A 25-year-old Missouri man says he mistook his mother for an intruder before shooting her to death at their home’s back door.

Prosecutors have charged Jaylen Johnson with manslaughter and armed criminal action in connection with the shooting death on Thursday of his mother, Monica McNichols-Johnson.

McNichols-Johnson’s shooting death came less than a year after another shooting in Missouri saw Ralph Yarl, then 16, get shot on 13 April by 84-year-old Andrew Lester after ringing the wrong doorbell while picking up his siblings.

  • LanternEverywhere@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    What is wrong with some people? The chance of someone with intent to cause bodily harm trying to break into a residence when someone is home is essentially zero.

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s why you’ve got to grab your cool guns and start blasting immediately – you might never get another chance.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s low but nonzero, and depends on your exact location.

      But what’s wrong with them is the constant stoking of their fear by Fox News and similar media, that tells them that the illegals are breaking into their houses to steal their wives and rape their jobs, or something.

    • TonyStew@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Nearly 600,000 900,000 burglaries occur yearly in the US, with 27.6% occurring while occupants were present and 25% of those incidents involving an assault violent crime on the occupants. (https://insurify.com/homeowners-insurance/insights/burglary-statistics/) That comes to 37,500 ~62,100 break-in assaults victims of violent crimes from break-ins in the US per year, divided by 123.6 million households in the US comes to a 1 in 3,296 1,990 chance of a household’s occupants being assaulted in a break-in each year. That’s 68% roughly as many incidents as being injured or killed by a firearm anywhere in the country each year as tallied by the GVA. Hardly zero, unless you also mean to minimize US gun violence.

      Though either of these stats are hardly able to be applied broadly across the entire country given their driving force of poverty and its extreme regional & local disparities.

      Edit: Actually those 600,000 burglaries only account for 69% of the US population. The actual number is ~900,000 nationally, bumping the math’s number of violent crimes including assault, robbery, and rape experienced in homes up to ~62,100 or 1 in 1,990, surpassing being a victim of broad gun violence as tallied by the GVA when removing instances of justified self-defense.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I feel like you’re minimizing the part where it’s 0.03% by contrasting it with what you take as the given that individual gun violence is a likely threat in most of the country.

        Gun violence can be a problem without it being a specific actionable concern for the majority of people.
        It’s why it’s not contradictory to think we should work to reduce gun violence, and also not find it necessary to be armed in anticipation of imminent violence.

        • TonyStew@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          you take as the given that individual gun violence is a likely threat in most of the country

          I don’t. As I said, poverty & organized crime is a driving factor in both burglaries & gun violence moreso than any other metric and heavily skews those statistics between localities. Many regions will have rates 3-4x that. I also feel like you’re minimizing the part where it’s 1 in 3300 1990 per year, which applied over even just 50 years comes to 1.6% 2.5% of people experiencing it in their lives. Hell, the total burglary number of 600,000 900,000 is nearly thrice the rate of house fires in the US.

          It would absolutely be inconsistent to cite gun violence stats as a cause of concern for the average person (2) (3) while dismissing being assaulted in a burglary, nevermind being burgled at all, as an essentially zero chance.

          As an interesting point of reference, UK home break-ins occur at a rate of 578,000 yearly for a population with just 27.8 million households. That works out to 2% of households yearly being burgled, and per the first source over half of those occur while someone is present in the house (twice as often as happens in the US). Here’s another source citing a 1.27% rate of domestic burglary for the year ending in June 2023, and that’s vs the US rate of 0.728% (1.7-2.7 times higher). I can’t find any sources for what percentage of these break-in lead to assaults on the occupants, but for even the more conservative number of 1.27% from earlier and 50% of those being occupied homes, a rate higher than 6.90% of those occupied burglaries leading to assault would place the odds of being assaulted in your home in the UK higher than in America. This article working off of 2020 ONS data cites that of the 64.1% of incidents where someone is home 46% were aware and saw their burglars, and of those 48% reported being threatened and 27% reported force or violence being used against them. Plugging that into the most recent rate of 1.27% being burgled, that comes out to a 1 in 989 chance yearly of being a victim of violent crime by burglars in your own house, double that of the US.

