Defensive Carry banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,103 Posts
For me the judge said it all.
“Here, the court finds the state failed to show that defendant’s belief that he needed to use deadly force to protect himself from death, serious physical injury, or another forcible felony was unreasonable,” Circuit Judge Jason Sengheiser wrote in his ruling.
The fellow might have exercised poor judgement, but it makes no difference because the prosecution could not prove he did. I will go with the judge but I I would not shoot a drunk for bricking a window. If he tried to brick me or someone else I would.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
250 Posts
- crazy drunk was clearly trying to attack and harm
- good guy must've used ball ammo (and not HP) to ping pong around like that and do that much damage
- must note the store got held up at gunpoint earlier in the month too




.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,249 Posts
The double-negative language of the ruling had me reading it several times to understand it.

"The state failed to show that defendant's belief... was unreasonable." More clearly, the judge found the defendant's belief (re use of deadly force) was reasonable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,682 Posts
Quote of the employee from the article:
“You straight shot that (slur),” Eckenrodt said. “Give me all your pizza. Pow, pow, pow. That was (expletive) sweet. That was like watching a movie, man. … Still think he’s a (expletive) idiot. Pow, pow, pow pow. (Expletive) you. I did everything right. Pop, pop pop. And then he goes down. This guy is a piece of work. Pop, pop, pop.”


All I can say is keep your mouth shut. If you don't say anything it can't be used against you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,155 Posts
Interesting. I was all over that area in my youth. My high school was about a five minute drive from there and that pizza place is practically next door to the where the first dojo I studied Karate' stood. A band I was in in my 20's played every Friday night at a beer joint about a mile away. There is a still a White Castle restaurant across the intersection that was a set for the 1990 movie "White Palace" with James Spader and Susan Sarandon.

It has always been a rough area and St. Louis has turned into a typical liberal big city. I'm surprised they didn't hang the guy. The 15 minute police response time does not surprise me.

I am glad the guy got off, but he made a lot of errors. I would have let the chicken-scratch manager handle the bad guy. That's what he gets paid for. I would not have opened the door to the perp. Later, I would not have gone outside after the perp. I would have stayed inside and if he got in, that's when I would have shot. Having shot, I would have kept my damn mouth shut with the police. I am sure he was fired from Papa Johns and I will bet he has legal bills he can never pay. The court case was a win, but the whole affair was a loss for everyone.

Another point: I don't get the use of "Castle Doctrine" in this case. I though that was about shooting in your home. It seems to me they should be talking about "Stand Your Ground."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,119 Posts
“Mr. Upchurch seemed more agitated each time he returned,” Sengheiser wrote.

Just throwing a brick through the window? I'd draw but doubt I'd fire. Probably wouldn't aim, just to my side at the ready. But the growing agitation demonstrates a pattern of increasing hostility and violence. So just why was he charged in the first place? Oh, yea. Democrat controlled St. Louis, were the dead vote Democrat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,036 Posts
Another point: I don't get the use of "Castle Doctrine" in this case. I though that was about shooting in your home. It seems to me they should be talking about "Stand Your Ground."
Typically the castle doctrine is for home protection, but wording of law can extend it to your vehicle, your motel room, or in this case, anywhere you have the right to be. It just merges CD with SYG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
852 Posts
I have to agree with 1942bull: The shooter never should have gone outside.
He may have been annoyed by the drunk, and frightened by the cement block, but his person hadn't been threatened yet.

If the drunk had indeed entered the store, and if he had made threatening moves or preliminaries to an attack, then there may have been a moral (as differentiated from a legal) right to shoot him.
While the shooter may have acted according to the law, what he did does not meet my own moral precepts, so, to me, it was a bad shooting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,668 Posts
I'm not nominating that pizza employee for citizen of the year, but I'm glad the judge upheld reasonable self defense statutes.

Reading a little into this, I can see a liberal prosecutor expecting a judge to see the humanitarian "bigger picture", that we need to deter people from using guns; regardless of evidence or the law.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top