MA. Homeowner charged with Murder for shooting "burglar"

[SheepDog4Life]

From what we know so far, he killed the kid merely for vandalism (breaking a side bay window if the pictures I've seen are accurate).

Legally, as long as the door stood, the kid was not (yet?) a home invader, eliminating most, if not all, castle doctrine protections.

Rationally (as in "reasonable fear"), as long as the door stood, he was not in imminent danger of anything other than property vandalism. Shooting through an intact front door is always a bad idea, IMO. Also, a violation of the four rules... I'm not aware of an exception because you're pissing your pants.

Morally, it is wrong to kill someone if you don't, reasonably, have to. Since he intended to fire, this is a murder/non-negligent manslaughter, IMO.

P.S. Anyone who follows "Crazy Uncle Joe Biden"'s advice on anything should have their head examined.

 

[Fargo]

Actually, this is when most of our home burglaries occur. During the day, during the week, when owners are at work. It was a few years ago that we had that EXACT same situation happen here and there were no charges filed on the home owner.

In Indiana, it would likely be a lawful shooting. It appears that Mass. uses a very different standard for use of force.

 

[SteveM4A1]

From what we know so far, he killed the kid merely for vandalism (breaking a side window if the pictures I've seen are accurate).

Legally, as long as the door stood, the kid was not (yet?) a home invader, eliminating most, if not all, castle doctrine protections.

Rationally (as in "reasonable fear"), as long as the door stood, he was not in imminent danger of anything other than property vandalism. Shooting through an intact front door is always a bad idea, IMO. Also, a violation of the four rules... I'm not aware of an exception because you're pissing your pants.

Morally, it is wrong to kill someone if you don't, reasonably, have to. Since he intended to fire, this is a murder/non-negligent manslaughter, IMO.

P.S. Anyone who follows "Crazy Uncle Joe Biden"'s advice on anything should have their head examined.

unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

 

[singlesix]

I lived in Mass for two years going to school and let me tell you the person could have been bleeding from multiple wounds and shot the "kid" to stop him from plunging a knife for the final stab and most liberals up there would still want murder charges for the shooter.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

This is what I found on GOAL's site for MA law. http://goal.org/masslawpages/castledoctrine.html
(my bold)

Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 278, Section 8(a): In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

And, for those states where "attack on" applies, "he broke my window" is a very weak defense to state as an "attack". If so, any petty vandalism would legitimize lethal force, which should speak for itself.

 

[SteveM4A1]

This is what I found on GOAL's site for MA law. MA Castle Doctrine Info<meta name="description" content="What MA Gun Owners' Need To Know Regarding Castle Doctrine - Self Defense In the home.">
(my bold)



And, for those states where "attack on" applies, "he broke my window" is a very weak defense to state as an "attack". If so, any petty vandalism would legitimize lethal force, which should speak for itself.

I was simply pointing out that

Legally, as long as the door stood, the kid was not (yet?) a home invader, eliminating most, if not all, castle doctrine protections

may be correct correct in MA, but not in ALL castle doctrine states. Usually, making an attempt to enter unlawfully (breaking glass doors) would be covered under such conditions.

 

[femurphy77]

This is what I found on GOAL's site for MA law. MA Castle Doctrine Info<meta name="description" content="What MA Gun Owners' Need To Know Regarding Castle Doctrine - Self Defense In the home.">
(my bold)

Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 278, Section 8(a): In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.




And, for those states where "attack on" applies, "he broke my window" is a very weak defense to state as an "attack". If so, any petty vandalism would legitimize lethal force, which should speak for itself.

So is standing on a front porch beating on a door the same thing as IN said dwelling?

 

[HoughMade]

So is standing on a front porch beating on a door the same thing as IN said dwelling?

we would have to look at other statutes or case law for that, but based on that statute alone, I'd say "in" means "in".

 

[singlesix]

we would have to look at other statutes or case law for that, but based on that statute alone, I'd say "in" means "in".

Problem is it may cost you $$$$$$$ to conceive 12 people of that fact.

 

[Denny347]

In Indiana, it would likely be a lawful shooting. It appears that Mass. uses a very different standard for use of force.

