Doctor Shoots Husband on Cape Cod

[Producer]

http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/policedoctor9.htm

http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/updates/

I know this person. I have always known her as a very good person. The short story (from rumors, speculation) is that her husband started beating on her, so she shot him in the stomach, twice, killing him. What's the general chances she will go free? I find it hard to believe a Jury will convict her.

A few of us MA LTC's are in a debate that if some one is beating you up, badly, with no weapon, do you have the right to pull your gun and kill? I always thought there had to be a weapon involved.

-Bradley

 

[pdm]

I think the operative question for using deadly force is "were you in fear for your life or the life of another at the time?" -- though YMMV with that.

 

[M1911]

Take a look at her face in this picture:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/04/police_doctor_s.html

Hard to say what a jury will do and I sure wouldn't want to be in her position.

 

[drgrant]

A few of us MA LTC's are in a debate that if some one is beating you up, badly, with no weapon, do you have the right to pull your gun and kill? I always thought there had to be a weapon involved.

-Bradley

There isn't any standard in MA law about there "having to be a weapon" . I
always thought the law said "An imminent threat of serious bodily
harm" or something to that effect. A woman who is trapped and being
beaten up would certainly qualify for that. If she is trapped she
can't even make any attempt at escape/retreat.

Further, the objective of using a firearm is not necessarily "to kill" but to
get the attacker to stop whatever it is that they're doing. If the BG
dies that ends up being merely a side effect.

-Mike

 

[Adam_MA]

That picture, along with battered womens syndrome on her side, and I think she'll be just fine.

BTW, good for her if she was getting beaten!

 

[Admin]

Dr. Ann Gryboski, 51, told police that she reached a breaking point Sunday afternoon when she tried to break up a heated argument between one of her grown sons and her husband, Patrick Lancaster, 50.

"As she attempted to intercede, [Lancaster] began coming towards her," the police report says, recounting Gryboski's version of events. "She fired two shots, striking him in the side and torso."

The prosecutor is going to have a field day with this...

 

[FPrice]

"There are mitigating factors surrounding this event," said Michael O'Keefe, the Cape and Islands district attorney, in a press conference outside court.

It relates to (if I remember the phrase correctly and it's applicability) "disparity of force". Basically, a 5' 110 lb woman is more likely to be found not guilty of murder in shooting a 6' 220 lb man who is attacking her with fists since the man can very easily over-power her and cause great damage of death. However, if the roles ar reversed, it would be much harder for the 6' man to be found not guilty of murder for shooting a 5' woman who is just using her fists.

I think she will win, especially in this state.

 

[Jose]

I find it telling that charges are being pressed in what appears to be a clean cut self defense case. Seems to be the default position in Massachusetts: shoot in self defense > spend the night in jail.

In most jurisdictions she would not have been arrested, barring any unusual circumstances like crime scene evidence that just did not square with her account.

Being physically assaulted by someone with a strength and/or skill advantage is definitely a factor that justifies the perception of a high likelyhood of death or severe bodily harm on the victim's part.

 

[EddieCoyle]

I saw her on the news at noon. She looked liked she'd had the crap beaten out of her.

 

[Tweed]

how was the gun stored? did she have to get it out of a safe to use it, or was she packing while cooking Easter dinner? if they had to go to a safe to get it out, why not just leave? was a 911 call made before it was necessary to use the firearm? there will be a lot of questions.

 

[M1911]

A few of us MA LTC's are in a debate that if some one is beating you up, badly, with no weapon, do you have the right to pull your gun and kill? I always thought there had to be a weapon involved.

You are not correct. There is no such requirement.

In order to be justified in the use of deadly force, you, or another innocent, must be in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. There is no requirement that a weapon be involved. Whether or not you were danger of death or grave bodily injury is clearly a judgment call and there are few absolutes.

As others have pointed out, there could be disparity of force: e.g., 18-year-old 300 lb lineman against a frail 80-year-old man, three against one, etc.

That said, in a situation where one able-bodied man is being attacked by an unarmed, able-bodied man, you may well have a hard time convincing the DA and/or jury that you were justified in using deadly force.

 

[matt1956]

how was the gun stored?

IWB

did she have to get it out of a safe to use it, or was she packing while cooking Easter dinner?

Why not? Never know when a home invador may attack (or the dog may go for the ham and youll have to save easter dinner)

if they had to go to a safe to get it out, why not just leave?

Cause she didnt want to burn dinner

was a 911 call made before it was necessary to use the firearm?

um... im guessing that things went down rather quick, and the PD is typically no help anyway.

there will be a lot of questions.

