New Missouri law protects killing of intruders

Woke up this morning to some interesting news. Well, interesting if you live in Missouri.

Gov. Matt Blunt signed legislation on Tuesday allowing Missourians to fatally shoot intruders without fear of prosecution or lawsuits.

Not all too surprising really. We, in Missouri, like our guns, even when we don’t like them. (I’m referring to our state legislature passing a concealed weapons law allowing people to carry with a permit even though the voters said no).

The measure spells out that people are not required to retreat from an intruder and can use deadly force once the person illegally enters their home, vehicle or other dwelling, including a tent. The bill provides an absolute defense against being charged or sued for using such force.

Why do I foresee a lot of drunk camping/hunting accidents/murders involving rednecks? I mean really, a tent? Does that happen often? Someone breaks into your tent to steal all your valuables? “Well officer, he did try to take my hundred-dollar Coleman lantern. That’s worth more than my trailer. And it’s a double wide.”

Under the old law, deadly force was justified only if people believed it necessary to protect themselves or others from death or serious injury.

Wasn’t that reasonable enough? Now all they have to do is come on to your property? Why do I think Blunt had one too many door to door salesmen or Mormons show up at his door? I can probably think of a few people that I wouldn’t mind inviting over and have myself protected under this new law. I know what you’re thinking, if I invited them, then I’m not protected under this law. Well, how are you going to find that out if they’re spread out over my lawn? (No, I’m not being serious, but I can’t wait until someone actually does claim this).

The measure also gets rid of a state law requiring people to obtain permits from their local sheriffs before they can get a handgun.

Sweet. Now it’s even easier for people to have guns without telling anyone. Gun Control in Missouri is an oxymoron. And don’t give me the crap about owning more guns makes crime rates drop. In Missouri it hasn’t.


25 replies
  1. Hayley
    Hayley says:

    I agree with some of the points made above, however I think you are off in one MAJOR area, it states you may use deadly force if they enter your home, NOT your property. The previous laws left it open for you to get sued and held criminally and civilly liable for using force to protect your home and family. This only makes it easier to do just that. People may try to protect themselves under this law, however it will most likely not fly as officials will not just take a shooters word for it, an investigation will still take place and truths will still come out.

  2. shep
    shep says:

    Yes, I do realize it states that if they enter your home. But really, how hard is it to lie that someone entered your home without permission? I know that this will happen very rarely, if at all, but the point is, why change a law that wasn’t broken before. You could still use deadly force if you felt your life, or others’ lives were in danger. Now you don’t even have to have that aspect. They just need to enter without permission.

  3. Dimensio
    Dimensio says:

    Do you honestly think that the police won’t investigate a claim of illegal entry after a shooting?

    As a matter of fact, there is something “broken” about a law that requires a homeowner or apartment dweller to flee in the face of intruder and only resort to deadly force if they can “prove” that they had no ability to retreat. The fact is, if someone enters a dwelling with illegal intent, it is asinine to expect the occupants to 1) asess whether the intruder intends physical harm or just some other crime and 2) to attempt to flee the area without protecting their loved ones and while possibly putting themselves at risk. A home invasion is a traumatic experience; it is not reasonable to put a burden upon the occupants to “prove” that someone who is already established as having entered illegally was a real threat, and not just a perceieved but actually harmless threat. If you don’t want to get killed, try not breaking into homes.

    If someone breaks into a home, they have already shown a lack of respect for privacy and property. It is not a far stretch to assume that they have no respect for the occupants’ personal safety.

  4. shep
    shep says:

    You’re missing the point. Just as easily as I could say, Oh no, I didn’t invite them into my home I could say, I had to shoot them because they intended to physically harm me and i tried to . There was nothing wrong with the old law. You really think a jury is going to convict you if someone broke into your house? You really think you’ll even be prosecuted? No more then than now. I’d like to see how many people were injured or prosecuted because they couldn’t shoot someone because they weren’t entirely sure if the intruder had malicious intent. Seems like a waste of time and money to pass a law that really changes nothing.