          I wonder what’s different about American households that so dramatically shifts both the number of break-ins as well as how/when they occur. Poverty certainly plays a role, where the UK’s poverty rate after housing expenses is twice that of the US (22% vs 11%). Doesn’t explain the nature of the break-ins though.

          Edit: See math from earlier post, actual number is 1 in 1,990 yearly, or a 2.5% chance of experiencing violent crime in a home invasion over 50 years. Also makes the rate of burglary nearly thrice the rate of house fires in the US. Updated the math throughout the UK paragraph to match.

          • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            I don’t want to ruin your little gish gallop, but the act of “home invasion” is fundamentally different in the UK and the US.

            You and your little pro-gun cult friends have ensured that criminals have easy, widespread access to handguns, turning “somebody stole my iPad” into “somebody stole my iPad and then shot me in the spine”.

            You’ve had over 20 years to prove your bullshit claims of “guns prevent crime” and not only are crimes not significantly prevented, you’ve created a massive excess of far more serious crimes.

            • TonyStew@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              the act of “home invasion” is fundamentally different in the UK and the US

              Yes, I alluded to this by rhetorically asking why US burglars are half as willing to break in while an occupant is home. Still wondering why that would ever be.

              turning “somebody stole my iPad” into “somebody stole my iPad and then shot me in the spine”.

              Household burglaries ending in homicide make up 0.004% or 1 in 25,000 break-ins, and with national firearm injury rates being roughly double homicide rates that should mean roughly 1 in 8,333 break-ins leave the homeowner injured or killed to guns. That would math to 108 households in 2021 with occupants killed/injured by guns in 2021, or over 1 in a million yearly odds. Compared to the near-identical odds between the 2 countries of being assaulted or having other violent crime done against you if you see the burglars (27% vs 26%), it’s a weird edge case to focus on while dismissing the entire collection of crime it’s a minuscule subset of.

              Also wild to see “you’ll be shot while complying” in this argument, normally it’s people saying anyone practicing self-defense thinks they’re Rambo and that they’d be better off just ascribing best-intentions to the assailant and giving them what they want.

              Again, the point of this isn’t to say that concern about gun violence is wrong or nutty, it’s to argue that concerns about violent home invasion are even less paranoid than that.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            reported being threatened and 27% reported force or violence being used against them.

            Even assuming all your stats were true, how many of these people reported being killed? You’re not defining what that force or violence includes, but most of them don’t call for deadly force as a response.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        More than 11,000 burglaries in 2021 involved assault

        That’s a direct quote from your article so where does the “37,500 break-in assaults” number come from when it’s 3x higher than what your source lists?

        Furthermore,

        In 2021, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S.,

        Meaning you’re 4x more likely to be shot by someone than assaulted during a burglary

        https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

        • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Meaning you’re 4x more likely to be shot by someone than assaulted during a burglary

          You’re wasting your breath. Gun owners are extremity selective about the statistics they choose to care about.

          If they’re supplying them, they’re usually bullshit and if they’re demanding them, it’s usually sealioning. Their fixation on numbers vanishes the moment those numbers don’t say what they want.

          He can vomit up all the numbers he wants but if guns actually solved the problem, America would have the lowest crime rate in the world. Instead, they have crime rates that are practically identical to countries with comparitive levels of wealth and education.

          Only in America, there’s a layer of murder on top of every crime, because “responsible gun owners” keep arming criminals with their unsecured firearms and dogshit laws.

          • TonyStew@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            If they’re supplying them, they’re usually bullshit

            No need for hypotheticals here, we’ve got hard examples of stats & studies that either are or aren’t bs. Although the only bit I talk about on gun violence is from the GVA, but you’re welcome to call them BS if you wish.

            there’s a layer of murder on top of every crime

            At ~20,000/year, it’s 1 in 17,500 people. Or 1 in 6,180 households to keep comparisons equal.

            The point of the comparison isn’t to downplay gun violence, as should have been evident by how I’m arguing an equally-likely violent home invasion isn’t something to dismiss.

        • TonyStew@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          where does the “37,500 break-in assaults” number come from when it’s 3x higher than what your source lists?

