A 15-year-old robber killed in St. Louis

Thursday, February 21, 2013

ST. LOUIS – A 15-year-old burglary suspect in St. Louis is dead after being shot by the homeowner.
Demetrius Murphy was killed around 1:30 a.m. Friday in the back yard of a home near Gravois Park.
Police say Murphy and a 17-year-old were trying to burglarize the home. The 33-year-old male homeowner went outside to investigate and reportedly shot Murphy as Murphy approached him.

Video of the report
www.youtube.com/watch? v=b05G6WLsjdA&sns=em

Posted by zack991 at 03:19 PM | 41 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Front Page
Breaking News
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Create a Poll
Edit Account
Weekly Digest
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

Read the Retort using RSS.

RSS Feed

Author Info

zack991

Joined 2010/07/30
Visited 2013/05/21

Status: user

Tax-exempt Obama Foundation doesn’t exist (24 comments) ...

Home Robber Locks Owner in Gun Closet (30 comments) ...

The 10 PM phone call. (75 comments) ...

We Are The NOT Dead! (3 comments) ...

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

Can't fix stupid. Don't want die, don't break into a persons home.

#1 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-02-21 03:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"A state law known as the castle doctrine allows people who encounter an intruder in their homes or vehicles to use deadly force without fear of being charged or sued."

They were in the back yard. Unarmed, apparently.

And get this... the other burglar has been charged with second degree murder because he was an accomplice to the burglary??

Am I reading this correctly?

www.kmov.com

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-21 03:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Corky,

Frankly they were attempting to break in. Is it stupid to take a life over just that fact? Yes. If they were in the house, no questions asked.

I think it gets legit when the kid approached him. How on earth does he know if the kid has a gun, knife or anything else? St Louis is right up there as murder rate capital material. The kid was literally just moments ago trying to break into his house. This isn't the movies where the "good guy" instantly is able to react and protect himself from the "bad guy". I know of local instances where local gang bangers confronted cops and took their guns. That tells me all I need to know about being approached by unarmed teens. This is real life. That said, I wasn't there and don't know what happened.

Yes it is common for conspirators to face charges like this for deaths that take place during the commission of a crime.

#3 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2013-02-21 03:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

2. And get this... the other burglar has been charged with second degree murder because he was an accomplice to the burglary??

Yea this is very common in a lot of states, I am sure the 17 year old encouraged this in one way or another. Also why should a person not be allowed to protect their property, people bust their butt to afford that personal proptery and if you choose a illegal profession like this and get killed, you should have done something else. You took the risk and now you payed for that risk, sorry you wont see me shed a tear for this punk. Now, not every state allows you to use lethal force over propriety, many states say you can only use lethal force when you fear for your life like it happened here. Who cares if he didn't have a gun, I guess you think their tools they use to break into homes and cars can't be used as a weapon.

#4 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-02-21 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess it is what Jesus would have done.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-21 04:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

#5 Since when is Jesus the standard for American laws and policy?

#6 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2013-02-21 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Since you changed your handle.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-21 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did I mention law or policy?

No? Thank you for your commentary.

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-21 04:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am sort of thinking boo-hoo one less criminal to prosecute and incarcerate. I have been around one of the roughest neighborhoods in a city that has consistently been named to the top 5 in murder rates for as long as I can remember. I don't control where my family lives or what has happened to the neighborhood. I have had relatives injured and threatened by home invading teens. I know the things that go down in a real life way. I would have probable done the same thing. Unfortunately teens in particular often don't think with any logic.

#9 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2013-02-21 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pete

They were prolly jr. gangbangers, the 17 year old is implicated in punching someone out during a different burglary or something.

I was surprised that castle law automatically extended outside the home to the backyard, and that based on that stretch (imo) murder charges are filed on a non-shooter when the killing by the homeowner must have been classified as something other than murder.

Interesting how that works.

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-21 04:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

You are right he probable was a rather junior gang banger - if he was one. The gangs use them for crimes like this for a reason. (Fact is that is he most likely was.) Castle doctrine is kind of a catchall and depends on the state. I guess if it applies to someone confronting you in your own yard doesn't bother me.

The charges against the other one don't surprise me. It is kind of like a bank robbery where someone gets killed - except this was a private home. Probably get plea bargained down in the end and the kid will do a little time. Just the way the system works.

#11 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2013-02-21 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow. What English skills I have today.

#12 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2013-02-21 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have those every day, lol.

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-21 04:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Defense of Justification Section 563.031 :

2. A person may 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 claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

The other criminal was charged with murder under the "felony murder rule." Somebody dies during your commission of a felony you are responsible.

#14 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-21 04:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks for the law ET

Couldn't think of what the "Felony Murder Rule" was called.

#15 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2013-02-21 04:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

- attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person;

So, if you attempted to unlawfully enter a dwelling 10 minutes ago or a year ago, and then were found on the property you could be killed legally?

It does not sound like they were in the act of an illegal entry at the time the kid was killed.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-21 04:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

-Somebody dies during your commission of a felony you are responsible.

So you are saying it is common practice for a bank robber to be charged with murder when a cop kills his accomplice in the act?

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-21 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess Castle Doctrine will be 2013's "Stand Your Ground" for Corky.

#18 | Posted by Axiom at 2013-02-21 05:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

SYG is merely an extension of Castle Doctrine. I hope that doesn't confuse you too much.

