‘You can’t just shoot people who come to your door:’ MO’s self-defense laws explained

A 16-year-old boy, who has been identified as Ralph Yarl, was shot after approaching the wrong Kansas City home to pick up his younger brothers on Thursday.

Instead of being greeted by a family friend when he rang the doorbell, Yarl was allegedly shot by the homeowner and later hospitalized. Investigators involved with the case are now considering whether the suspect who shot Yarl is protected by any self-defense laws.

Officials have not confirmed how many times Ralph was shot, but his family and legal team say he was shot multiple times— once in the head and again after he fell to the ground.

The shooting has sparked a local and national outcry and many demanding justice for Yarl, who is Black.

The homeowner is a white man in his 80s, according to property records and law enforcement records. The Star is not naming the man because he has not been charged. The suspect in the case was placed on a 24-hour hold but later released, according to Kansas City Police Chief Stacey Graves.

Graves told reporters that Missouri law allows a person to be held up to 24 hours for a felony investigation. At that point, the person must be released or arrested and formally charged.

“It is appalling and flat-out unacceptable that the shooter remains free. It is extremely difficult to understand why a statement from the victim is required to detain the assailant,” Gwen Grant, president/CEO of the Urban League of Greater Kansas City told The Star.

Graves confirmed that investigators will be reviewing the case to see whether the suspect is protected by the state’s “stand your ground” laws. Here’s a look at Missouri’s “stand your ground” laws:

What does the law say?

Missouri’s 2016 law states:

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.

The law also says:

A person does not have a duty to retreat ... From a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining

To read the full law visit here.

What does ‘stand your ground’ have to do with the case?

These kinds of “stand your ground” laws are controversial and have gathered national attention for helping to acquit people like George Zimmerman who killed Trayvon Martin in Florida in 2012 after claiming he felt he was in fear of his life. More recently, Wisconsin’s “stand your ground” law was the basis for acquitting Kyle Rittenhouse after he opened fire on protesters in 2020 and killed two men and injured another.

Missouri’s “stand your ground” law has received overwhelming support from Republican lawmakers, while state Democrats were largely against the law.

The 2016 law expanded the state’s self-defense laws to eliminate the requirement that someone first try to retreat before using force when they’re lawfully allowed to be at a location. A previous law had already eliminated the duty to retreat inside a home or vehicle where you’re lawfully present, such as your home.

A 2022 study conducted by researchers at Oxford University, the University of Pennsylvania and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, found that Missouri’s gun homicide rate increased significantly after the state’s “stand your ground” law was enacted.

States with “stand your ground” laws like Missouri, Alabama, Florida and Georgia, saw increases in homicide rates range from 16.2 to 33.5%, according to the study.

What is the ‘castle doctrine’?

The Missouri law that governs this case is also known as the “castle doctrine.” The castle doctrine is a set of self-defense laws that include the “stand your ground” law.

The laws give people the right to defend themselves from people who they feel are threatening them. It protects people who feel threatened at their home, in their vehicle, on private property or “any other location such person has the right to be.”

If a person believes there is a risk of death or serious physical injury, and they are legally allowed to be in the place they are, that person can use deadly force to defend themselves or others without breaking the law. They do not have a legal duty to retreat from an altercation, according to Missouri law.

They do have to prove that they were acting in self-defense.

“You can’t just shoot people who come to your door,” Missouri criminal defense attorney Kevin Jamison told the Star on Monday.

How can someone prove they were acting in self-defense?

When deciding if it’s legal for a person to use deadly force to protect themselves from harm against another person, there are three main elements that must be involved, Jamison told The Star in October after Missouri’s ‘stand your ground’ law protected a woman who shot an off-duty firefighter.

“I call it the J.A.M. elements,” said Jamison, who also teaches courses on gun laws and safety at Great Guns gun shop in Liberty.

J.A.M. roughly translates to jeopardy, ability and means.

“First, is the person being placed in jeopardy? Does the person making the threats have the ability to carry out the threat? And third, does he have the means to carry out the threat?” he said.

What are the exceptions?

There are a few exceptions. For starters, if it is known that a person initiated a fight or altercation, that person cannot claim self-defense, Jamison said.

Other instances where the self-defense law wouldn’t apply include if the person defending themselves chooses to withdraw from the situation and then return with deadly force.

A person also committing a crime or escaping the scene of a crime, specifically a felony offense that involves force, cannot claim self-defense. A person also cannot claim self-defense if they were unlawfully in a space or dwelling.

Some cases aren’t that simple

Jamison noted that every case is different, and sometimes proving that someone is lawfully acting in self-defense is not as simple as his J.A.M. acronym might make it out to be.

He said all elements of the case need to be thoroughly reviewed in order to make a final assessment on whether or not someone broke the law.

He added that the state’s definition of unlawful force can also complicate a case.

“We don’t know what unlawful force means,” Jamison told The Star on Monday. “The Eastern District Court of Appeals said that a man who was being slapped across the body and kneed in the groin was being attacked with unlawful force. That’s a low level of force.”

“That’s the only enlightenment we have on that statute,” Jamison said.

Jamison said he doesn’t know enough details about Yarl’s case to comment on whether or not the shooter would be protected by the state’s self-defense laws.

The Star’s Andrea Klick, Jonathan Shorman, Glenn Rice and Anna Spoerre contributed reporting.