          Specifying assault specifically was a mistake on my part, as I said the math came from the article’s citations on all violent crimes experienced by occupants during break-ins multiplied against the year’s 583,000 burglaries. Of that 26% number, 18% is assault while 6% is armed robbery and 2% is rape. I’m not sure where the article’s 11,000 claim comes from, as that number is uncited and would represent a substantial decrease vs the numbers they have citations for, which showed consistent values year-to-year in the mid-2000s though at a significantly higher overall rate of burglaries at 3.7 million/year. The closest number I can think of would be if they’re just counting specifically aggravated assault, which using the cited percentage of occurring in 4.5% of occupied break-ins would come to 10,125 instances in 900,000 break-ins.

          And actually, re-reading the article shows the 600,000 burglary number only accounts for 69% of the US population whose law enforcement reports numbers to the FBI, real numbers from the FBI are 900,000 for the past couple years making that number’s discrepancy even worse with the math’s number of 62,100. I’m not able to find any more recent data on either a % or a hard-number of home invasions resulting in assault or other violent crime victimization, if you have any please share.

          Meaning you’re 4x more likely to be shot by someone than assaulted during a burglary

          Coming at me citing suicide stats in a crime discussion, nice! And not even applying them correctly, using the number of deaths as a stat for being shot at all. I already referenced a more accurate, if still flawed, number by summing injuries & deaths from the GVA above.

          • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            Coming at me citing suicide stats in a crime discussion, nice

            Suicide victims aren’t even cold before the pro-gun community sweeps them under the nearest rug, desperately hoping that if they’re quick enough, nobody will notice that means reduction is extremely effective in suicide prevention.

            You’re still more likely to be shot by someone, it’s just the “someone” might be you.

            But it’ll never be one of your kids with one of your guns, will it buddy?

            • TonyStew@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              You’re still more likely to be shot by someone, it’s just the “someone” might be you

              Pardon me for not considering actions I have control over in a discussion on the likelihood of violence one doesn’t have control over. And again, I’m citing larger numbers for gun violence victims than what they are citing incorrectly.

              But it’ll never be one of your kids with one of your guns, will it buddy

              At 1 in ~2000 odds (10 in 10,000 suicide rate, 50% firearms for ages 10-24), or literally the exact same odds that I’m saying a person should be prepared for based on their consequences, those are absolutely odds I would act to minimize if I lived with a minor or anyone suffering mental health issues.

              Just here to point out that it’ll never be your home, will it buddy?

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s probably naive of me, but I keep hoping that if we had better data on that, it would persuade at least some.

      The chances of that breakin are essentially zero. Even if it happens the chances of defending yourself are very low, and if you’ve properly secured your deadly weapon, pretty much zero. Meanwhile the chances of accidentally or in fear harming or killing someone inappropriately are much higher, and if the weapon is ready for defense, harming an innocent is even more likely.

      Can we put numbers to that and prove it to convince at least some? Or is it a religious topic?

      • Moneo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        There is tons of data. People don’t give a fuck about data that doesn’t tell them what they want to hear.

        The number one killer of children in america is guns, the second is cars. Yet the anti-gun & anti-car dependency movements are struggling. Nobody gives a fuck about dead kids until they know them personally.

      • TonyStew@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Can we put numbers to that and prove it to convince at least some? Or is it a religious topic?

        You replied to a thread where I literally did

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      Never happened to you so the scenario is invalid?

      I’ve had armed men break in my house on Christmas Eve. Fuck me, I had a bear wonder in my dog door, laughably on Christmas Eve again. Had a wolf hybrid come in another time. He was my buddy though, knew him.

      I hope you’re never helpless and defenseless.

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I had a bear wonder in my dog door, laughably on Christmas Eve again.

        What was it wondering about?

      • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Did you have a child die screaming and terrified on their classroom floor at the hands of a legal gun owner? Were you ever hunted in a mall by a teenage extremist with a semi-automatic rifle?

        Actually fuck it, did you even shoot the “armed men” or dog-sized bear, or did it turn out you didn’t even need your guns in the bullshit you just made up.

        I hope you’re never helpless and defenseless

        That’s very clearly not true.

      • LanternEverywhere@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        STATISTICALLY it’s invalid. Even your examples are not applicable because it sounds like they didn’t want to cause you any bodily harm, they just wanted a house to easily rob of Christmas presents. Same thing with the bear and wolf, it didn’t come in there wanting to hurt you, it just wanted food.

        In both of these cases the best defense isn’t shooting at an unidentified figure in the distance on an assumption that it’s someone coming in with an intent to hurt you