#19 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-21 05:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

SYG is merely an extension of Castle Doctrine. I hope that doesn't confuse you too much.

Not at all, but don't let that stop you from tossing out a few new buzz words.

#20 | Posted by Axiom at 2013-02-21 06:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow. What English skills I have today.

#12

You should see my poor grammar with my I phone spell check. It is horrible to witness or read. lol

#21 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-02-21 06:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bottom line: good riddance....many future crimes/deaths prevented.

Too bad so sad. Get out of my yard!

Next?

#22 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2013-02-21 06:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

What makes you think they are new to me?

I live in FL after all.

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-21 06:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, if you attempted to unlawfully enter a dwelling 10 minutes ago or a year ago, and then were found on the property you could be killed legally?

No, Dumb a...

You have to read the statute as a whole statute, not just the part you want to use to demonstrate stupidity; (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;

#24 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-21 06:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

#24 | Posted by et_al

well you have to excuse corky they dont like to read the bills before they pass them. So that way they can find out whats in them after they are law. So its not his fault. Sarcasm.

#25 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-02-21 06:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

#2 | Posted by Corky

And now for the rest of the story:

"St. Louis "Knock-Out" Artist Meets His Match – Breaks Into Home and Is Shot Dead"

"In October 2011 Matt Quain was walking home from a local Schnuck's grocery store when he was jumped by a gang in a "knock-out game" attack. Quain's jaw was shattered. He had several broken bones on his face. He was nearly killed. St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay was the first person on the scene after Matt Quain was beaten unconscious by a mob of teens.

The thugs beat the victim with bricks on a busy St. Louis street."

Later several of the teens were arrested including 13 year-old Demetrius Murphy but charges were dropped after a witness refused to show up in court.

On Friday, Demetrius Murphy was killed by a gun-owner after being involved in a burglary.
Demetrius was shot dead."

www.thegatewaypundit.com

So Corky sarcastically says that that is what Jesus would have done.

#26 | Posted by KBM at 2013-02-21 06:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Next up is Obama saying 'If I had a son he would look like Demetrius Murphy'.

#27 | Posted by KBM at 2013-02-21 06:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

#26 | Posted by KBM

Good find, well even happier how this ended.

#28 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-02-21 07:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

-No, Dumb a..

Well, Smart a..., if they were no longer attempting to force entry, were they?

#26 You are a day late and many dollars short.

"the 17 year old is implicated in punching someone out during a different burglary or something." #10

So, which unarmed kid would Jesus have shot down in cold blood?

#29 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-21 07:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

#29

Luke 22 Jesus does, in fact, tell his followers to purchase some swords.

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Deuteronomy 24:7 - 7 "If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you."

Exodus 22:2-3 tells us: "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

In Proverbs 25:26, we read: "A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well."

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace."

#30 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-02-21 08:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, which unarmed kid would Jesus have shot down in cold blood?

#29
Also the teen was not shot in cold blood, he escalated the encounter and was in turn shot.

#31 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-02-21 08:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Jesus was not subject to the Law, just as Christians are not.

and none of that answers the question anyway.

-he escalated the encounter

By walking forward unarmed?

Uh-huh.

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-21 09:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

#29 | Posted by Corky
...they were no longer attempting to force entry, were they?

Either cannot read or just cannot come to grips with the law. If the homeowner reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself then the shooting is justified. When the criminal approached him the homeowner had no way of knowing the criminal's intentions or whether the criminal was armed. You appear to require an unreasonable belief by the homeowner that the criminal approached him to possibly shake hands and apologize for the criminal offence. Reasonable people don't make that assumption at 1:30 in the morning when approached by a criminal that just tried to break into their home. I suspect that most would expect the criminal to high tail it out of there. This one made the fatal mistake of not doing so.

#33 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-21 10:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

"reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself" does not equal "had no way of knowing the criminal's intentions".

Make up your mind.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 06:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

#35 | Posted by GotTruth at 2013-02-22 07:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Corky,

Get of of your gate community once in a while. Or at the very least stop acting like you know what you're talking about.

That area of St. Louis is a bad one. Not only was there the "knock out gang" issues but recently (autumn if 2012) there were issues in that neighborhood of people being robbed at gunpoint then shot once they'd handed over their stuff. And this happened multiple times, some in broad daylight IIRC. It's a crap neighborhood with a lot of violence. The homeowner was absolutely justified in fearing for his safety when one of these kids didnt back down.

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2013-02-22 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh and since you're so keen on Jesus all of a sudden maybe you can tell me who would Jesus kill in a drone strike?

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2013-02-22 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

He shoulda killed both of them and saved the city a trial, eh?

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 12:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

#34 | Posted by Corky

If you pick and choose the words I use then I see why you are confused. Try using them in context.

#40 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-22 12:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

If the killer, "had no way of knowing the criminal's intentions", then how could he possibly, "reasonably believe that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself" ?

Words have meaning.

#41 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-22 12:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Try reading the whole of what I wrote, again. All of them together have meaning. Reasonable belief is judged from the point of view of the homeowner. Not yours, not mine. It is what he thought. He felt threatened and the shooting is justified in law which seems to be what you don't comprehend. If he felt threatened by the second criminal then yes he would be justified in shooting him also. Apparently, he didn't feel so threatened and the other criminal is alive.

#42 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-22 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag: