16 year old black kid going to pick up his siblings mistakenly goes to the wrong house and knocks on the door. White man opens the door, shoots him in the head and then again once he’s on the ground bleeding. 

The man hasn’t been charged at this time. 

Apparently shot him through a glass door. 

From the little bit of reading I did it only sounds like a matter of time before the perpetrator is charged. 

Let's see what happens. The teen was able to get up and run to other homes seeking help. That sounds like he will recover. He should be able to give police a statement and I expect charges will follow. Missouri does have a "stand you ground" law which will probably make it more difficult to prosecute.

2 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Missouri does have a "stand you ground" law which will probably make it more difficult to prosecute.

It shouldn't. Someone knocking on your door doesn't give you grounds to shoot them multiple times. 

I hope somebody had security footage. 

There are already reports around saying that the homeowner was allowed to clean up the glass and that the door has already been replaced. 

1 minute ago, TheDeuce said:

It shouldn't. Someone knocking on your door doesn't give you grounds to shoot them multiple times. 

I hope somebody had security footage. 

There are already reports around saying that the homeowner was allowed to clean up the glass and that the door has already been replaced. 

If the shooter says he felt threatened, will "stand your ground" provide him cover?

13 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

If the shooter says he felt threatened, will "stand your ground" provide him cover?

Probably. No different than "I feared for my life."

53 minutes ago, TheDeuce said:

It shouldn't. Someone knocking on your door doesn't give you grounds to shoot them multiple times. 

I hope somebody had security footage. 

There are already reports around saying that the homeowner was allowed to clean up the glass and that the door has already been replaced. 

Especially once they're on the ground. The stand your ground statute allows you to eliminate the threat. I don't believe knocking on the door made this kid a threat, but even if the guy truly felt that he was, you can't shoot him once he is on the ground. Literally no longer a threat. 

I think this has to only be a matter of time before charges are filed, rightfully so. 

From the Kansas City Star:

A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person.

From SuperLawyers.com:

Missouri’s Stand Your Ground Law

Before the “stand your ground” law went into effect, guns owners in Missouri who were facing an imminent threat from another party had a duty of retreat—assuming it was possible to do so. Under the old system, one could only use deadly force in self-defense if retreat was not possible.

That is no longer the case under Missouri Revised Statutes 563.031.

If a person is in a place where they are permitted to be, whether it is their home or other property, they have the right to use of deadly force in self-defense or in defense of another innocent party—even if they potentially had the opportunity to safely retreat.

To be clear, a person can only use deadly force in defense if they have a reasonable fear that the alleged offender is presenting them, or another innocent person, with an imminent threat of deadly force or bodily harm. Further, a person who is deemed to be the aggressor in a confrontation that turns deadly will be deemed ineligible to raise a “stand your ground” defense.

Missouri Revised Statutes 563.031:

*563.031.  Use of force in defense of persons. — 1.  A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

  (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;

  (2)  Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

  (3)  The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

  2.  A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

  (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, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

  3.  A person does not have a duty to retreat:

  (1)  From a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining;

  (2)  From private property that is owned or leased by such individual; or

  (3)  If the person is in any other location such person has the right to be.

  4.  The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

  5.  The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.  If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.

16 minutes ago, theguru said:

Missouri Revised Statutes 563.031:

*563.031.  Use of force in defense of persons. — 1.  A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

  (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;

  (2)  Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

  (3)  The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

  2.  A person shall not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

  (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, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

  3.  A person does not have a duty to retreat:

  (1)  From a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining;

  (2)  From private property that is owned or leased by such individual; or

  (3)  If the person is in any other location such person has the right to be.

  4.  The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

  5.  The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.  If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.

Wow. Item 5 of that law is basically a license to shoot anyone on your property. The state bears the burden of proving the defendant "did not reasonably believe that such use of force was necessary". That is a high obstacle to overcome for the prosecution.

1 hour ago, Voice of Reason said:

Wow. Item 5 of that law is basically a license to shoot anyone on your property. The state bears the burden of proving the defendant "did not reasonably believe that such use of force was necessary". That is a high obstacle to overcome for the prosecution.

And that is likely why he will walk... 

Stay out of Missouri. 

1 hour ago, Voice of Reason said:

Wow. Item 5 of that law is basically a license to shoot anyone on your property. The state bears the burden of proving the defendant "did not reasonably believe that such use of force was necessary". That is a high obstacle to overcome for the prosecution.

 

Just now, TheDeuce said:

And that is likely why he will walk... 

Stay out of Missouri. 

If this goes to jury trial, I could see a jury saying the shooter did not fear for his life. But if it doesn't, I'd say he likely walks. 

People know where the shooter lives, as they've been outside his house protesting. He'll never live there peacefully again, and he shouldn't.