That is the trap we fall into when discussing these stories from other states.

 

[Alamo]

That may be the key behind the charges.
I believe there are a LOT of people that simply want to shoot somebody, and if they end up in a situation where shooting a person would appear to be justified, they have no reservations about shooting a person....even if there are other ways to handle the situation.

Pretty broad statement. This seems to be a frequent complaint about the police in officers involved shootings, no?



p.s. the key behind the charges is that the State of Massachusetts does not value the right of self-defense and tries to limit it at every turn. That's given Massad Ayoob an entire career of writing about all the ways you can get in trouble exercising the right to self-defense.

 

[LP1]

I didn't know crime stopped due to daylight.. To me it doesn't matter the time of day nor night. If a bad guy wanted to break down my front door no matter the time I would like to think the time of day wouldn't take into account if it was a justifiable shoot or no shoot scenario. Now I'm sure not all facts have come out yet. Crime doesn't go prone because it's daylight.

Of course it doesn't. But in broad daylight, it's much easier for the resident to assess the threat. Resident escalated the situation ay too quickly.

 

[Alamo]

The Castle Doctrine: Why was Chicopee homeowner charged with murder for shooting Springfield teen? | masslive.com

According to this, the door had three glass panes. The drunk broke one of them, the homeowner fired through another. Thus it appears he could see his target.

What the "kid" was guilty of, that is what could be proven at trial beyond a reasonable doubt, is (or should be) irrelevant. What's relevant to this situation is how did his actions would be interpreted by a reasonable person, and could someone reasonably conclude that he was unlawfully breaking in.

I for one am not going to state in advance that there is no reasonable basis for "shooting through a door" to defend myself or family. It wouldn't necessarily be a preferred option, but one doesn't always get preferences. It will be highly fact dependent. Can I see through or by the door with enough clarity to identify a threat? Depends. There are lots of glass doors...

Under Massachusetts law I think the homeowner is screwed. 1st degree murder charges are over the top, but I guess that's DA strategy. In Texas the drunken kid would become exhibit number 2035 of why you should not drink yourself into ignorance and then try to break into someone else's house.

 

[bobzilla]

I agree, not until they come into the house and continue to pose a threat after they find the owner is pointing a gun at them and they continue to push forward and do not retreat.

My only issue with this is there was not 1 person, but 3. You wait until your only barrier is down, are you going to be able to stop 3 people barging in? Especially since you've already tried to reason with them and they still continue?

I'm not saying hte HO was correct, but I don't know that I could say I'd do it differently in his situation.

 

[calcot7]

So they mistake which house they are going to in broad daylight?

Keyword......Drunk

 

[bobzilla]

Keyword......Drunk

at 15. IMO, parents should hold some responsibility here. I can guarantee you this wasn't the first time.

 

[Fargo]

When people are innocently in their own home, I generally give them every presumption against those trying to unlawfully enter. After all, it is their home and family which they have worked for and are responsible for.

When a person attempts to force his way into a home other than his own, I generally give them no favorable presumptions. They have no claim, rights, or responsibility for the home or its occupants.

I am really surprised at the number of people who immediately appear to be giving every benefit of the doubt to the attempted home invader, including using voluntary intoxication as a justification.

 

[bobzilla]

I am really surprised at the number of people who immediately appear to be giving every benefit of the doubt to the attempted home invader, including using voluntary intoxication as a justification.

I believe the correct phrase here is "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

 

[LPMan59]

When people are innocently in their own home, I generally give them every presumption against those trying to unlawfully enter. After all, it is their home and family which they have worked for and are responsible for.

When a person attempts to force his way into a home other than his own, I generally give them no favorable presumptions. They have no claim, rights, or responsibility for the home or its occupants.

I am really surprised at the number of people who immediately appear to be giving every benefit of the doubt to the attempted home invader, including using voluntary intoxication as a justification.

Clearly those are the people who just want to shoot somebody

 

[Joniki]

Clearly those are the people who just want to shoot somebody[/QUOTE]

I fixed it for you.

NO ONE has the right to break into MY home. Not a 15 year old or a 150 year old. If they aren't smart enough to figure it out, they deserve to die.