  5. Dimensio
    Dimensio says:

    As I said, there WILL be an investigation no matter what the occupant claims. If there’s evidence that the slain had in fact been invited in, charges will be filed.

    And, yes, there is a problem because there are states where people have been prosecuted after shooting an invader because a claim was made that they “could” have retreated.

    You’re also ignoring another aspect of the law: if someone breaks into a home, is shot and survives, they will not be able to sue homeowners. That has also happened in the past; Texas resident Michael Rainiero was sued by an invader who he shot. Or do you believe that a criminal who is injured “on the job” is entitled to monetary damages because their criminal actions led to their getting shot?

    Since Missouri is hardly the first state to enact a “castle doctrine” law, surely you can point to a rise of murders in other states following the enactment of similar laws. I mean, you wouldn’t be ranting about blood flowing in the streets without actual evidence to back up your claims, right?

  6. shep
    shep says:

    I never said that it was going to cause a rise in murders. I know there have been cases where people have been tried after injuring someone who broke into their house. Do i think it’s right? absolutely not. The point was, which you seem to be missing, is that there was no problem with the old law. The old law protected people, just as the new one does. There is no reason for them to to pass this new one. I think it’s a bit excessive. While rare, you know there must be cases of mistaken identity, people going into the wrong house on accident, etc. Now those people can get shot just because of a mistake.

  7. Dimensio
    Dimensio says:

    So if the new law, in your opinion, won’t have any actual effect (actually, it will immunize against lawsuits for justified shootings), why, exactly are you complaining?

    Or do you think that a home occupant is obligated to take the time to determine that an intruder is just in “the wrong house on accident”? Maybe someone going into a home should be sure that they’re in the right home BEFORE entering it.

    Yes, it is terrible to be shot for making a mistake, but I would hardly blame an occupant of a dwelling for being frighetened into deadly force when someone who should NOT be in their home has entered, and I would not consider it justice to throw them in prison for it.

  8. shep
    shep says:

    I’m complaining because think of how much time and money was wasted on drafting this law and passing it. The old law was perfectly suitable, and I have a hunch that the only reason this law was created and passed was to be a wrapper around the footnote of the article, which was that you no longer had to get a permit from the sheriff if you wanted a handgun.

  9. Dimensio
    Dimensio says:

    Do you think that the removal of the permit requirement is a bad thing? If so, please explain.

    Also, why have you refused to address the aspect of the law that prevents criminals from suing if they are injured while committing a felony invasion?

  10. shep
    shep says:

    the old law prevented them from suing as well, so i’ve refused nothing.

    as for the permit requirement, i could care less either way. a real criminal isn’t going to bother to register their stolen or untraceable gun anyway. i’m just against passing bills for lobbyists and wrapping something else around it to make it look better *cough*no child left behind, PATRIOT Act*cough*

  11. shep
    shep says:

    not to mention the concealed weapons law which i already mentioned was voted down by the voters, yes still passed because money from lobbyists wins out over what the voters want.

  12. natenutron
    natenutron says:

    makin gun ownership for all law abiding citizens ever more illegal,for all but the police,has been the directon of brithish policy for many decades.but this tightening of the laws against guns has absolutely not coincided with a decrease in armed crime! criminals in britain are getting ever more fiercely armed, which is why our policemen are aslo being armed mor fiercely,even as the abiding public are ever more completely disarmed.

    but the evidence worldwide is that because laws against gun ownership do not disarm criminals but only their potential victims, anti-gun laws make armed crime easier,not harder.

    Don’t it make sense that if someone brakes in your house they could have the intention to kill, who is in the rong, the one that kills to defend himself or the one that murders for his lazyness to gain in his life, come on.

    with the avalanche of horrific news stories about guns aver the years, it’s no wonder people find it hard to believe that according to surveys there are about two million defensive gun uses each year;guns are used defensively fourtimes more frequently than they are to commit crimes.

    the rebuttal to this claim always is if these events were really happening, wouldn’t we hear about them on the news? many people tell me that they have never heard of an incident of defensive gun use. there is a good reason for their confusion. in 2001 the three major television networks abc cbs and nbc ran 190,0000 words worth of gun crime stories on their morning and evening national news broadcasts. but they ran not a single story mentioning a private citizen using a gun to stop a crime. the print media almost the same.

