Missouri's self-defense laws are pretty robust, but I don't think they're going to allow a 17-year-old to escape accountability for his role in a shooting that left an innocent Lyft driver dead.
Shannon O'Brien picked up Cortez Alexander and two of his buddies on Jan. 30. According to prosecutors, the three were planning on shooting a rival group that included 18-year-old Noah Johnson, who Alexander had been beefing with.
Hours before the shooting, Dodson wrote that Cortez had taken several selfie pictures of him with a gun with an extended magazine and equipped with an illegal switch to make it fully automatic.
Then, before the 4 p.m. shooting, Cortez texted another teen about taking a Lyft to “ball in Cain field” and meet up with other people at 1769 Winward Court, the location of shooting, Judge Jason Dodson wrote in his ruling.
Cortez's charges say he and the other teen texted about resolving their conflict with Johnson by shooting him.
"A later interview with (Johnson) confirmed that (Johnson) was aware and ready to take part in the pre-planned shoot-out," police wrote in court records.
Cortez, the teen he texted and another were Lyft passengers in O'Brien's Hyundai Elantra. When they pulled up to the Winward Court location, a Chevy Malibu pulled up beside O'Brien's car.
"Two or three masked and armed persons jumped out and a gun battle broke out," Dodson wrote.
Investigators found about 40 spent shell casings outside of O'Brien's car and about 25 inside her vehicle, the ruling says.
O'Brien was shot once in the back and died at the scene.
65 rounds were fired between the two groups, and the only person who was shot was the 28-year-old rideshare driver who was just trying to earn a living.
At a hearing on Thursday, Cortez's attorney Andy Morris argued that his client only opened fire after the group led by Johnson had fired on him and his buddies, "so it's a very plausible self-defense claim."
Morris also argued that Cortez never opened fire in the Lyft itself, though I really don't think that makes a difference.
But what about Cortez's self-defense claim? Is it really plausible?
I don't think so. Here's why.
Under Missouri law, an individual can use deadly force to defend themselves or others if "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, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
Cortez might have had a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to protect himself from harm, but that alone doesn't mean he acted lawfully. The Missouri statute also outlines a number of factors that can negate a self-defense claim:
1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:
(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or
(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or
(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;
2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;
(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.
According to prosecutors, the only reason Cortez was ever in O'Brien's car is because he used her to drive him to a location where he planned on shooting Noah Johnson. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that Cortez was attempting to commit a forcible felony, which would render his self-defense claim null and void.
I don't fault Morris for making the argument. He has to represent Cortez to the best of his ability, after all. But there's no reason for a judge to accept Cortez's request to lower his $1 million cash-only bond, and there's no reason for a jury to buy into his argument that Missouri's self-defense law indemnifies him from facing any consequences for Shannon O'Brien's death.
