KCUR57%
Missouri Supreme Court opens door to using deadly force in self-defense, even over minor threats0%
By Peggy Lowe0%
2/26/2026, 10:00:00 AM
BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Pessimism Bias, and Slippery Slope, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 29.4% saturation with 160 hits. Analysis detected 762 faulty-reasoning hits from 545 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.
An appellate court ruling that critics say will broaden when people can use deadly force as a self-defense will now remain in effect after the Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
With the Tuesday refusal of Danielle Lechocki’s case, a November ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, will stand.
The decision was decried by a state prosecutors group as greatly expanding the state’s self-defense law so far that people could justify using deadly force even over a minor threat.
The case involved Lechocki’s use of a knife when she felt “extremely threatened” by another woman during an altercation outside a veterans’ homeless shelter in 2022.
A Warren County judge denied Lechocki’s request to use self-defense to justify her actions, agreeing with the prosecutor who argued that deadly force cannot be used to repel a simple assault and battery.
The jury ultimately found Lechocki guilty of attempted unlawful use of a weapon but acquitted her of fourth-degree assault.
Lechocki was sentenced to two days in jail and a fine of $1,000.
With the high court’s ruling, Lechocki’s conviction was overturned and the case may return to the county, said Christian Lehmberg, Lechocki’s public defender on the appeal.
The judge unfairly prevented the jury from hearing her defense, Lehmberg said.
“As a result, a woman with no criminal history was convicted without having been allowed to present the very defense that explained her actions,” Lehmberg said.
“We hope to resolve the matter without needing to go through another trial.
Ms. Lechocki has suffered enough.”
Lehmberg said he was grateful the appellate court “recognized this injustice” and that the high court denied the challenge.
Jackson County Prosecutor Melesa Johnson's office had no comment on the decision, said Jazzlyn Johnson, the director of communications.
An email seeking comment from the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys was not returned.
The state group previously argued in court filings that the ruling would threaten public safety by making it difficult to charge, try or resolve violent crimes.
“If the opinion becomes law, mere shoving matches could justifiably be escalated to gun battles,” wrote Robert W. Russell, president of the state association, in a court brief.
Lechocki, a former Marine with several medical issues, said she pulled a knife from her backpack after another woman threatened to “mollywock” her, slang for hit her, and she then lunged at Lechocki.
Both women were residents at Anchor House, a veterans’ homeless shelter west of St. Louis.
The other woman denied she went after Lechocki, and a third person stepped in between the two women and no one was hurt.
The Missouri Legislature changed the law on deadly force in 2007, the appeals court ruling said, allowing the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to protect himself or herself or a third person.
“Thus, this language allows for the possibility that a person could use deadly force to protect from a forcible felony, separate from the risk of death or serious physical injury,” Judge Gary M. Gaertner Jr. wrote in the appellate court’s opinion.
That said, Gaertner wrote that state law also requires “reasonableness and proportionality” when someone uses force in defending themselves, so “the force actually used matches the level of threat actually present.”
Speakers
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.