MO - The shooting of Ralph Yarl

[jmdrake]

https://www.youtube.com/@ActiveSelfProtection

Great legal and tactical advice, even if he is little too pro-cop for me.

He also happens to be a pastor.

Thanks for the reference!

I am all for Constitutional Carry but at the same time I recognize the need for at least some basic training in the legal and tactical and practical aspects of carrying a sidearm and using deadly force.

You know, a lot of "super car" manufacturers, Ferrari, McLaren, Koenigsegg...brands like that...they will not let you take possession of your new car without attending one of their driving classes. They don't want the bad publicity of some dumb ass leadfoot crashing their million dollar hypercar into a school bus at 250 mph.

Maybe the gun makers might want to consider something like that, without government interference.

It would also give an instructor a chance to spot an obvious lunatic prior to taking possession.

Good idea! Colin Noir would be helpful in this kind of effort I believe. He's always talking about the need for gun safety classes.

I'm looking more at the lack of media attention, presidential visits and the suspect not getting the book thrown at him.

He'll plead out to disorderly conduct and time served.

That's highly unlikely in North Carolina. (That he will get a slap on the wrist.)

 

[TheCount]

I suspect you are right but I was hoping [MENTION=58229]TheCount[/MENTION] would be specific.

AF has first hand experience so I'll defer to him.

 

[Anti Federalist]

AF has first hand experience so I'll defer to him.

Never mind taking a swipe at me, answer the man's question...it seemed pretty simple and straightforward.

 

[acptulsa]

AF has first hand experience so I'll defer to him.

AF has first hand experience with Andrew Lester's escalations?

Why, AF! You didn't tell us you knew the old codger! When did you find time to go to Kansas City?

Or is this just TheCount dodging direct questions again?

 

[jmdrake]

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1649160173242445826

LINK: https://archive.is/tpP52

Wow! Matt 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

 

[jmdrake]

AF has first hand experience so I'll defer to him.

Never mind taking a swipe at me, answer the man's question...it seemed pretty simple and straightforward.

My interpretation of what AF said is that you're basically being a jackass. But is there another way to look at it?

 

[Anti Federalist]

AF has first hand experience with Andrew Lester's escalations?

Why, AF! You didn't tell us you knew the old codger! When did you find time to go to Kansas City?

Or is this just TheCount dodging direct questions again?

Dodging questions and making assumptions...nothing new about that.

 

[TheCount]

My interpretation of what AF said is that you're basically being a jackass. But is there another way to look at it?

No, I just agree with AF.


Except my copy of the bible doesn't say anything about shooting a neighbor at your front porch. Must be the old version.

 

[jmdrake]

No, I just agree with AF.


Except my copy of the bible doesn't say anything about shooting a neighbor at your front porch. Must be the old version.

Yep. You're being a jackass. Nobody agrees with shooting a neighbor on your front porch. You said something about a pre-porch escalation. There isn't actual evidence of that. If you want to go with what Satanist grandson said (watching Fox news and being a conservative Christian) then you have to accept that liberal mass shooters are "escalated" the same way, manifesto or no manifesto. But that would required principles and consistency.

 

[acptulsa]

Except my copy of the bible doesn't say anything about shooting a neighbor at your front porch.

They didn't have human cannonballs back then. Couldn't even talk about throwing your neighbor at your porch, really, as they didn't have trebuchets yet either.

 

[Occam's Banana]

@Anti Federalist and @Occam's Banana, I'm all for waiting for the facts to come out and yes the media push certain narratives, but sometimes a spade is a just a spade.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. As I said before;

Just for the record, I myself do not (yet) have any opinion about who is or isn't guilty of what in this particular case.

At this point, the only things I'll assert with any certainty are:
(1) I've seen absolutely nothing indicating any kind of racial angle to the Yarl shooting (entirely regardless of whether it was justified or not), and
(2) even if the shooting was not justified, Crazy Gramps doesn't deserve that dribbling asshole of a grandson.

I posted the Andrew Branca videos because he's a criminal defense lawyer who specializes in self-defense cases.

Speaking of which:

John Corriea at Active Self Protection preaches de-escalation all the time...it is a critical skill in this day and age.

All that said, based on the new accounts of what happened to Ralph Yarl and Andrew Lester, assuming those accounts are fully accurate then yes, there's nothing left to debate.

Clearly Lester acted in an illegal and unlawful manner in shooting Yarl.

There is no self defense justification here.

As far as I know, in all fifty states, the law regarding use of lethal force in self defense situation hinges on what a reasonable person would consider to be an imminent and immediate threat to life or limb.

Branca teaches courses on self-defense law for non-lawyers ("carry a gun so you're hard to kill, know the law so you're hard to convict").

His website is here: https://lawofselfdefense.com

He offers his book "The Law of Self-Defense Principles" for just the cost of shipping, if anyone is interested.

And Maj Toure / Black Guns Matter are putting in work, too. Definitely add them to the list with Colion Noir, John Correia, Andrew Branca, et al.

Sometimes you have to deescalate yourself. People need to be taught in church and school and civic organizations to deescalate. And if someone doesn't deescalate and causes harm, whether through guns or knives or fists, the have to be punished to the fullest extent of the law so the next person in that situation will thing to deescalate. According to crazy grandpa's own statement to the cops, he shot the kid through a locked storm door. He could have deescalated by shutting his front door. He didn't. Now he has to go to trial and face the consequences for his own actions.

Unfortunately, for deescalation to gain traction, so does trust - and things aren't looking so good on that front ...

