Central Mass Homeowner Holds "Trespasser" at Gun Point...

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.2%
55   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
51,685
Likes
9,521
Location
Escaping to NH
Wait. I'm reading this thread trying to figure out what the hell it is you guys are talking about, worried about the homeowner getting in trouble. Are you really saying that if someone breaks into your house or trespasses on your property in MA, you can't arm yourself or hold them at gunpoint until the cops show up?
Yes

Not the answer we like, but per MGLs, it is the reality that is MA! Read MGL C. 278 S. 8A VERY CAREFULLY as to the exemption for threatening or actually using lethal force.
 

Roland Deschain

NES Member
Rating - 100%
52   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
7,053
Likes
7,264
From how I read it, the douche was clearly breaking into the garage. Thats B&E/NT all day long in my book and thats a felony, not misdemeanor. Whether the courts undercharged or not (libtarded asshats), at the time of the incident it was a felony and the homeowner should be all set. Hopefully anyways.....
I thought that the standard for a citizens arrest (if that's how it's being categorized) was a felony 'in fact committed'

I just hope they aren't undercharging to set up the homeowner.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
4,398
Likes
642
By the way guys, I recieved a neg rep on post#27 in this thread from a member called "50 BMG", which read:

"pony up and pay the 21 bucks"

And, in case anyone is wondering. I figured I would address it here and mention that if it is important to this forum to add new green members, having green members like 50 BMG make these kinds of attacks (this is the second or third time I've heard this from him), is not the way to add new members or to gain support for the forum.

I hope you all understand.

- - - Updated - - -

And to address the subject matter of the thread, I'm not entirely surprised that MA law treats the victims like this. But, I find it just terrible and I hope that those of you who want to leave that state behind can find a way to do it soon. NH needs voters.
 
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
577
Likes
124
Location
Brookfield
I thought that the standard for a citizens arrest (if that's how it's being categorized) was a felony 'in fact committed'

Well even though Im sure there are several details missing from the article (because we all know the Telecrap gets it all right) the fact that he opened the garage door is B&E (committed) all day long in my book
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
481
Likes
54
It is downright disgusting that the laws of this state are such that people even wonder what might happen to this homeowner.

The so called "logic" in these laws is non existent. This event is a prime example. Someone is breaking in. Go hide. When they get to the door you are hiding behind, maybe they will just fire a few rounds through before entering, maybe not. Maybe they will just leave. But their lives are all important.

YOU are not entitled to get a tactical advantage over them by surprising them. Holding them at gunpoint traumatizes them, having to look down a gun barrel.

It creates a "situation", if they call your "bluff" and try to leave, you have to decide whether or not to shoot them. Of course, if they just walk away, you do not have to shoot them, but if they go for a weapon, you must shoot them. YOU created the problem, according to the stupid laws of this state. After all, they were just committing a simple burglary with no intention of shooting anyone, they just brought along their weapons to protect themselves from crazy homeowners that do not have any respect for human life! Sheeesh.

See what a good liberal education will do for you?
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
4,398
Likes
642
I lived in Texas for a short while, and there was a case of a man shooting and killing a gangbanger (might have been two of them) who had broken into his neighbor's house and was in the process of stealing his neighbor's property. And, he had the right to do so. In MA, you can't even arm yourself and confront a trespasser on your own property? It just seems so backwards that anyone could possibly agree with this.
 

MisterHappy

NES Member
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
21,201
Likes
6,049
Location
On the 16 yard line, shootin' for the Lewis!
It is downright disgusting that the laws of this state are such that people even wonder what might happen to this homeowner.

The so called "logic" in these laws is non existent. This event is a prime example. Someone is breaking in. Go hide. When they get to the door you are hiding behind, maybe they will just fire a few rounds through before entering, maybe not. Maybe they will just leave. But their lives are all important.

YOU are not entitled to get a tactical advantage over them by surprising them. Holding them at gunpoint traumatizes them, having to look down a gun barrel.

It creates a "situation", if they call your "bluff" and try to leave, you have to decide whether or not to shoot them. Of course, if they just walk away, you do not have to shoot them, but if they go for a weapon, you must shoot them. YOU created the problem, according to the stupid laws of this state. After all, they were just committing a simple burglary with no intention of shooting anyone, they just brought along their weapons to protect themselves from crazy homeowners that do not have any respect for human life! Sheeesh.

See what a good liberal education will do for you?
Let me state: I think that what the homeowner did was fine.

That being said:

First: his jeopardy comes from the alleged perp being in the garage. If it's a separate building, it's not a /the "dwelling"

Second: if there was nobody in the garage, then the alleged perp was not threatening anyone with death or great bodily harm.

Third: If there was nobody in the garage other than the alleged perp, there was no reason to confront him, and a call to 911 would have been more prudent.


The hypothetical you cite is not what apparently happened (based on the linked article)- there was no break-in of the home itself, and nobody in the home had to hide behind doors or dodge bullets. In that case you'd have an entirely different scenario.