Of course there will... this is MA. Persecute the victims and feel bad for the bg

 

[Len-2A Training]

Jose, MGL makes it an "affirmative defense" (translation: you get charged with murder and perhaps a lot of other things and YOU can raise the self-defense issue to mitigate the charges), not a "free pass" on a good shoot.

No doubt the Grand Jury (who only hears the prosecutor's side of the case) will indict and she gets her day in court a year or so later. Meanwhile her MD license will almost certainly get suspended and her practice will be terminated until it is all over and done. To put it bluntly, her financial and career situation is ruined even when she's acquitted. Status of her LTC is extremely iffy once it is all over and done with, but it will be the least of her problems.

 

[matt1956]

and while gunshots appear to be the cause of Lancaster's death, a preliminary confirmation of that is expected today.

um... was she that bad of a cook? Just seems like a rather dumb statment IMO.

here's my take...

If the guy was consistantly beating her. (judging by her face) then she very well may have felt she had no other option.

And, if the man was attcking her/their son, she may have finally felt that it had gone too far.

I'm sure there is so much more to this, but on the first impression... looks like she was in the right.

 

[dwarven1]

Take a look at her face in this picture.

Bet you anything that the prosecution will NOT let that the jury see it...

and that they raise the point (from one of the articles) that the victim was seen on crutches and/or using a walker recently, too.

 

[Garys]

Further, the objective of using a firearm is not necessarily "to kill" but to
get the attacker to stop whatever it is that they're doing. If the BG
dies that ends up being merely a side effect.

-Mike

This is a really important distinction. Police officers are not shot to "shoot to kill". Or if they are, there training staff needs a collective ! Police officers are taught "Shoot until the threat is eliminated". As you point out, if the perpetrator dies, that's an unfortunate, but totally unavoidable side effect.

Gary

 

[Garys]

Bet you anything that the prosecution will NOT let that the jury see it...

and that they raise the point (from one of the articles) that the victim was seen on crutches and/or using a walker recently, too.

The prosecution might not let that picture in, but you can be damned sure that the defense attorney will. You can also be sure that he will leak that and other pictures to the media.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Grand Jury no bills her.

Gary

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Think anyone with an LTC will get on her jury?

 

[M1911]

Think anyone with an LTC will get on her jury?

Just through luck of the draw, I doubt it. Not as many people have LTCs. There's about 4.9M adults in MA. What percentage of them are registered to vote? Let's guess 60%. That's about 3M.

How many LTC holders are there? If someone can come up with that figure, we can work out the probability that no one called to the jury will have an LTC.

 

[sksguns]

It's kind of funny.....she probably had the gun to protect her family......she probably never thought she would need to protect herself from her family.

A guy hitting on his wife or any woman...that's not cool. I suppose there are extreme crcumstances like if a woman was trying to abduct your child...by all means kick the crap out of her and get her arrested.

I wonder if the kid saw anything.....

If you feel you need to hit your wife it's time to file the divorce papers. It's not worth any jail time or killing anyone....not to me anyway....

My wife could be 4entertaining five guys in my bedrooom and I can walk in on them......three thoughts go through my mind...

1. Why wasn't I invited....(oh, like none of you thought it...)
2. To the men...be careful what you wish for...you just might get it...
3. Free for the rest of my life to fish in Florida...

 

[dwarven1]

Just through luck of the draw, I doubt it. Not as many people have LTCs. There's about 4.9M adults in MA. What percentage of them are registered to vote? Let's guess 60%. That's about 3M.

Ah, yes. The old "ya gotta be registered to vote to get selected for jury duty" myth. According to the paperwork they handed out to us, they get their list of names from the annual census that your city/town takes. I know that I get a letter each year from the city wanting to know who lives here, how old, etc. They don't look at voter registration lists.

How many LTC holders are there?

People on this forum keep bandying about the number 200,000, so (200,000/4,900,000)*100 = ~ 4%.

 

[Jose]

Jose, MGL makes it an "affirmative defense" (translation: you get charged with murder and perhaps a lot of other things and YOU can raise the self-defense issue to mitigate the charges), not a "free pass" on a good shoot.

No doubt the Grand Jury (who only hears the prosecutor's side of the case) will indict and she gets her day in court a year or so later. Meanwhile her MD license will almost certainly get suspended and her practice will be terminated until it is all over and done. To put it bluntly, her financial and career situation is ruined even when she's acquitted. Status of her LTC is extremely iffy once it is all over and done with, but it will be the least of her problems.

