Chicopee shooting victim was a 15-year-old, alleged 'intruder'; homeowner arrested

[Mass-diver]

Imagine this scenario...

Drunk 15 year old breaks the glass and opens the door.

He is obviously drunk, slurring speech, stumbling, no weapons in his hands.

You have a drunk idiot in your house.

If that was the extent of the situation - would you feel that you are in imminent and unavoidable threat of grievous bodily injury or death?

In MA, even in that situation you must prove you were in Jeopardy.

Also consider escalation of force. Is it appropriate to shoot an unarmed intruder?

You yell at the guy and he still won't leave?

Is it really necessary to shoot at that point?

Even if "you get away with it" - is it really worth it?

Your name will be all over the internet and you and your family will go through hell even if you are not charged.

In college towns in MA, there have been about 3 police calls for drunks entering homes in the past 12 months.

None of those ended in death or injury.

If the drunk guy became violent and I was in fear for my life I would have to escalate my response.

It may take a while but this Chicopee guy will really feel sorry for killing this kid and it could take years off his life even if he is found not guilty.

I don't think he will be convicted of murder if he goes to trial.

He would more likely get convicted of manslaughter and get 10 years - out in 5.

He should plead this out and accept a 5 year prison sentence.

Have we seen a blood alcohol level on the kid? Personally, I view the whole "we were drunk and went to the wrong house" story with skepticism.

While legally, you can't shoot someone for breaking into your house, on a moral level I don't have an issue with it.

Guess we'll see at trial, if that happens.

 

[joeb41]

What an idiot! The 15 yr old was doing things we all have probably done at that age, he didn't have to kill him. Now he has not only ruined the boy's and his family's life but his own.

 

[xtry51]

Have we seen a blood alcohol level on the kid? Personally, I view the whole "we were drunk and went to the wrong house" story with skepticism.

While legally, you can't shoot someone for breaking into your house, on a moral level I don't have an issue with it.

Guess we'll see at trial, if that happens.

This is exactly my point. Something being "legal" does not make it moral. When people sit here and spout "the law says" blindly, instead of giving actual life advice, it gets under my skin. How about we teach people to do the right thing and ignore retarded politicians who daily prove they are unfit leaders.

If you personally feel you are in danger, shoot. The location should be irrelevant to self preservation.

- - - Updated - - -

What an idiot! The 15 yr old was doing things we all have probably done at that age, he didn't have to kill him. Now he has not only ruined the boy's and his family's life but his own.

Seriously? How many houses did you break into while a teenager?? Because I've never broken into any.

 

[SpaceCritter]

What an idiot! The 15 yr old was doing things we all have probably done at that age, he didn't have to kill him. Now he has not only ruined the boy's and his family's life but his own.

Pulled some stunts when I was a teenager. Breaking and entering wasn't among them.

 

[Picton]

This is exactly my point. Something being "legal" does not make it moral. When people sit here and spout "the law says" blindly, instead of giving actual life advice, it gets under my skin. How about we teach people to do the right thing and ignore retarded politicians who daily prove they are unfit leaders.

If you personally feel you are in danger, shoot. The location should be irrelevant to self preservation

I understand your position better now. Be honest: do you feel he was right to shoot through the door in this case?

If your answer is yes, then of course the legal discussion is relevant: like anyone, the homeowner needs to be responsible for his actions. A life has ended; that's about as important as it gets, and the "life advice" is that you'd best be ready and willing to deal with the fallout of your decisions, legal as well as moral.

If if your answer is no, then I don't understand why on earth you would have a problem with the "life advice" offered by myself and others: namely, don't shoot through doors.

So what's your answer? And if yes, then are you really "advising" people not to worry about the legal ramifications of taking people's lives? As if that side of the equation shouldn't matter?

 

[SpaceCritter]

I understand your position better now. Be honest: do you feel he was right to shoot through the door in this case?

The public record I've seen on it is as clear a mud.

That said, if the assailant had been banging on the door, and warned away, and the assailant continued to attempt to enter the residence such that glass was broken, then a reasonable man would conclude he and his family were about to be attacked.

 

[Dadstoys]

Again, in MA (and most states), just because he broke into your house doesn't necessarily mean you are justified in shooting him. It just means that you don't have to retreat.

You are correct.
But you would certainly be in a far better position to defend yourself in court.

