Here’s why ‘stand your ground’ law protected woman who shot KC firefighter from charges

A woman who fatally shot a man in Independence will not face charges because of Missouri’s self-defense law, often referred to as “stand your ground.”

The off-duty Kansas City firefighter, 41-year-old Anthony Santi, was on top of and restraining a 23-year old man in a chokehold outside of an Independence gas station, when the woman left the vehicle she was in, yelled at the men to try to break up the fight and fired a round that hit Santi in the back, ultimately killing him.

What does “stand your ground” have to do with the case?

The Jackson County prosecutor’s office decided not to move forward with a second degree murder charge against the woman because it could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was acting outside of Missouri’s self-defense law.

“Missouri law governs this case, specifically self-defense and defense of others, leading us to decline charges after a careful review,” the prosecutor’s office wrote in a statement to The Star.

Missouri law gives people the right to defend and even use deadly force to protect themselves and other people if they believe that their own or another person’s life or limb is in danger.

Court documents for the case described a video that captured the altercation between Santi and the man at the gas station fighting over a firearm with an extended magazine. At one point, Santi restrained the man in a headlock and held him there, which is when the woman left the vehicle, approached the men asking Santi to get off of the man and ended up shooting Santi.

“She was lawfully using deadly force in defense of another,” said Missouri criminal defense attorney Kevin Jamison. “This is one of those cases where it’s awful but lawful.”

These kinds of “stand your ground” laws have been controversial and have gathered national attention for helping to acquit people like George Zimmerman who killed Trayvon Martin in Florida in 2012 after claiming he felt he was in fear of his life. More recently, Wisconsin’s “stand your ground” law was the basis for acquitting Kyle Rittenhouse after he opened fire on protesters in 2020 and killed two men and injured another.

Missouri’s “stand your ground” law has been in effect since 2016 and received overwhelming support from Republican lawmakers, while state Democrats were largely against the law.

A study conducted by researchers at Oxford University, University of Pennsylvania and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, found that Missouri’s gun homicide rate increased significantly after the state’s stand your Ground law was enacted.

What does the law say?

Missouri’s 2016 law states:

A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person.

To read the full law visit here.

What does it mean to “stand your ground”?

The Missouri law that governs this case is also known as the “castle doctrine” or the “stand your ground” law.

It can be applied to instances that occur in both residential and public spaces.

If a person believes there is a risk of death or serious physical injury, and they are legally allowed to be in the place they are, that person can use deadly force to defend themselves or others without breaking the law. They do not have a legal duty to retreat from an altercation, according to Missouri law.

How can someone prove they were acting in self-defense?

When deciding if it’s legal for a person to use deadly force to protect themselves from harm against another person, there are three main elements that must be involved, according Jamison.

“I call it the J.A.M. elements,” said Jamison, who also teaches courses on gun laws and safety at Great Guns gun shop in Liberty.

J.A.M. roughly translates to jeopardy, ability and means.

“First, is the person being placed in jeopardy? Does the person making the threats have the ability to carry out the threat? And third, does he have the means to carry out the threat?” he said.

In Santi’s case, Jamison explained that chokeholds have been known as a tactic used by law enforcement that have resulted in death.

Since the woman involved claimed to be acting in self-defense, it’s not unreasonable to say she felt a person’s life was in jeopardy, and that Santi had both the ability and the means to seriously harm the other man involved.

“A reasonable jury could have found that she thought the J.A.M. elements existed,” Jamison said.

What are the exceptions?

There are a few exceptions. For starters, if it is known that a person initiated a fight or altercation, that person cannot claim self-defense, Jamison said.

In the Independence case, the woman wasn’t involved in the altercation when it started, so there’s no way to prove that she knew who started the fight. So, she can still claim self-defense.

If she did know who initiated the fight, that would possibly change things, according to Jamison.

“If the girlfriend had known that her boyfriend started the fight or provoked a fight, that would have been relevant. It might not have been decisive,” Jamison said, adding that other elements of the case would still need to be considered.

Other instances where the self-defense law wouldn’t apply include if the person defending themselves chooses to withdraw from the situation and then return with deadly force.

A person also committing a crime or escaping the scene of a crime, specifically a felony offense that involves force, cannot claim self-defense. A person also cannot claim self-defense if they were unlawfully in a space or dwelling.

Some cases aren’t that simple

Jamison noted that every case is different, and sometimes proving that someone is lawfully acting in self-defense is not as simple as his J.A.M. acronym might make it out to be.

He said all elements of the case need to be thoroughly reviewed in order to make a final assessment on whether or not someone broke the law.

In the case involving Santi, Jamison said he agrees with the prosecutor’s office.

“I’m a defense attorney in the peculiar situation of agreeing with the Jackson County prosecutor,” he said.

He added that he believes that it’s always best to try to call the police or retreat when in danger, which is better for all parties involved.

“Everybody I’ve represented [who] has killed in self-defense has had post traumatic stress disorder,” he said. “So, if you can retreat, then that’s in your long term best interest.”

Santi’s funeral services are set for 11 a.m. Wednesday, Oct. 26 at The Rock of KC at 12750 N. Winan Ave. in North Kansas City. Visitation will be available from 2 to 8 p.m. on Tuesday, Oct. 25.

The Star’s Andrea Klick contributed reporting.