Len, I uderstand the affirmative defense issue. Self defense is an affirmative defense in Ohio.

The BIG difference is that the majority of DAs in Ohio will not even bother charging a person who uses deadly force to defend themselves when the initial investigation shows the shoot was good (i.e. the elements required for the use of deadly force were all present according to the detectives). With the exception of a few big city prosecutors, Ohio DAs have better things to do than to screw with citizens who defend themselves from abusers and predators.

You guys TRULY live on the other side of the looking glass............

 

[Twigg]

Looking as badly as she does I'm disgusted that she was arrested. My God, this woman had to be fighting for her life !

I cannot comprehend how people in this state think. (To enact such laws which dictate this woman's arrest.) Normally I try to keep news items such as this from my wife but I hope she runs across this. Maybe seeing this would help convince her to move.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Just through luck of the draw, I doubt it. Not as many people have LTCs. There's about 4.9M adults in MA. What percentage of them are registered to vote? Let's guess 60%. That's about 3M.

How many LTC holders are there? If someone can come up with that figure, we can work out the probability that no one called to the jury will have an LTC.

More of a question for the attorneys on this list - how likely would be that the prosecution would allow a juror to be empaneled on a case alleging self defense? Is this something one could expect to be asked in voir dire?

 

[TomH]

The jury pool has already seen this all over the news, it will be next to impossible to find anyone who hasn't heard something about it and formed an opinion on it already. I think she'll be ok.

 

[Lynne]

I just saw her on the news...the ppor woman. She looks like she's been a punching bag, and those were only the bruises and cuts that showed. If the grand jury (if they're asked to review this case) can let a taxi driver go for shooting someone who robbed him in the back, then this one should be a no brainer. I'm also surprised she was arrested - given that we've been told everything, but I'm still surprised.

 

[Lugnut]

It "appears" that he got what he deserved. Let's hope she was justified.

 

[sksguns]

They said on the radio this morning that she said she endured years of abuse. I'll never understand why she just didn't divorce him. I understand that psycholigical bs after years and years of enduring such abuse but this al started at some point where she wasn't so psycholigically traumatized. She could have left him then.

Additionally, when he and the son started going at it she could have called the cops and instead of intervening tried to get the kid and herself out of the house. Called a neighbor or something....I know...I know...I wasn't there and I don't have all the facts. True...but neither do you....

I don't disagree with self defense but there are two sides to every story and to just let her walk away because she has bruises on her face is a little ridiculoius to me. A man is dead. He may be everything they say, but we don't know that yet.

Arrest may be too much in the sense that there seem to be some wounds inflicted to this woman and the state will not want to spend the money investigating the case so they arrest her and then she and the defense attornys foot the bill for the investigation, disclose the evidence to the prosecution where they distort the truth and attempt to get a conviction.

Keep this in mind though....she wasn't defending herself when she got those wounds. She was on the attack to defend her 25 year old son.

Now my father is no slouch and I am no mr. universe in any sense but at 25 years old I may not have been able to kick my father's a$$ but I was totally smart enough to get away from him if the need arose. Barring this kid being in a wheel chair and needing the mother's defense I don't really see a need for this guy to have been shot. You could play this out like she was just looking for an opportunity after years of abuse....

Should be interesting when the rest of the facts come out.

 

[Lynne]

While I don't know what she went through, I have been on the receiving end of abuse. For those who can't understand why a woman stays with someone who's abusive, let me clue you in on something - it's called fear, or it's called hoping he'll stop and change. Most abuse cases don't start right out of the box with physical violence. It starts slowly with the abuser doing a number on you mentally. That's exactly how it was with me, and by the time he actually became physical, I was scared to death to leave or to get a restraining order. He already tried to kill me once, and he nearly succeeded. Men who abuse women have the talent of twisting someone who's confident into a self doubting mass of conflicting emotions, and when fear enters the picture, you do what you have to do to keep them from errupting. Her final straw was her son being threatened. You don't get between a mother bear and her cub.

If you've never walked in those shoes, you cannot know what life becomes like and how it happens without you even realizing it.

 

[sksguns]

the abuse aside.....a kid who is 25 should have someone get between mama bear and her cub.

I don't want to get into a whole psycholigical debate here. But there are two sides to every story.

She obviously had enough courage to get a license and a firearm. Perhaps her straw broke sometime ago and she was just waiting for an opportunity for payback.

Not every woman who was abused is killed or needed to kill to get out of that relationship...we're talking about a 25 YEAR OLD MAN.....not a baby.