Was he really in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury from an unarmed 15-year-old on the other side of a door?
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Chicopee shooting victim was a 15-year-old, alleged 'intruder'; homeowner arrested
- Thread starter Reptile
- Start date
- Status
Was he really in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury from an unarmed 15-year-old on the other side of a door?
GlockJock
NES Member
You? Hope to be called for jury duty? In Massachusetts?
"Juror candidate number seven: Do you belong to and social media groups or internet chat forums?"
"Just Twitter, sir.....Oh, and NortheastShooters also".
"Your Honor, the Commonwealth moves to dismiss this juror candidate".
"Motion allowed. Candidate, please leave the courtroom immediately... And thank you for your service... Next candidate, please step forward".
(Just sayin')
+1
Shoot through the door at an unarmed 15-year-old? Really? You think that is the right response?
JayMcB
NES Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 22,364
- Likes
- 109,139
no, and the homeowner is going to jail for his mistake
NHCraigT
NES Member
I know nothing about the incident, nor do I know exactly how I would react.
That being said = What if that "kid" was in the process of smashing through the door (to break in), and all Mr. X could see was a large figure through door curtains/glass, trying with all his might, to kick the door in - while his family and kids were home (and he panicked)?
(Not condoning his response, just posting a hypothetical thought....)
That being said = What if that "kid" was in the process of smashing through the door (to break in), and all Mr. X could see was a large figure through door curtains/glass, trying with all his might, to kick the door in - while his family and kids were home (and he panicked)?
(Not condoning his response, just posting a hypothetical thought....)
GlockJock
NES Member
That's why we have juries... and as a side note, any reference to the victim's age are irrelevant.....the shooter didn't ask to see ID from the individual who was attempting to gain entry to the accused's dwelling.
Also, the "only 15 yrs old" thing is completely irrelevant, since one doesn't have to be of any minimum age to commit a violent crime. There have been many killers thru history who killed before they were old enough to drive.
I'm not NOT defending killing an unarmed teen by shooting through a door, but can we at least have as much as an arraignment before tarring, feathering and/or throwing this guy off of a building or burning him alive in a cage?
Bad judgment and rush to judgment are often synonymous.
There are Amendments other than the 2nd that make up the Bill of Rights....6A says something about trial, fairness, etc... We weren't there, we don't know the shooter's mental state. Was his home broken into many times? Was he recently threatened by a friend of this victim or by someone who looks exactly like the victim? etc... Or he could be a meth dealer who thought it was a robbery and therefore is a dirtbag who will serve a long sentence....
All of which will come out during a trial, which, in this country anyways usually takes place in a semi-air conditioned courtroom in front of a jury of your peers...versus in the sand, in the middle of a road in front of an angry village mob... while the "judge" lifts himself up from the rug he was kneeling on and a "jury of one" sharpens his sword (as both of them finish their opening remarks with "Akhbar")...
You need to have a really good steel door to prevent you from ever shooting though it.
I know that readers are reacting from the gut about an attempted home invasion, but the law in all but one state (TX) doesn't allow you to shoot thru doors at people outside your house without a clear and distinct threat to human life.
Read Atty. Andrew Branca's book "The Law of Self Defense", it covers all 50 states and tells you what is legal and what will put you in jail. I've read the book, taken his seminar and graduated his instructor training program (eventually I'll put a course together). It's all very eye-opening. As an alternative take the NRA Personal Protection in the Home course from an instructor who really knows the law of self defense (I teach this, next class is October) and doesn't just gloss over the legal aspects (per NRA-supposed to be taught by attorney or LEO knowledgeable about self-defense and gun laws in the state it is taught).
Read Atty. Andrew Branca's book "The Law of Self Defense", it covers all 50 states and tells you what is legal and what will put you in jail. I've read the book, taken his seminar and graduated his instructor training program (eventually I'll put a course together). It's all very eye-opening. As an alternative take the NRA Personal Protection in the Home course from an instructor who really knows the law of self defense (I teach this, next class is October) and doesn't just gloss over the legal aspects (per NRA-supposed to be taught by attorney or LEO knowledgeable about self-defense and gun laws in the state it is taught).
I had a great instructor, who is still on NES, who did not have to teach me how to shoot. He gave me many valuable lessons on how to control myself in the state of MA. I will never forget him or his lessons. He was outstanding!!!! Thank you again!
xtry51
NES Member
JFC. Why not just cower in place?
I love how you just make an assumption that he didn't identify the target.
Ever heard of windows?
Maybe he opened the door first and saw them, then closed it and they tried to break in.
Maybe it was a screen door?
Second, I don't know anyone that would try to actively break my door in, so I really have no problem with shooting through a door. When was the last time you had someone who wasn't a criminal try to break your door?
Similar sort of thing happened to a friend of a friend. Guy was home and two people knocked on the door with a made up (obviously) story (turns out that they'd just fled another residence) - he refused entry (didn't open the door in other words in spite of repeated knocking). Turns out later when they were
caught that they were armed and had just committed a home invasion. Lucky guy.
caught that they were armed and had just committed a home invasion. Lucky guy.
Palladin
NES Member
this. not a good shoot
Good luck to you.
The one most important point that Atty. Andy Branca makes in his book and seminars is that "it isn't just MA"! He points out that doing what you advocate will get you into a courtroom on serious criminal charges in 49 states (TX being the exception).