    little rock, ak after the assailant attacked him and his son-in-law with a poker, a 64-year old minister shot a man dead on church grounds. the attacker had engaged in a string af assaults in an apparent drug induced frenzy.

    bellevue,wash a man shot a pit bull that lunged to within a foot of him and his family. police said the man’s family had been repeatedly menaced in the past by the dog.

    jonesboro,ga a father out walking with his 11-year old daughter was attacked by an armed robber. the police say the father shot the attacker in self defens and will not face charges.

    its your choice not to carry a gun but it is a right for me to go through training that involves saftey and laws to be able to carry a gun. If i had a means to do rong with that gun i would not go through training i would to like the criminals and carry ilegaly.

  13. shep
    shep says:

    I actually have no problems with gun control laws for the most part. I am a fairly intelligent person and know that the person who buys a gun, registers it, and gets a permit to carry isn’t the one you have to worry about. It’s the way laws are made that bug me. Laws that are made for no reason; laws that contradict the will of the people. That is what I’m talking about and hate.

  14. desiree
    desiree says:

    point being …. if guns are outlawed, outlaws will be the only ones left with guns and no decent person can protect him/her self.
    when someone brakes into your home, what’s your first initial thought….? better fix him
    a cup of coffee?! Or is there no thought… just fear.
    The criminals out there will rape and kill with or without guns and perhaps we need to concentrate more on those people.
    This is america, the land of the free.
    There should however be one thing for everyone before acquiring any type of firearm:
    a psychological evaluation or something similar.
    You have a child…. especially these days and with what’s out there you can make a choice.
    Protect her/him or not.

  15. shep
    shep says:

    i’m not sure if having a gun in your home is really protecting your child. how many deaths /injuries per year are related to child shootings because they found their daddy’s gun? I’d say too many, whatever the number.

    No one said anything about outlawing guns, so no, that is not the point. The point was creating stupid laws, because a special interest group wants you to when the old laws are sufficient enough. Or like the concealed weapon law, creating laws that the voters voted against.

  16. Chris
    Chris says:

    Well, shep, I don’t know if you realize how much it can cost a person in legal fees for justifiably shooting a home intruder… On average it costs you about forty-thousand dollars PER SHOT. Can you afford that? Neither can I. However, on August 28th, 2007, when the castle doctrine goes into effect, a clear, justified shooting will cost the home-owner zero, zilch, nada. Well, except for ammunition… That is why the new law was needed. In addition to this, the new law also gets rid of the “try to flee” clause. In most home invasions these days you are dealing with seriously disturbed, and or “intoxicated” individuals, who often have clear intent of causing harm, if not after sexual assault. Most often these people are armed, and your best bet is to blast them the moment they are identified as an intruder. Any other response may mean the end for you and your family.

    Chris, Saint Louis, MO

  17. shep
    shep says:

    Actually, before the law goes into effect, it would still cost zero, zilch, nada. You’re forgetting the law is basically the same now, except now you don’t have to be completely sure they are an intruder. Shoot, then ask questions, that’s the new law.

  18. Bob
    Bob says:

    I’ve read through your comments and you seem sure that the old law worked. Then why do I know a man that is serving a six year sentence for protecting his home from a man (who had a criminal record and outstanding warrants)? His only crime was a lack of education and knowledge of the old law so that he could be sure he used the words “I feared for my life” in the interview. You talk about the cost of putting the new law into practice?? How about all the legal costs and court time spent on cases like the one I just mentioned? The old law did not work! That is why the govenor saw fit to sign a new one! And it seems that most of the comments support this thought.

  19. shep
    shep says:

    there’s always exceptions to the rule. you really think that this new law is going to be 100% effective? i sincerely doubt that. In fact, it’s safe to say that it won’t be any more effective as the old one. You really think the jury convicted him just because he didn’t say, “i feared for my life”? I find that very hard to believe.