I'm not saying that it is a good state of affairs, but since you have in other threads argued for restraint ( i.e. failure to secure a gun that is unlawfully taken, or OUI ) due to possible bad outcomes, I'd say that since there was no imminet threat to anyone, you should be saying that the homeowner acted badly....just for consistency's sake.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
647
Likes
29
Here's a somewhat related question: What if this were a post-storm scenario, with a power generator in the garage, providing power for the house? Would this in any way affect the garage's being part of the house? Since the power to the house is now in jeopardy, does this change anything?

-Scott
 

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,724
Likes
522
Location
Boston
Wait. I'm reading this thread trying to figure out what the hell it is you guys are talking about, worried about the homeowner getting in trouble. Are you really saying that if someone breaks into your house or trespasses on your property in MA, you can't arm yourself or hold them at gunpoint until the cops show up?
Actually, and limiting the facts to those stated in your query, that is exactly right.

Massachusetts probably privileges the use of non-lethal force to repel a trespasser, whether of the curtilage or the house itself. But if the trespasser or B&E'er tries to leave and you stop him from doing so by the threat of deadly force, Massachusetts would consider this an unprivileged ADW on your part.

Now, before sending a shot my way, go back to note my Point #6.
 

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,724
Likes
522
Location
Boston
From how I read it, the douche was clearly breaking into the garage. Thats B&E/NT all day long in my book and thats a felony, not misdemeanor. Whether the courts undercharged or not (libtarded asshats), at the time of the incident it was a felony and the homeowner should be all set. Hopefully anyways.....
Why "all set"?

Massachusetts does not recognize a privilege to use deadly force to effect a citizen's arrest for a felony. If you add facts making out a threat of serious bodily injury to self or a third-party, that might be a different story, but the OP's event, as reported, was devoid of any basis for perceiving such a threat.
 

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,724
Likes
522
Location
Boston
Here's a somewhat related question: What if this were a post-storm scenario, with a power generator in the garage, providing power for the house? Would this in any way affect the garage's being part of the house? Since the power to the house is now in jeopardy, does this change anything?

-Scott
I think you (and a few others) are asking the wrong question. This issue isn't whether the bad guy had invaded an abode for purposes of the statute. The issue is whether he presented a threat of death or serious bodily injury to a lawful occupant. Remember: all the statute does is remove the obligation to flee on the part of the lawful occupant. In essence, the statute negates an exception, but negating an exception does not by itself make the general case.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
610
Likes
64
Let me state: I think that what the homeowner did was fine.

That being said:

First: his jeopardy comes from the alleged perp being in the garage. If it's a separate building, it's not a /the "dwelling"

Second: if there was nobody in the garage, then the alleged perp was not threatening anyone with death or great bodily harm.

Third: If there was nobody in the garage other than the alleged perp, there was no reason to confront him, and a call to 911 would have been more prudent.


The hypothetical you cite is not what apparently happened (based on the linked article)- there was no break-in of the home itself, and nobody in the home had to hide behind doors or dodge bullets. In that case you'd have an entirely different scenario.


I'm not saying that it is a good state of affairs, but since you have in other threads argued for restraint ( i.e. failure to secure a gun that is unlawfully taken, or OUI ) due to possible bad outcomes, I'd say that since there was no imminet threat to anyone, you should be saying that the homeowner acted badly....just for consistency's sake.
These were my thoughts as well. I think what he did SHOULD be perfectly fine, but I think even if I lived in a free state I would have handled the situation differently.

That's just based on the information we've been told about the case, though... For all we know, the guy could have come in through the garage, entered the house, threatened to kill the homeowner and then went back out into the garage after seeing the gun.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2011
Messages
4,542
Likes
762
Location
MA
I thought that the standard for a citizens arrest (if that's how it's being categorized) was a felony 'in fact committed'

I just hope they aren't undercharging to set up the homeowner.
Why "all set"?

Massachusetts does not recognize a privilege to use deadly force to effect a citizen's arrest for a felony. If you add facts making out a threat of serious bodily injury to self or a third-party, that might be a different story, but the OP's event, as reported, was devoid of any basis for perceiving such a threat.
Can you cite any references - statute or case law - related to "citizens arrest"?
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,841
Likes
2,320
That details a lot about the basis for citizen's arrests but I don't believe it deals with the use of deadly force. For that one needs only to look at the citizens arrest statute in MA for the details there. I don't believe the issue of deadly force and citizen's arrests has shown itself in the courts, at least not recently. I could search and may find stuff from the 1700 and 1800s where citizens arrests were more common but I hold out no warranty that it exists or that it doesn't.
 

Roland Deschain

NES Member
Rating - 100%
52   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
7,053
Likes
7,264
That details a lot about the basis for citizen's arrests but I don't believe it deals with the use of deadly force. For that one needs only to look at the citizens arrest statute in MA for the details there. I don't believe the issue of deadly force and citizen's arrests has shown itself in the courts, at least not recently. I could search and may find stuff from the 1700 and 1800s where citizens arrests were more common but I hold out no warranty that it exists or that it doesn't.
I totally agree. I wasn't trying to point out the deadly force aspect. I've never seen anything that addresses it either.