It may sound and feel good but the American legal system takes a very dim view of that sort of action.
I'm neither defending or condemning what you say . . . I focus on what the laws allow and let the reader (or my students) decide what to do or not on their own.
Palladin
NES Member
And we all remember these fine lads who came knocking at the front door.....
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/good-deed-bad-good-deed-bad-article-1.1881655
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/good-deed-bad-good-deed-bad-article-1.1881655
Fine. I'll put it another way.
Feel free to take your own advice. Go ahead and shoot through a door. Then come tell us how it worked out.
I thought not.
Why? Because shooting through a door, on top of being illegal and unsafe, is a horrific idea. There are dozens of better ways to handle the same situation that don't put anybody at risk. I swear, some of you folks just sound as though you're itching to shoot somebody.
Go ahead and call it "cowering." I'd MUCH rather cower in my home and not shoot anyone than cower in prison as I try to avoid getting raped. Of course, YMMV.
xtry51
NES Member
It is not unsafe to shoot through a door, in any way, other than for the person on the other side. Your pandering to feelings about "safeness" during an attempted break in show you'd rather accommodate a criminal than simply ensure personal safety. Which is ludicrous.
ETA: I also love how you try to portray people who prefer actual safety of themselves like a liberal: "trigger happy", "just want to kill someone". This was a break in, not a Jehovah's Witness knocking door to door.
Last edited:
I believe that you skipped the whole "presumption of innocence" section of our judicial system but then, that is modus operandi on NES. Thus the whole "psgwsp" mantra that the driveling imbeciles pound out despite any dissection of evidence or due process. The same people who complain about bias in the msm turn around and take their reporting as gospel when it fits their agenda. That is childish and stupid. I hate it.
Jason Flare
NES Member
This person banging on the door and breaking the glass: What tipped you off that he was 15 and unarmed?
xtry51
NES Member
I love how people act like a 15 year old human is somehow like a toddler. Yes, a 15yo is dangerous. When I was 15 I was in ridiculous shape an could easily have over powered most adults.
I'm sure this woman and her daughter didn't think that "children" were dangerous either. At least until they chopped her up.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/four-teens-charged-in-small-town-machete-murder-of-mom/
We'll agree to disagree; you play this your way and I'll play it mine. But you'll be the one in the courtroom, not I.
As always, you understand that your decisions have consequences. The consequences of shooting through a door at a drunk kid who presents no imminent threat are something you'd all do well to think about.
xtry51
NES Member
Pretty big assumption you made there.
I didnt say it was right. The owner felt threatened enough to make that decision......
What he felt and thought are what brought him to make that decision....
He doesnt know if they are armed or what age they are.... if thats the agument then the police have a lot of explaining to do for killing 15 year olds.,,,no.
Its hard to make the "right" decision under fear, this is life. Its when these things happen under Anger and hate its a real problem.
if its found the home owner shot the 15 year old knowing who he was and was just pissed the kid was pounding on his door I say tosss the book at him. If he truly felt and thought his only option to protect himself and the who ever else was in the house it needs different treatment.
Im just tired of a double standard if we use this "wait to see what the real threat is for civilians it should be applied to the police also.
If we use some examples
The off duty police office in NY who shot the man for getting punched in the face at the traffic light....was shooting the man who punched him the right thing to do? Why not just exit the vehicle and run? Or is it wrong to say a tough NY cop cant handle a few punches? See its a cluster ****.... I know you can easily be kill by a few blows to the head and you really dont kniow how far an attack on is going to go....who know after a few good punches to the head maybe that guy would have stopped and walked away?
It all comes down to what you need to do in that split secound that you feel or think is right.
Im sure both parties would love to go back and change their decisions for that day.
If you remove the bolded section in the post you cited, it doesn't even remotely change my meaning. You'll still be in court because it's still illegal.
and yes, it's an assumption I'll make because I place a lot of significance on not killing people needlessly. So I'll make that assumption every time... From cover, with my gun ready.
and yes, it's an assumption I'll make because I place a lot of significance on not killing people needlessly. So I'll make that assumption every time... From cover, with my gun ready.
Last edited:
Terrible outcome. Not sure how the homeowner going to be able to tell the guy banging on his door and breaking his window was unarmed never mind 15. however my opinion is Id tell them loudly that you break in, you will be facing me with a gun , have someone dialing 911 or me doing it at the same time. if they came thru then that changes the game, going thru the door Im not big on if I dont know whats on the other side, plus it never ends well for the home owner her in Mass
PaulR
NES Member
As someone said earlier, sucks all around.
Reading about it after the fact takes the emotion out. No matter how amped up the situation was, and no matter how much fear he was in, anyone that's taken the MA LTC course should know he had a duty to retreat.
I don't think Murder is the right charge though, seems like manslaughter to me, but then again I'm not a lawyer.
Reading about it after the fact takes the emotion out. No matter how amped up the situation was, and no matter how much fear he was in, anyone that's taken the MA LTC course should know he had a duty to retreat.
I don't think Murder is the right charge though, seems like manslaughter to me, but then again I'm not a lawyer.
No, they don't. The ROE are different, whether by law or by precedent I personally don't know but certainly the CJ system treats them very differently (uniformly across the US).
- Status