  20. Bob
    Bob says:

    Unfortunate but true; that is exactly what convicted him. And I know that I will rest better and more confidently with the new law. While NO law is 100%; it’s effectiveness is largely determined by the system and how the system uses it. In my case it was used to help a career prosecutor with an agenda. The new law should stop that kind of abuse. While you think it won’t be any more effective, any lack of effectiveness it has simply must be better than the current system. The man I refer to was sentenced in spite of a whole community of support, letters of support from the community and community churches. The whole process was reduced to a joke. I am not sure the new law even goes far enough; but it is far better than the old one.

  21. K. Dale
    K. Dale says:

    I agree with Chris, the problem the liberals from the big cities in Missouri have is that they may never have even seen a real weapon let alone needed to use one and many would say they would never use a weapon to defend themselves at all until the time came and then they would beg for a weapon. Now lets say you don’t live in a large city where patrolmen are cruising the streets all hours of the nights, and your out in the country whre your nearest neighbor is a mile away. Somebody at 1 in the morning kick in you door to steal ( you know us redneck SOB’s have some pretty neat shit in our not so moblie homes, most probably got bigger, nicer homes then this asshole shep) your personal belongings and realizes someones home like a young man with a beautiful wife or a young teenage girl or what ever and they want it. In the country it may be 20-30 Mins before law enforcement gets there and thats if you got time to call them in the first place. Now ask yourself would you hide and hope the intruder wouldn’t find you of or family or would you meet him as he breeched your door and split him in half with some 00 buckshot, I will take the latter and always would’ve. Know though instead of this asshole costing your family thousands in court cost just to prove that yes this guy was going to do me harm, you just go on about your business and one less scum bag on the streets. In the end it may start detering criminals because now the honest homeowner or camper or motorist can defend themselves and the criminals know their family is not going to get rich for it.

  22. shep
    shep says:

    The big ol’ cities don’t know nothin bout no guns huh? Correct me if I’m wrong, but St. Louis was marked as the most dangerous city in America last year. We were tops for murders, and I’m pretty sure the people that were killed were not beaten to death with candy canes and puppy dogs. But you’re right, we don’t know what guns look like *rolls eyes*.

    Yessir, I bet you get yourself a nice big ol’ home. Bigger then me. At least I’m educated you illiterate dumb fuck. It’s THAN when you are comparing something, THEN when you are talking about time. I’ll stick to my liberal ideas of being educated and using reason, thank you. You can do what it is you do, which since we’re stereotyping here (do you know what stereotype means?), i’m betting is beating your wife while praising the virtues of Jesus and forcing your religious beliefs on others while burning a cross on someone’s lawn. Oh yeah, and the universe is only 6000 years old and Jesus killed the dinosaurs.

  23. K. Dale
    K. Dale says:

    Well you know when all of the little ignorant dumbass fuckers went to college to learn how to better spell and write so that they feel good about themselves and can try to be all cool n shit. I was at recruit training learning to defend your smartass way of life you know and I’m sure you in some sick demented way like. I am a Marine and will always be one and will at anytime stand up and fight for the freedoms that You, I and the rest of Americans enjoy. That being said since we are stereo whatever the fuck you said I bet you believe that your a fucking god don’t you, ha ha. Tell you what I’ve taught my wife enough about CQ hand to hand that she can make you dinner beat the fuck outta ya then preach the good book in the backyard. I promise to leave them there guns on the mantle. All I need is my PHD from the good old USMC for old-fashioned ass kicking, you literate dumb fuck. And yes I have been to St. Louis where there are a lot of dipshits and I agree with you that people don’t get killed there with candy canes. All I can say is N. St. Louis is a war zone and thats where your problem lies.

  24. shep
    shep says:

    awww, did I hurt someone’s feelings? Yes, education means nothing. Let’s just forget about the whole system and go on with your hunter-gatherer mentality. There is a reason we don’t do that anymore, it’s called progress. Sad thing is, some of us get left behind. And by us, I mean you.

  25. shep
    shep says:

    Before this becomes an even bigger flame war, I’m closing comments. If you have something to say to me directly, use the contact form.

Comments are closed.