Black Kansas City teen Ralph Yarl sues white man who shot him for ringing the doorbell

Could you imagine if the thing that kills HOAs ended up being liability for the actions of their members?

Go Ralph go!

I'm a little hard.
- Just make sure it isn't visible from the curb.
That would be great, but police can barely take a person's guns away if they aren't actively involved in a crime. I'd be shocked if a court found an HOA to have that power. I'm not against it but I don't even think the Supreme Court of 12 years ago would do for it, much less this Supreme Court.
- It wouldn't be "no guns", it would be "carry this insurance if you have guns" and then fining the people who don't or won't carry the insurance.
- I'd be shocked if a court found an HOA to have that power.
  
  Courts have pretty consistently found that HOA’s have more power than local authorities. That’s why they can set their own laughably restrictive bylaws.
  
  Second amendment violations may not fly, but that’s a constitutionality problem, not a limit specifically on HOAs.
I hate HOA's, but some people like them. Regardless of how I feel about HOA's I still think it's dumb as hell that they should have any sort of liability for a member of an hoa doing something like this.
- The percentage of people I know that like HOAs is absurdly small, including neighbors and acquaintances from the last HOA I was in. Almost everyone I know hates them but is forced to deal with them because almost every neighborhood has one. Towns require them for new zoning because it allows them to pass the buck on code enforcement and then a handful of people love them because it lets them power trip The vast majority are just stuck with them due to lack of options.
- Yeah, that part of the suit will fail. But I think it's worth trying to expand the dragnet of responsible parties regardless. The more people at risk of going to jail for shootings, the more people might support gun control.
  
  It isn't the same as parents getting jailed for their kid's mass shooting. But I kinda feel a little bit like it's still worth trying just to increase a societal sense of culpability.

Good. Adults need to be responsible and held accountable for their actions.

Shh. If there's one thing "responsible gun owners" can't stand, it's being held responsible.
- Gun enthusiasts here, does me wanting to "disarm" people for breaking gun safety rules count?
This lawsuit is explicitly about the opposite of that, holding his neighbors responsible for his actions, as if he were a toddler and they his parents.

Because intruders always ring your doorbell before breaking in.

Not to justify the actions of the shooter, but ringing the doorbell before breaking in is definitely a thing. It's a means of checking if the house is occupied - if you're just trying to steal things, an unoccupied house is ideal, and if someone answers when you ring, it's easy enough to make up an excuse and walk away.

A much better solution than a gun, though, is a security door (similar to a screen door, but more kick proof).
- ringing the doorbell before breaking in is definitely a thing
  
  It’s only a thing because that’s predominantly what “normal” people do. There’s plausible deniability, and it still doesn’t change the fact that almost all people who knock on the door are not breaking in
- A security door is good too but tbh both is better. And 3" door screws and a kick plate. Of course that only saves you insofar as you don't open the door for the threat, too.
- Yep. I was robbed at knifepoint by a couple of goons. They knocked politely first.
  
  Outside the door? Cop problem. Inside the door? Your problem.
It's in the crime handbook under "must do"

I hope this 84 year old piece of shit doesn't die before this case concludes. Hard to believe it's already been more than a year since this happened.

Every time a case like this comes up I either think “wow, it’s been THAT long?” Or “wow, it happened THAT recently?”
What if he did it for the free nursing home aka prison. Pwn3d

I wouldn't be shocked if somehow the kid lands in jail

Considering he's black and in America, he has a good chance of that anyway unfortunately, often for some low-level drug crime that would have gotten a white person at most community service.

Suing the HOA is an interesting one; I wonder if the rest of the residents in that HOA could sue as well, I mean, having a known psychopathic firearms enthusiast in the neighborhood must decimate the property values.

Maybe after the conviction they could have a bylaw like, "any owner housing a resident convicted of an armed assault will be fined $1,000 daily."
I think the idea is that if that old geezer croaks while the court is twiddling their thumbs on this case, the HOA will at least still be there to pay...
- I'm really liking the precedent this could set. HOAs like to wield government-like authority with none of the limits that actual government (is supposed to) operate under, ostensibly to provide a "nicer" neighborhood. And then a young man gets shot for ringing a door bell.
  
  I ask all the other HOA residents of the nation: Are any of YOUR neighbors getting ready to tank YOUR property values like Andrew Lester did for his neighbors? If a resident of your HOA answers his doorbell with a hail of lead, and it makes the news like this one did, you think it's going to be easy to find a buyer for your house?
- There will still be his estate after he dies.

