in his direction, then it is likely that this case will go through discovery and that ultimately the HOA will move for summary judgment, which it seems likely to win.
4ºDrew Yorel It is unlikely that the HOA owns that land given that this was a stand-alone house and not a condominium. Even if it did, that does not impose upon it vicarious liability for the tortious conduct of the homeowner. (see Reddick v Spring Lake Estates Homeowner's Assn., 648 SW3d 765, 774 [Mo Ct App 2022], transfer denied (June 21, 2022), transfer denied (Aug. 30, 2022)). Typically, when HOA's are held liable, it is for their own negligence in maintaining a common area which it has contracted the authority to maintain and the injury arises from a defect in the common area which the HOA had notice of or created. Such is not the case here. If you would care to share with us a case which you think supports your position, I would be happy to review.
5ºEric Roy where in my comments have I used exaggerations that are “telling”. ? I am responding to a comment wherein the op suggested there can be no justification for this. I accurately pointed out a number of factors. 1) there are conflicting stories about what happened; 2) the shooter was 85; 3) it was 10 pm. If the teenager attempted to enter the home without consent and physically tried to open the door then in many jurisdictions the actions of the homeowner were justified. And if the shooter was shooting in blind then how can there be a racial component since he would not know the race of the alleged intruder? We DO live in a society where you can’t just go ring any doorbell you want any time you want. I don’t “want” to live in that kind of world—-but we do.
6ºTanya Flores Perez um yeah, I never said that the door was opened. I said the kid might have tried to open the door which was what was reported to the police (and he was arrested when that was disputed). Why are you making things up now? Is your hatred of white people boiling over now that you will make up anything and call others liars? Projection much? I think I am a little fearful of you now and I apparently should be. Perhaps you should refrain from commenting when you know very little about what allegedly happened. You need more than your racism to know what happened.
7ºDrew Yorel Here is the petition.https://mediaassets.kshb.com/NWT/Sam/Petition.pdf You will note that there is no claim that the HOA owned the land. Rather, the petition alleges that the HOA:
A. Carelessly and negligently failed to promulgate regulations sufficient to
prevent its residents from firing a loaded weapon at a minor;
B. Carelessly and negligently failed to inform its residents of its
expectations involving the use of firearms on Association grounds,
including homes within the boundaries of the Association;
C. Carelessly and negligently created and allowed the existence of an
atmosphere where Defendant, Andrew Lester, could shoot Plaintiff,
P.R.Y., after ringing Defendant, Andrew Lester's doorbell;
D. Carelessly and negligently failed to inform and/or educate Defendant,
Andrew Lester, about the dangers of discharging a loaded weapon
within the grounds of the Association.
E. Carelessly and negligently failed to render aid to Plaintiff, P.R.Y., after
he was shot;
F. Was otherwise careless and negligent.
Based on the previously provided case law, I find it highly unlikely that these claims will withstand a legal challenge as it is doubtful that the HOA has a legally recognized duty under MO law. Nevertheless, I anticipate that the HOA's insurance company will likely seek to settle to avoid the costs of defending this matter and the publicity that the case would generate.