My only point is that if they don't consider it a 'felony', he may have bigger problems prior addressing any use of force component.

Before anyone takes my post out of context. I'm a 'Home is my castle' kind of guy, and support any measures taken to defend oneself in a situation like this.
 
Last edited:

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,841
Likes
2,320
I totally agree. I wasn't trying to point out the deadly force aspect. I've never seen anything that addresses it either.
Yup, just pointing it out for those who were invariably going to say to you it was not enough.
 

FSTC

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
3,214
Likes
536
Location
N. Central Mass.
I totally agree. I wasn't trying to point out the deadly force aspect. I've never seen anything that addresses it either.

My only point is that if they don't consider it a 'felony', he may have bigger problems prior addressing any use of force component.

Before anyone takes my post out of context. I'm a 'Home is my castle' kind of guy, and support any measures taken to defend oneself in a situation like this.
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/147970-Self-Defense-Jury-Instructions?highlight=self+defense+jury+instructions
Self Defense Jury Instructions
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,841
Likes
2,320

warwickben

bubba Kalashnikov
NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
19,904
Likes
2,616
Location
Kyben pass (tewksbury ma)
Im I understanding this right. if some one breaks in to my house I can threaten them with my gun to stop doing what there doing, that's fine... but if I keep my gun drawn and stop them from leaving I can get in trouble?
So mass would rather have you escort a felon off your land and most likely the cops never find them...
If that's the case I'll make them give me there i.d befor making them leave lol.


What if I come down stairs see a guy trying to steal my laptop in my computer room. Can I just lock them in the room and wait for the cops?


Im not trying to throw gas o a fire just clear a few things up..





Send it!
 
Last edited:

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,841
Likes
2,320
Im I understanding this right. if some one breaks in to my house I can threaten them with my gun to stop doing what there doing, that's fine... but if I keep my gun drawn and stop them from leaving I can get in trouble?
So mass would rather have you escort a felon off your land and most likely the cops never find them...
If that's the case I'll make them give me there i.d befor making them leave lol.


What if I come down stairs see a guy trying to steal my laptop in my computer room. Can I just lock them in the room and wait for the cops?


Im not trying to throw gas o a fire just clear a few things up..





Send it!
No, you can't even draw your gun unless the person is threatening you with deadly force. Technically. All the castle doctrine does is mean you don't have to run away. It doesn't give you police powers nor does it later the equal force doctrine.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
2,521
Likes
285
Maybe I'm naive, but I like to think there'd be significnt political fallout from charging a homeowner for not shooting a robber in his garage. Even in Massachusetts.
 

warwickben

bubba Kalashnikov
NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
19,904
Likes
2,616
Location
Kyben pass (tewksbury ma)
Lol...kinda sad that your options are
1 pray you spook the perp and he runs.
2 worry about proving "in self defense"
3 prove you didn't kidnap the perp
4 help the guy move your junk to his car

I should of said , if I legally drew my gun. I forgot I'm in mass still.





Send it!
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
131
Likes
15
1)
4) Massachusetts has some strange rules about a citizen's arrest. Basically, it does not recognize a privilege for a citizen to arrest for a misdemeanor and it does not recognize a citizen's use of deadly force to effect any arrest.
IANAL, but this from the Self Defense Jury Instructions (http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...ions?highlight=self+defense+jury+instructions):

A person may use deadly
force to make a citizen’s arrest only if:


First, he (she) believes that such force is necessary to
make a lawful arrest;

Second, the arrest is for a felony;

Third, either he (she) announces the purpose of the arrest
or believes it is already known to the person being arrested or
believes it cannot reasonably be made known to the person
being arrested;

Fourth, either he (she) is assisting a person whom he (she)
believes is a peace officer; or he (she) is a peace officer;

Fifth, he (she) believes there is no substantial risk of injury
to innocent persons;

Sixth, he (she) believes that the person being arrested
used or threatened to use force in committing the felony;

Seventh, he (she) believes that there is a substantial risk
that the person being arrested will cause death or serious bodily
harm to someone if he (she) is not immediately arrested.

The fifth paragraph is the stickiest, though. Again, IANAL. Could you argue that you called 911 and were assisting the unamed policeman who was going to arrive.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
131
Likes
15
Oops, meant the fourth paragraph is the stickiest. Same comment applies...
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,841
Likes
2,320
Four means its not really a citizens arrest. That statute is really to provide legal cover for cops outside their town. It's not for us plebes to use.
 
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
712
Likes
90
Location
Holyoke, ma
I`m curious if you had held a bat to the intruder but didn't swing wouldn't it be the same. So maybe lose rights to sports. Or how about a knife lose rights to cook. The way I see it ( which I'm obviously wrong for looking at this in a simple type of view) but a gun is just a tool like any of the other mentioned tools and how you use it would dictate deadly force. Since he didn't use deadly force what's the issue. I remember clearly in the Corps that deadly force is " that force used on a person to cause death, substantial risk of death, or serious bodily harm. . . SIR" No one ever said making someone $H!T themselves was illegal.
 
Top Bottom