This week brought us another horrific example of an unarmed Black youth being gunned down simply for having the misfortune of being in front of a racist’s house.
16-year-old Ralph Yarl, a high school junior in Kansas City, Missouri, was shot after going to the wrong house to pick up his younger twin brothers this past Thursday night (April 13). His parents told him to pick up his siblings from 115th Terrace. He went to a residence on 115th Street. The homeowner didn’t even open the door — he shot Yarl in the head through the door, and then fired a second shot after Yarl fell to the ground.
Yarl was injured critically, but has since begun to recover from his injuries. He’s out of the hospital, and a GoFundMe for his expenses has raised over $1.4 million. No criminal charges have yet been brought against the homeowner who shot him.
Obviously, this homeowner had nothing to fear from this college-bound high school junior at his doorstep. While investigators are examining whether or not he would be covered by Missouri’s “Stand your ground” law, such coverage is doubtful. Not in jeopardy, up against an unarmed teenager whose sole crime was ringing the doorbell. Most likely, we’ll hear about the octogenarian felt that he was in danger, and would have no way of knowing otherwise.
Graveyards are full of Black men who had the misfortune of encountering scared non-Black people. When enveloped in their fear, the non-Black person may even perceive the Black man as a giant and themselves as a toddler. The credibility of the threat often is an afterthought at best — it could be an Airsoft gun, it could be an Orbeez gun, it could be a plastic toy rifle with an orange tip, it could be a candy bar or hair brush. Black man plus handheld object equals license to open fire. It’s a tale as old as American time.
In this respect, the homeowner here should definitely see consequences for his actions, so that it goes on the record that this is not an example of an applicable “stand your ground” defense. Simply seeing a Black teen at the door does not give one license to fire a gun.
My fear is that the “calls for justice” here will be answered in such a way as to vindicate Ralph Yarl. Establishing a “right to ring the bell”. A clarification of home defense laws in such a way as to establish a “right” to be on someone else’s porch. This would be a smaller injustice, but an injustice nonetheless — and in a densely populated area, can open the door to any number of other issues. I fear for what legislators’ “making this right” will look like.
American property ownership rights are already far from absolute, and rights of home protection and home defense are strictly defined. Any type of “booby trap” is illegal, for instance. First responders have to be able to gain access, which forbids anything which would impede said access, or renders it potentially destructible (e.g., an entrance gate).
Since first responders have to be able to gain access, this allows for nefarious actors to gain access as well. There’s essentially nothing stopping even the worst murderer from entering your front yard, or coming on to your porch. Wanting to keep a specific person out is even more complex – if there are no grounds for a restraining order, or no restraining order in effect, even calling 911 is a hit-or-miss gamble: what would the cops say beyond a curt “get out of here”?
Upon seeing someone who I know is threatening to me standing on my front porch, would I go to the door and engage them to the point that I would be in the amount of jeopardy required for an air-tight self defense case? Should I be expected to? I can think of at least one person that would elicit a reaction from me similar to that of this homeowner. In fact, the ability to remove or neutralize unwanted, violent people who are already at my home is the number one reason I wanted to learn about firearms in the first place. No one has the right to be on my property if I don’t want them there, or for any longer than I want them there. To say that this is no longer the case (or never was) because of Ralph Yarl?
Must every senior citizen get up and fight the person at the door in order to be able to use a firearm? If the domestic violence victim’s other ex shows up, is said victim just at the mercy of whatever the cops deem appropriate? (Also, saying that here, “the homeowner should have called the cops” assumes that the cops wouldn’t have done the same thing. What if Ralph had gotten scared and run? It’s Missouri.)
Definitely prosecute this homeowner here, but don’t remove the defense for which he fails to qualify. People who actually are in jeopardy need to be able to shoot through the door if necessary.
