That’s what a jury may have to decide after a D.A. charged Andrew Lester (photo, left), 84, for shooting a teenager (see story here).
Lester was at home on Thursday, April 13, 2023, when the doorbell rang at 9:45 p.m. He went to his door with gun in hand, a .32 pistol. Opening the wood inner door, and peering through the outer glass door (photo at right), he saw standing on his porch a black teenager he didn’t recognize.
Lester muttered “don’t come around here,” then before Ralph Yarl, 16, could say anything Lester shot him in the head, then shot him again. Yarl survived, but suffered a traumatic brain injury, and faces a long recovery; a GoFundMe set up by his mother for his medical expenses had raised over $2.9 million as of April 18, 2023.
Yarl was only trying to pick up his younger brothers. Believing he was at the right house, he pulled into Lester’s driveway, which is around the side of the house on a lower level, not visible from the front windows, so it’s unlikely Lester saw Yarl drive up.
All he saw was a black youth on his porch, with no idea who he was, where he came from, or what he wanted, and processed that lack of information in his mind for no more than a couple of seconds before deciding to kill him.
We don’t know what Lester was thinking, which may be crucial to his legal defense, but we know it was after dark when he saw a black person on his porch. We do know why Yarl was there: he went to the “1100 block of Northeast 115th Street instead of 1100 block of Northeast 115th Terrace” (see story here), an easily-made mistake even a grownup could make.
This is pretty much all we know right now. It’s a safe bet that Lester’s lawyer will argue he was scared and acted in self-defense. But based on these facts, Lester was trigger-happy, and that shouldn’t wash.
In addition, he could (and probably will) raise the “castle doctrine” and “stand your ground” defenses, both of which exist in Missouri, but a reasonable interpretation of these laws require Yarl to be an intruder, which he wasn’t; if a homeowner is justified to shoot someone for simply coming on his porch or ringing a doorbell, than no mailman, newspaper carrier, or delivery person is safe on their rounds.
This case also speaks to a larger question of what standards of conduct our society should hold gun owners to. They’re not high enough. People have a right to protect themselves and their property, but human life isn’t supposed to be cheap in America, and the laissez faire attitudes on the political right toward vigilantism make it so, especially in the case of black lives.
I can see how an elderly and vulnerable man, living alone, might arm himself before answering a doorbell ring after dark, although if someone is that paranoid they shouldn’t answer the door at all, but just wait for the person to leave and call police if they don’t.
A valid self-defense claim requires an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm, as would be perceived by a reasonable person, which is very much in question here. When Lester answered the door, there was a closed glass door between him and the stranger on his porch. Yarl was just standing there, didn’t try to force entry, and Lester didn’t see a weapon, so he had no good reason to feel afraid. (He apparently had a bad reason, i.e. Yarl is black.)
A reasonable homeowner would’ve asked Yarl what he was doing there. Had that conversation taken place, Lester could’ve informed Yarl he was on the wrong street, and pointed him toward Northeast 115th Terrace. But Lester never gave Yarl a chance to explain himself. The moment he saw a black person on his porch, he opened fire through the glass door, then shot Yarl again after he was down. The D.A. says there was a “racial component” to this; I assume we’ll hear more about that in due time.
(Update: Lester’s grandson says he was “warped by racist conspiracy theories” and “sitting and watching Fox News all day” reinforced is fear of minorities, see story here. That arguably makes Lester a victim of sorts, but it shouldn’t get him off the hook; anyone who chooses to use a gun should be held responsible for making that choice.)
America is politically divided on guns. Conservatives, backed by the gun lobby and the Supreme Court, push for no gun restrictions or regulations at all. Our society, with more than 400 million guns in private hands, is saturated with lethal weaponry; and citizens are exhibiting more proclivity to use them against their fellow citizens, as this case illustrates.
But regardless of how the Second Amendment is interpreted, it should not mean anyone can shoot someone else merely because they subjectively feel threatened. When the law of self-defense is properly applied, it imposes an objective standard of reasonableness, and the shooting in this case wasn’t remotely reasonable.
Now I want to briefly touch on a couple recent high-profile incidents where gun owners allowed troubled children access to guns.
In November 2021, a mentally disturbed 15-year-old killed 4 classmates and injured 6 others plus a teacher using a handgun purchased for him by his parents (details here). They’re charged with involuntary manslaughter, but I think they deserve more. Their actions weren’t far removed from pulling the trigger themselves.
In January 2023, a 6-year-old with severe behavior problems took his mother’s gun to school and shot his teacher (details here). The mother, who was reckless by having an unsecured gun in her home, was indicted on felony child neglect and misdemeanor gun charges. She should go to prison, too.
Guns are a public health crisis. They’re now the leading cause of death among children (see story here). While 70% of Americans don’t even own a gun, fewer than half of those who do are careful with them (see story here).
So here’s my proposal: If we can’t agree to control guns, then let’s strictly enforce the laws against misuse of guns, starting with criminals. Felons caught in possession of guns should be returned to prison. Sentence enhancements for using a gun in a crime should be imposed in every case where they apply, not plea-bargained away.
But let’s not stop there, let’s crack down on irresponsible gun behavior, too. Let’s make misdemeanor gun violations felonies, and hold gun owners responsible for harm to innocent people caused by their guns (e.g., the mother whose 6-year-old shot his teacher with her improperly secured gun).
Finally, “stand your ground” laws are deadly, and we should oppose them. Missouri adopted such a law, and since then has had a “drastic rise in gun deaths,” see story here.
If we must live in a gun-saturated society, let’s not tolerate the casualness toward guns that’s taking over our society and endangering us all. Let’s have a strict code of conduct for guns, strictly enforced. Such a dangerous instrumentality demands no less.
