Home and property defense in Mass

Snipers have such a demoralizing effect because it's scary to see your buddy's melon popped but you cannot see the shooter.
 
MGL C. 278 S. 8A only gives you an "affirmative defense" (that your attorney has to convince the judge/jury not to convict) INSIDE your home . . . nowhere else and there is no other law to protect someone protecting themselves/family from attack anywhere else.

Sooooo........you have to drag them in your house? In TX, they do that for you!
 
(IANAL)

First, remember that the castle doctrine applies to duty-to-retreat, and nothing else. It does not remove any of the other elements required for a successful claim of self-defense. Massachusetts' castle doctrine also doesn't protect curtilage, but regardless, you cannot ever use deadly force merely in defense of property, even inside your home. Now, if a burglar breaks into your home while you're there and you shoot him, and you claim that you were in fear of your life when you did so, even in Massachusetts it's unlikely that any jury is going question that claim, provided that when the police respond you don't run your mouth and confess something to the contrary. But regardless, please do not shoot anyone for the sake of keeping your TV from getting stolen. I promise that no matter what else happens, your legal bills will exceed your homeowner's insurance deductible.

However, that doesn't mean you have to be completely helpless against thieves and vandals! So far this has been a discussion of deadly force. Massachusetts does permit "reasonable" force in defense of property. You're allowed to tackle a thief. You're allowed to wrest a can spray paint from a vandal's hand. And if after this confrontation begins, the perpetrator escalates to deadly force, so then can you.

That's the theory, at least. I still don't recommend doing this. A lot easier and safer to just let your insurance deal with this shit.
 
(IANAL)

First, remember that the castle doctrine applies to duty-to-retreat, and nothing else. It does not remove any of the other elements required for a successful claim of self-defense. Massachusetts' castle doctrine also doesn't protect curtilage, but regardless, you cannot ever use deadly force merely in defense of property, even inside your home. Now, if a burglar breaks into your home while you're there and you shoot him, and you claim that you were in fear of your life when you did so, even in Massachusetts it's unlikely that any jury is going question that claim, provided that when the police respond you don't run your mouth and confess something to the contrary. But regardless, please do not shoot anyone for the sake of keeping your TV from getting stolen. I promise that no matter what else happens, your legal bills will exceed your homeowner's insurance deductible.

However, that doesn't mean you have to be completely helpless against thieves and vandals! So far this has been a discussion of deadly force. Massachusetts does permit "reasonable" force in defense of property. You're allowed to tackle a thief. You're allowed to wrest a can spray paint from a vandal's hand. And if after this confrontation begins, the perpetrator escalates to deadly force, so then can you.

That's the theory, at least. I still don't recommend doing this. A lot easier and safer to just let your insurance deal with this shit.
Here's the problem.
Let's say the perp is trashing your car. You may not want to kill him but you do want to detain him till the popo gets there. In MA you can't hold him at gunpoint because merely displaying a gun will be seen as deadly force. After all you can't draw that gun until there is a threat to your life, so you must have intended to kill him. And going hands on may not be a good option and may even result in serious injury to yourself.
On the other hand, in NH you can bear arms to protect property. You don't have to go all the way and kill him, you can see how the situation develops while still being sure of your own safety.

ETA oddly enough this encourages you to actually kill the perp in MA because you need to justify pulling the gun, so there has to be a threat to your life, and he came right for you. Not suggesting it just pointing out the irony.
 
56.00 for 100ml on the putrescine.
How many balloons would we need?
;)

teasing - you have the right idea.
Stink balloons!
Watching them all barf on each other would be priceless.
Dilute it just like alcohol. You buy the 95% and mix to desired effect. We could even hand out laced water bottles on a hot day. Just get away before people start opening them.
 
First of all, consider 'natural law'. Everyone knows it isi not OK to kill somoene because they smashed your car. Natural law has been true since the beginning of civilization. Use your head (the good one) and ask yourself "Is my life or that of another in danger?" If yes, then you may be justified.

But more importantly - no matter what, you will spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in Court and it will take everything else from you too. Job, friends, privacy, money. Some it ieven cost them their marriage. Is that worth the risk? Win or lose you will LOSE in this realm. Is it worth it?

.
 
First of all, consider 'natural law'. Everyone knows it isi not OK to kill somoene because they smashed your car. Natural law has been true since the beginning of civilization. Use your head (the good one) and ask yourself "Is my life or that of another in danger?" If yes, then you may be justified.

But more importantly - no matter what, you will spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in Court and it will take everything else from you too. Job, friends, privacy, money. Some it ieven cost them their marriage. Is that worth the risk? Win or lose you will LOSE in this realm. Is it worth it?

.

Lol, there are a bunch of guys over on the Nazi-flag thread that would highly disagree with you here. They seem to be fine with shooting fleeing thieves in the back, even when those thieves fail to steal anything, and even though they know they'd go to jail.

Wild.
 
If you’re worrying about the legal fees, then your life isn’t in danger. This shouldn’t even be a question. If your life is in true danger and you have no way out, you will do what you have to do regardless of the aftermath. Yes MA law sucks, but a lot of people analyze it way too much. There are many cases of cut and dry self defense in Massachusetts where the victim was not put through the ringer in court. I’m not saying I agree with the MA defense law, but I’d think the cost of your life would out weigh legal fees.

Bringing this to the current climate, if there’s a mob outside your house lighting it on fire while your family is inside- that is easily justified. You have no way out, and are trapped with your life in danger. Not to mention the police are not coming if there’s an actual riot which gives your case even more teeth. Going further, say you do brandish your gun. Who’s calling the police? The rioters? I don’t think so.

Unless your a cop, don’t do a cops work. It’s your job to protect your life and your families at any cost. No one else’s, and if your considering not defending your life because it will cost you a lot of money then either your life isn’t in danger or you shouldn’t be using a firearm for defensive purposes. Either way timid-ness will only make your situation worse in this state.
 
If you’re worrying about the legal fees, then your life isn’t in danger. This shouldn’t even be a question. If your life is in true danger and you have no way out, you will do what you have to do regardless of the aftermath. Yes MA law sucks, but a lot of people analyze it way too much. There are many cases of cut and dry self defense in Massachusetts where the victim was not put through the ringer in court. I’m not saying I agree with the MA defense law, but I’d think the cost of your life would out weigh legal fees.

Bringing this to the current climate, if there’s a mob outside your house lighting it on fire while your family is inside- that is easily justified. You have no way out, and are trapped with your life in danger. Not to mention the police are not coming if there’s an actual riot which gives your case even more teeth. Going further, say you do brandish your gun. Who’s calling the police? The rioters? I don’t think so.

Unless your a cop, don’t do a cops work. It’s your job to protect your life and your families at any cost. No one else’s, and if your considering not defending your life because it will cost you a lot of money then either your life isn’t in danger or you shouldn’t be using a firearm for defensive purposes. Either way timid-ness will only make your situation worse in this state.

That's very rational. But the reality is that some private lawyers and public "servants" will try to put you away for even a perfectly righteous kill, making a political example and a personal victory for themselves. There's a reason they're called sharks. In that arena it's not enough to be right. You must be able to prove you're right, and afford to prove it. So I can't blame anyone who hesitates in the OODA loop because they know they're prepared to win a physical fight but doubt they can afford to win the ensuing legal fight. Now at a random moment in the next thirty years, let's give you a three-second notice, increase your heart rate to 180, surge adrenaline through your veins, shut down your prefrontal cortex as you enter fight/flight/freeze, and ask you to be so rational again.

Boyd's OODA Loop Simple.jpg
 
That's very rational. But the reality is that some private lawyers and public "servants" will try to put you away for even a perfectly righteous kill ... Now at a random moment in the next thirty years, let's give you a three-second notice, increase your heart rate to 180, surge adrenaline through your veins, shut down your prefrontal cortex as you enter fight/flight/freeze, and ask you to be so rational again.

I don’t really see how this changes anything. For the first part, are you saying you’d rather die than go to jail? If so that’s your choice, but I’d make a different one. If I’m faced with death or jail ill pick jail all day long.

Second I’m being rational in explaining how a person would handle a situation without using thought. I never claimed someone would be rational in the moment. You actually proved my point in the second half of your post. You’re heart rate is up, you’re in flight or fight, you pick to fight and you do what you have to do. You’re not thinking about legal fees or jail in that three seconds. You challenge me to be “that rational” in an intense moment (even though I never claimed but you argue you’d have time to be rational enough to weigh the pros and cons of defending yourself.

“So I can't blame anyone who hesitates in the OODA loop because they know they're prepared to win a physical fight but doubt they can afford to win the ensuing legal fight”

If you’re thinking about that and are experiencing hesitation, are you not being rational about your situation?

I agree with your last point. You do not have time to be rational which is why you’d never stop and think about anything but your immediate situation. You do what you have to do end of story regardless of consequence. I’m confused where you stand on this.
 
I don’t really see how this changes anything. For the first part, are you saying you’d rather die than go to jail? If so that’s your choice, but I’d make a different one. If I’m faced with death or jail ill pick jail all day long.

Second I’m being rational in explaining how a person would handle a situation without using thought. I never claimed someone would be rational in the moment. You actually proved my point in the second half of your post. You’re heart rate is up, you’re in flight or fight, you pick to fight and you do what you have to do. You’re not thinking about legal fees or jail in that three seconds. You challenge me to be “that rational” in an intense moment (even though I never claimed but you argue you’d have time to be rational enough to weigh the pros and cons of defending yourself.

“So I can't blame anyone who hesitates in the OODA loop because they know they're prepared to win a physical fight but doubt they can afford to win the ensuing legal fight”

If you’re thinking about that and are experiencing hesitation, are you not being rational about your situation?

I agree with your last point. You do not have time to be rational which is why you’d never stop and think about anything but your immediate situation. You do what you have to do end of story regardless of consequence. I’m confused where you stand on this.
You say the proof of a true life-threatening situation is that someone can't possibly be thinking about the ensuing legal fight. I disagree. Using lethal force would be one of the heaviest yet most rushed decisions of my life. Making the wrong call or hitting the wrong person could lead to me watching my kids grow up from prison. Even if do my part perfectly, there are too many ugly examples of justice delayed or denied for me to feel confident. These concerns are deeply ingrained, not just rationally but emotionally, and tied to every single 3.5-pound trigger pull. Or as one instructor told me, "There's a lawyer attached to every bullet."

Decision-making capacity is still present in high stress. After all, fight/flight/freeze is a decision, just a primarily emotional rather than a rational one. And professionals use fear inoculation in training so they can maintain more rational capacity during a fight. But I don't have that training. So the weight of those additional legal fears could cause one to hesitate in a critical moment. I try to anticipate and minimize their effect by having the reassurance of great carry insurance and a hefty emergency fund. Others have said they manage risk by resolving not to use lethal force for a stranger, only for themselves and loved ones. That resolution does simplify things but regret is another risk with its own lasting effects.

Everyone must draw these lines for themselves. I can respect you concluding differently than I do.
 
You say the proof of a true life-threatening situation is that someone can't possibly be thinking about the ensuing legal fight. I disagree. Using lethal force would be one of the heaviest yet most rushed decisions of my life. Making the wrong call or hitting the wrong person could lead to me watching my kids grow up from prison. Even if do my part perfectly, there are too many ugly examples of justice delayed or denied for me to feel confident. These concerns are deeply ingrained, not just rationally but emotionally, and tied to every single 3.5-pound trigger pull. Or as one instructor told me, "There's a lawyer attached to every bullet."

Decision-making capacity is still present in high stress. After all, fight/flight/freeze is a decision, just a primarily emotional rather than a rational one. And professionals use fear inoculation in training so they can maintain more rational capacity during a fight. But I don't have that training. So the weight of those additional legal fears could cause one to hesitate in a critical moment. I try to anticipate and minimize their effect by having the reassurance of great carry insurance and a hefty emergency fund. Others have said they manage risk by resolving not to use lethal force for a stranger, only for themselves and loved ones. That resolution does simplify things but regret is another risk with its own lasting effects.

Everyone must draw these lines for themselves. I can respect you concluding differently than I do.





I agree not everyone will respond in the same way. Also I did mistakenly make it seem this is the only test, and your correct, it isn’t. However, it is certainly a likely scenario in the absence of proper training. During a true life threatening situation, your brain defaults to primal instinct to maintain immediate survival. You as a conscious complex and decision maker are left out of the process. This can be trained out, but most people don’t have access to this training. When it comes down to it I guess we don’t know how we’ll respond. Your plan of having insurance and an emergency fund is wise.

I’m not saying this is the only response to fear. Merely that it’s a likely one and instead of debating what’s “justified in law” we should be preparing like you have. We don’t know how we’ll react, but it could well be in a way without thought of consequence because our bodies are trying to survive. Prepare for the aftermath, so your brain doesn’t have to in the moment and you can efficiently deal with any scenario.
 
Last edited:
(IANAL)

First, remember that the castle doctrine applies to duty-to-retreat, and nothing else. It does not remove any of the other elements required for a successful claim of self-defense. Massachusetts' castle doctrine also doesn't protect curtilage, but regardless, you cannot ever use deadly force merely in defense of property, even inside your home. Now, if a burglar breaks into your home while you're there and you shoot him, and you claim that you were in fear of your life when you did so, even in Massachusetts it's unlikely that any jury is going question that claim, provided that when the police respond you don't run your mouth and confess something to the contrary. But regardless, please do not shoot anyone for the sake of keeping your TV from getting stolen. I promise that no matter what else happens, your legal bills will exceed your homeowner's insurance deductible.

However, that doesn't mean you have to be completely helpless against thieves and vandals! So far this has been a discussion of deadly force. Massachusetts does permit "reasonable" force in defense of property. You're allowed to tackle a thief. You're allowed to wrest a can spray paint from a vandal's hand. And if after this confrontation begins, the perpetrator escalates to deadly force, so then can you.

That's the theory, at least. I still don't recommend doing this. A lot easier and safer to just let your insurance deal with this shit.

This.

Baseball bat can be quite persuasive in chasing people off.
 
First of all, consider 'natural law'. Everyone knows it isi not OK to kill somoene because they smashed your car. Natural law has been true since the beginning of civilization. Use your head (the good one) and ask yourself "Is my life or that of another in danger?" If yes, then you may be justified.

But more importantly - no matter what, you will spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in Court and it will take everything else from you too. Job, friends, privacy, money. Some it ieven cost them their marriage. Is that worth the risk? Win or lose you will LOSE in this realm. Is it worth it?

.
Lol most of us realize this is the reality in most of the US. That still doesn't make it right.
 
The most memorable case had been discovered around a week later. ... the smell was the single most shocking and unforgettable brand of horror I've ever experienced. ... The ME told me, "Don't you dare get in your car after this. Toss those scrubs and take a long shower before going home or you'll smell it in your car for weeks." I did so but still felt it was burned into my nose for the next day.
You may (may) have felt you were still smelling it
because you were still smelling it.
 
Back
Top Bottom