Expect more and more of this kind of incident as our society degrades further into a "low[er] trust" state from a (previously) "high[er] trust" state.

[...]

[...] Yarl ran to three different homes “before someone finally agreed to help him after he was told to lie on the ground with his hands up.”

If this is true, it's one of the most telling indicators of the [increasingly] "low trust" state of affairs [we're living in].

 

[Occam's Banana]

I agree with Sean (AJW) in the video below.

I think Ralph Yarl was a good guy who did not have any ill intent.

But that doesn't matter.

I think Andrew Lester was a good guy who genuinely thought he was in danger.

But that doesn't matter, either.

The only thing that matters is whether Lester's belief was sufficiently reasonable to justify the force he used in self-defense.

And this is one of those cases where reasonable people can take either position.

No matter which side loses, the only ones who are going to "win" this one are the race-hucksters.

The Truth About Ralph Yarl
In this video I discuss the recent viral case of Ralph Yarl. I explain what happened, how despite some misinformation on the internet Yarl [sic for Lester ?] is innocent in this case but more importantly how left wing activists have turned this legitimately sad event into a propaganda piece for their agenda.
https://odysee.com/@actualjusticewarrior:2/the-truth-about-ralph-yarl:9

 

[sparebulb]

Unfortunately, for deescalation to gain traction, so does trust - and things aren't looking so good on that front ...

Yes.

In the age of triggered, what reason does a triggered person, or mob, have?

And when it comes down to having to back off from a triggered person or mob, how likely are they to assess the danger to themselves when you display a weapon?

When a triggered person or mob has lost their reason and ability to assess the danger to themselves when a weapon is displayed, what other option is left to the threatened person with the weapon?

And as a cherry on top, those two dipshit lawyers in St. Louis who thought that they would drive off a mob from their property by displaying weapons is proof that the deterrence aspect earns you practically the same penalty as using a weapon. In this case, the daytime mob wasn't expecting a greeting like this and they stayed away from them, although it served as a great propaganda victory. If it happened at night, those two would have been overrun like Rhodesia.

 

[showpan]

The young man actually wasn't a threat even through the old man perceived him to be. .

We weren't there. That is pure assumption at this point.

I am still going to side with an older homeowner over a teen ager until all the facts are out and we both know they never will be. Will they give that kid a lie detector test? No of course not, that would be...racist. If there is even a hint that the homeowner was justified, will they offer him a lie detector test....no way. This is a Democrat run city with dem DA and judges. This guy is already guilty and he's a racist according to the media. That is all that counts now. It's a done deal. The only thing left to decide is how much prison time he will get and how soon that kid will become a new homeowner.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I am still going to side with an older homeowner over a teen ager until all the facts are out and we both know they never will be. Will they give that kid a lie detector test? No of course not, that would be...racist. If there is even a hint that the homeowner was justified, will they offer him a lie detector test....no way. This is a Democrat run city with dem DA and judges. This guy is already guilty and he's a racist according to the media. That is all that counts now. It's a done deal. The only thing left to decide is how much prison time he will get and how soon that kid will become a new homeowner.

This is where the rubber meets the road.

I've carried a sidearm as a private citizen for over 30 years now. I've studied up on the legal issues regarding use of lethal force and I think I have a pretty good grasp of the law.

In this case, from the facts as presented as I see them, Lester was not justified in using deadly force.

On the other hand, as you noted, the anti-racist lynch mob has no case either.

In spite of the asshole grandkid's statements, watching Fox news, being old and reading the bible does not constitute evidence that Lester was lying in wait, just itching to shoot the first black kid that showed up at his door.

As [MENTION=849]jmdrake[/MENTION] noted in the Perry case in Texas, if Lester had, say, a long list of posts and writings about doing just that, then that claim would be harder to make.

But so far as I know, nothing like that exists.

As it stands right now, all I could convict him of is very bad judgment that led to criminal act.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Wow! Matt 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

And Luke 50-53

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 

[showpan]

This is where the rubber meets the road.

I've carried a sidearm as a private citizen for over 30 years now. I've studied up on the legal issues regarding use of lethal force and I think I have a pretty good grasp of the law.

In this case, from the facts as presented as I see them, Lester was not justified in using deadly force.

On the other hand, as you noted, the anti-racist lynch mob has no case either.

In spite of the $#@! grandkid's statements, watching Fox news, being old and reading the bible does not constitute evidence that Lester was lying in wait, just itching to shoot the first black kid that showed up at his door.

As [MENTION=849]jmdrake[/MENTION] noted in the Perry case in Texas, if Lester had, say, a long list of posts and writings about doing just that, then that claim would be harder to make.

But so far as I know, nothing like that exists.

As it stands right now, all I could convict him of is very bad judgment that led to criminal act.

I agree with a lot of this. Personally, I have a pretty good idea of when I am allowed to shoot someone, especially double tap them. We still weren't there and don't know all the facts but you're right, I don't think he should have taken a shot until after the door was broken into. In this day and age, there is no way I would live in a home without a very large dog, security screen doors and cameras all around. My dog makes the crackheads walk on the other side of the street...lol

 

[TheTexan]

Branca teaches courses on self-defense law for non-lawyers ("carry a gun so you're hard to kill, know the law so you're hard to convict").

My rule of thumb is that one should always shout "put down the weapon" very loudly before pulling the trigger.

I'm pretty sure this is what police are taught in the academy.

 

[Occam's Banana]

My rule of thumb is that one should always shout "put down the weapon" very loudly before pulling the trigger.

I'm pretty sure this is what police are taught in the academy.

You don't need to know the law when you are the law.