Anyways this is part of why I support a legal duty to retreat. If you can shoot anyone on your property some people will do shit like this

Last I saw I thought he was also criminally charged since this was well outside the scope of castle doctrine or no duty to retreat. Both of them require a reasonable threat which was not present.

Funny fact, "Stand your ground" is also the Law in Germany. And in 150 years of German Law there were exactly seven cases where "Stand your ground" was used to defend an violent act.

Because it's extremely limited in scope with a corresponding duty to retreat or because there aren't enough black people for racists to be scared of?
- I don't think fear of minorities is the reason. We have other optically different minorities around. Arabs, Vietnamese, Turks. On the other hand I think I have only interacted with one black person around here EVER. Which was kinda funny because he spoke heavy Bavarian dialect and had a perfectly German name.
  
  While lots of people feel uneasy around Minorities, violence still is very low. To be honest, as a German I am more afraid of a left German punk or right German Skinhead than any other minority.
  
  Sure, there are also Poles, Romanians and Italians but those are not visibly different

Make that removed homeless. The only reason you should ever be homeless for, being a racist POS. Merica's 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

I do agree that racism is rampart, but so is homelessness. You can't think of a better punishment?
- Dye their skin so they become the race they hate./s
  
  Edit: ooh, and then have them deal with the cops, or try to get insurance or healthcare.
- I think being homeless is one of the degrading things you can do to someone, especially on purpose.

Get em

Go for it, milk that old shmegeggie 'till the teats fall off.

This makes total sense, with the typical MO of a ne'er-do-well ringing the doorbell before trying to get into a building nefariously.

The law being challenged for those interested (commonly known as "stand your ground" law)

21-5222. Same; defense of a person; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. (b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person. (c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person.

I personally think it is pretty obvious that there was not "reasonable" cause to shoot someone simply since they rang your doorbell, but now it is up to a jury.

I also doubt this would be in the headlines if it was white man shooting white man or black man shooting black man. This really just seems like race baiting which isn't surprising in an election year I guess, moreso it's disappointing.

Lester, who later said he saw a large Black man at his door and was scared, shot through a glass storm door and then shot Yarl once again when he fell.

I don't think the media needlessly added race to it, the guys statement did.
- Describing someone using their race isn't racism
  
  Making the story about race rather than "this old man shot this young man for seemingly no reason, old man bad" is, in fact, race baiting
I'm also relatively confident that it wouldn't have happened at all had it been a white man ringing the doorbell, or a black man on the inside of that house.
- Wild how the poster above terms suing a man for shooting you in an act of blatant racism as "race baiting" by the victim.
  
  It's like his brain is on backwards and he knows racism is involved, but he can't actually acknowledge that it actually happened so he has to blame the victim for it.

To me the key point was did the kid open the door? I've seen conflicting reports about it.

Also, I hate HOAs as much as anyone, but I have no idea how they are involved in this one.

He was shot through the glass storm door, which would have been outside the front door.

Perp opened the front door, saw the kid through the glass and shot him.
- Not to mention, it's incredibly common to open a storm door to knock. Even if he had opened it, that doesn't show any ill intent.
This is why the Castle Doctrine is bullshit. Who the fuck cares if the kid opened the door? That's not justification enough to shoot him.
- This is why the Castle Doctrine is bullshit. Who the fuck cares if the kid opened the door? That’s not justification enough to shoot him.
  
  Castle Doctrine only applies to someone entering your home against your will. So if the kid was shot outside the front door then Castle Doctrine doesn't apply. If he was inside the home, then under Castle Doctrine it's reasonable to assume the stranger invading your home doesn't have your best interests in mind and that you don't have a duty to flee from them but instead may defend your home as an extension of self defense.
  
  Usually the line is drawn at the threshold - if they're outside the threshold then Castle Doctrine doesn't apply. So if he was literally shot for knocking at the door/ringing the doorbell then Castle Doctrine wouldn't apply., but if he was shot while trespassing inside the home...
- According to the law, it is. (Even without castle doctrine a random stranger trying to gain entry into your house is usually grounds for self defense).
  
  If the kid didn't open the door, then I agree with you. But even the kid admitted to at least grabbing the handle of the door. I'd personally never do that at stranger's or even an acquaintance's house.
  
  From a moral standpoint, please don't try to walk into stranger's houses uninvited.
They could be liable if, and only if they are proven to be be aware (or willfully ignorant) that the man's general conduct/demeanor would indicate a proclivity to violence rather than him just being crotchety. Unfortunately, things like that can be hard to prove as they can require a lot of digging.