- - - Updated - - -

What an idiot! The 15 yr old was doing things we all have probably done at that age, he didn't have to kill him. Now he has not only ruined the boy's and his family's life but his own.

I did some pretty off the wall crap.
Home invasion wasn't one of them though.

 

[Goliathan]

Well, the question is whether the kid was actually committing a home invasion in intent, or if he was doing what someone else might have done as a kid: get stupid drunk and make a mistake.

I've never been *that* drunk myself, but I still don't think it rises to the level of deadly force. I like to think that in a similar situation I would respond instead of escalate to that level.

 

[SpaceCritter]

Well, the question is whether the kid was actually committing a home invasion in intent, or if he was doing what someone else might have done as a kid: get stupid drunk and make a mistake.

Why no. The question is, does a REASONABLE PERSON subject to the same circumstances and given the SAMLE KNOWLEDGE AS HE HAD AT THE TIME, perceive it as a threat to his or his family's safety?

 

[Picton]

The public record I've seen on it is as clear a mud.

That said, if the assailant had been banging on the door, and warned away, and the assailant continued to attempt to enter the residence such that glass was broken, then a reasonable man would conclude he and his family were about to be attacked.

I'm a reasonable man, and I would conclude that shooting a round out of a closed door in a densely settled area is fundamentally more reckless than banging on a door, even after a warning. In pretty much all circumstances. Though, again, YMMV.

Shooting blindly in a city is exactly what those panicked cops did in Watertown near the Tsarnaev boat. I think we all agree that was extremely reckless. I've always been amazed no bystanders got ventilated.

 

[Goliathan]

Why no. The question is, does a REASONABLE PERSON subject to the same circumstances and given the SAMLE KNOWLEDGE AS HE HAD AT THE TIME, perceive it as a threat to his or his family's safety?

Fair enough. I would certainly perceive it as a threat, given the same information. But would I consider it a sufficient threat to warrant deadly force? I like to think I would not. I have neighbors. Probably wouldn't save him from a beating, though.

 

[SpaceCritter]

I'm a reasonable man, and I would conclude that shooting a round out of a closed door in a densely settled area is fundamentally more reckless than banging on a door, even after a warning. In pretty much all circumstances. Though, again, YMMV.

Shooting blindly in a city is exactly what those panicked cops did in Watertown near the Tsarnaev boat. I think we all agree that was extremely reckless. I've always been amazed no bystanders got ventilated.

You live in Massachusetts. I'm not at ALL sure you're reasonable.

Again, I haven't seen much in terms of a definitive narrative as to what happened. I CAN tell you that, here in Connecticut, if I heard someone trying to get in to my house, and I called them away, and they BROKE GLASS in trying to get in, they'd probably get blasted. If not by me, than by another member of the family - - ALL of whom carry.

 

[Picton]

You live in Massachusetts. I'm not at ALL sure you're reasonable.

Again, I haven't seen much in terms of a definitive narrative as to what happened. I CAN tell you that, here in Connecticut, if I heard someone trying to get in to my house, and I called them away, and they BROKE GLASS in trying to get in, they'd probably get blasted. If not by me, than by another member of the family - - ALL of whom carry.

Knock yourself out. But PLEASE don't complain when you get prosecuted. And, if you've killed an unarmed person who turns out never to have been a threat to your life, I hope you sleep fine at night.

Me, I'd just as soon not take the chance. If the perp kicks in my door and I'm waiting for him, a new door is cheap by comparison. Sorry if this makes me a coward, but I'm not particularly eager to take anyone's life.

 

[SpaceCritter]

Knock yourself out. But PLEASE don't complain when you get prosecuted. And, if you've killed an unarmed person who turns out never to have been a threat to your life, I hope you sleep fine at night.

Me, I'd just as soon not take the chance. If the perp kicks in my door and I'm waiting for him, a new door is cheap by comparison. Sorry if this makes me a coward, but I'm not particularly eager to take anyone's life.

Nor am I. But YOU are part of the problem.

 

[Picton]

Nor am I. But YOU are part of the problem.

Problem why? Because I've got an opinion that differs from yours, or because I appear to define "responsible gun handling" differently than you do? Exactly how do I contribute to "the problem?"

Your rhetoric makes no sense to me, and I suspect you can't explain why you addressed that statement to me. It just made a good sound byte.

 

[CCW]

I thought the perp had a gun and was pointing it at me, while threatening to kill me.

Enough for a Jury to say not guilty.

Maybe...if you're talking about a cop on trial...a normal guy....not so much

 

[SpaceCritter]

Problem why? Because I've got an opinion that differs from yours, or because I appear to define "responsible gun handling" differently than you do? Exactly how do I contribute to "the problem?"

Your rhetoric makes no sense to me, and I suspect you can't explain why you addressed that statement to me. It just made a good sound byte.

Oh, GAWD, you sound like such a ****ing snowflake. "Because I have an opinion that differs from yours."

Probably because you're defending someone who is BREAKING AND ENTERING.

 

[Picton]

Oh, GAWD, you sound like such a ****ing snowflake. "Because I have an opinion that differs from yours."

Probably because you're defending someone who is BREAKING AND ENTERING.

You're making a logical fallacy. Just because I think the homeowner made an unforgivably bad decision that nobody should ever repeat doesn't mean I'm "defending" the guy who got shot. Actually, I think they're both monumental idiots who each deserve prison. But not death. See the difference now?

So let me calm you down before you get even more worked up: if that's why you think I'm such a problem, you're starting from a bad premise.

 

[CCW]

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.

MA basic safety classes do not address lethal force scenarios. If they do the instructor is most likely adding it in to the state approved content. The duty to retreat is outside the home only.

 

[SpaceCritter]

You're making a logical fallacy. Just because I think the homeowner made an unforgivably bad decision that nobody should ever repeat doesn't mean I'm "defending" the guy who got shot. Actually, I think they're both monumental idiots who each deserve prison. But not death. See the difference now?

So let me calm you down before you get even more worked up: if that's why you think I'm such a problem, you're starting from a bad premise.

I have read plenty of Ayn Rand, so please spare me the bad premises shit .

Under the law, at least until the perversion of such we've seen, the standard has been that of the "reasonable man." That is, under the same circumstances and with the same knowledge, how would any reasonable man act?

 

[Johnny English]

Problem why? Because I've got an opinion that differs from yours, or because I appear to define "responsible gun handling" differently than you do? Exactly how do I contribute to "the problem?"

Your rhetoric makes no sense to me, and I suspect you can't explain why you addressed that statement to me. It just made a good sound byte.

From my point of view, your definition of "responsible gun handling" requires a level of pre-cognisance that does not exist. Perhaps you are a super sentient being that can detect what others can't see.

How the hell is the average person to know that someone trying to break into their house is either unarmed or a teenager......like teenagers are not at all a threat to your life.

What are you supposed to do? Let them break in and demand they answer a few questions as to their age and what weapons they may possess before you come back with an educated and reasonable response to their drunken desires to take your shit and probably mess with your family and yourself? Perhaps you would point out their lawlessness for consuming alcohol as a minor and violating someones property, going so far as to cause damage. Perhaps sit them down and deliver a homily and make them see the error of their ways as they respond humbled into shame and swear, honest injun, to be a better person.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Knock yourself out. But PLEASE don't complain when you get prosecuted. And, if you've killed an unarmed person who turns out never to have been a threat to your life, I hope you sleep fine at night.

Me, I'd just as soon not take the chance. If the perp kicks in my door and I'm waiting for him, a new door is cheap by comparison. Sorry if this makes me a coward, but I'm not particularly eager to take anyone's life.

YOU sure are part of the problem !

 

[CCW]

From my point of view, your definition of "responsible gun handling" requires a level of pre-cognisance that does not exist. Perhaps you are a super sentient being that can detect what others can't see.

How the hell is the average person to know that someone trying to break into their house is either unarmed or a teenager......like teenagers are not at all a threat to your life.

What are you supposed to do? Let them break in and demand they answer a few questions as to their age and what weapons they may possess before you come back with an educated and reasonable response to their drunken desires to take your shit and probably mess with your family and yourself? Perhaps you would point out their lawlessness for consuming alcohol as a minor and violating someones property, going so far as to cause damage. Perhaps sit them down and deliver a homily and make them see the error of their ways as they respond humbled into shame and swear, honest injun, to be a better person.

Do we know the kid was really trying to break in? The glass may have broken due to loud drunken knocking. I'm not defending the kid but I see this as a 100% bad shoot legally, morally, ethically and any other way you could slice it. This shooter is headed to jail.

 

[Picton]

From my point of view, your definition of "responsible gun handling" requires a level of pre-cognisance that does not exist. Perhaps you are a super sentient being that can detect what others can't see.

How the hell is the average person to know that someone trying to break into their house is either unarmed or a teenager......like teenagers are not at all a threat to your life.

What are you supposed to do? Let them break in and demand they answer a few questions as to their age and what weapons they may possess before you come back with an educated and reasonable response to their drunken desires to take your shit and probably mess with your family and yourself? Perhaps you would point out their lawlessness for consuming alcohol as a minor and violating someones property, going so far as to cause damage. Perhaps sit them down and deliver a homily and make them see the error of their ways as they respond humbled into shame and swear, honest injun, to be a better person.

I explained this already. In my opinion, shooting blind is completely irresponsible pretty much always.

So my basic rule of thumb in this kind of situation? Shoot at a person, not at a door you can't see through. Crouch behind cover at the top of the stairs or at the end of the hall, draw a bead, flip off the safety, and wait until there's something worth shooting at.

Like an emergent, imminent threat to your life and limb.

Those of you anxious to put a cap in a robber can do so; just wait until you can see him. You know, so that you can shoot him accurately. I'm not understanding why that's such a weird concept for some of you.

 

[Picton]

YOU sure are part of the problem !

You too?

Feel free to shoot some perp through a door. Then report back on how that worked out for you.

This is wearing me out, guys. I'm off to put the kids to bed.

 

[Johnny English]

I explained this already. In my opinion, shooting blind is completely irresponsible pretty much always.

So my basic rule of thumb in this kind of situation? Shoot at a person, not at a door you can't see through. Crouch behind cover at the top of the stairs or at the end of the hall, draw a bead, flip off the safety, and wait until there's something worth shooting at.

Like an emergent, imminent threat to your life and limb.

Those of you anxious to put a cap in a robber can do so; just wait until you can see him. You know, so that you can shoot him accurately. I'm not understanding why that's such a weird concept for some of you.

So, someone who is breaking into your house gets a free pass........You want to wait until you have an identified target so that you can say that you engaged in meaningful discussion, and waited before you saw the whites of his eyes before you shot, make it some sort of grazing shot so you can give him the chance to be aware of the error of his ways, and he can be grateful to be shown right from wrong.

This guy shot from fear for what could happen to him and his family. The kid in question PSG and WSP.

That's how it works.

 

[Picton]

So, someone who is breaking into your house gets a free pass........You want to wait until you have an identified target so that you can say that you engaged in meaningful discussion, and waited before you saw the whites of his eyes before you shot, make it some sort of grazing shot so you can give him the chance to be aware of the error of his ways, and he can be grateful to be shown right from wrong.

This guy shot from fear for what could happen to him and his family. The kid in question PSG and WSP.

That's how it works.

Y'all love putting words in my mouth. I don't think the perp deserves a free pass for any of this, nor have I ever said so. Discussion? Grazing shot? All that comes from you, not from me. The difference between you and I is that I don't think he deserved death; you appear to, and allegedly so did the homeowner. And he should most definitely answer for that decision in court.

But generally, no. I don't believe in shooting at someone preemptively. I'm an old infantryman: I believe in cover and concealment, then rapid assessment, then action if needed. That's just how I roll; clearly we differ on that, but it worked for me once on a two-way shooting range. So I'll go with that experience, thanks, rather than NES posters' ad hominem suggestions.

Shooting at someone is something I've done, and though I sleep just fine at night, it's not an experience I particularly want to repeat.

YMMV. Good night; I really do have better things to do.

 

[Goliathan]

There's something wrong with waiting until you have an identified target...?

 

[jmhorrible]

There's something wrong with waiting until you have an identified target...?

All these keyboard warriors would rather piss themselves and shoot blindly through a door. What ever happened to identify your target?

It doesn't matter if this kid was 15 or 35, this was a bad shoot and this guy will, rightly, pay the price.

 

[10thSFFD]

So, someone who is breaking into your house gets a free pass........You want to wait until you have an identified target so that you can say that you engaged in meaningful discussion, and waited before you saw the whites of his eyes before you shot, make it some sort of grazing shot so you can give him the chance to be aware of the error of his ways, and he can be grateful to be shown right from wrong.

This guy shot from fear for what could happen to him and his family. The kid in question PSG and WSP.

That's how it works.

Unless you adjust it, this type of thinking may create huge issue for you.