Home defense question

If I were in that situation it would be my assumption that him lunging at me is an attempt to gain possession of my firearm and then inflict bodily injury or death with it.
 
FIFY

USMA-82 said:
Interesting scenario.

As I understand the law, despite the Castle Doctrine you still need to be able to prove That you believed the intruder had the means, ability and intent to kill you or do serious bodily harm. The ability test is probably a non-issue - if he was physically able to break into your house, he's probably physically able to hurt you. The intent is there, given the charge towards you. The means (unarmed, no visible weapon) might be the sticky point, but certainly an unarmed intruder could kill you.

So, as usual, it all comes down to what the DA wants to push, and what the jury believes. In the words of the great Darius Arbabi, "try not to put yourself in the position of being a legal lab rat." Hopefully the intruder would choose the easy path and just un-ass the area.

*
Click to expand...
 
Castle doctrine:

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleII/Chapter278/Section8A

"Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling. "
 
I still don't see how you folks question the threat presented by a willful intruder who charges at an obviously-armed person in their own home. What intent other than "great bodily injury or death" would any reasonable person infer from that behavior?
 
strangenh said:
I still don't see how you folks question the threat presented by a willful intruder who charges at an obviously-armed person in their own home. What intent other than "great bodily injury or death" would any reasonable person infer from that behavior?
Click to expand...

Massachusetts is a "duty to retreat" State.

This means that you may use deadly force to protect yourself or a third party only if you are facing a "clear and immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury", AND there is no way to remove yourself from the danger.

In MA, if a burglar breaks in, you have a legal duty to try to sneak out and leave him to it.

With that said, if you have kids, I can't see that ever being an option.
 
mikefmcnally said:
Massachusetts is a "duty to retreat" State.

This means that you may use deadly force to protect yourself or a third party only if you are facing a "clear and immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury", AND there is no way to remove yourself from the danger.

In MA, if a burglar breaks in, you have a legal duty to try to sneak out and leave him to it.
Click to expand...
Just stop repeating this ignorant crap, OK? If you don't know the law, just close your mouth and read. People have already posted the law in this thread, which you didn't read and obviously you don't know.

Read it again: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...nse-question?p=1772617&viewfull=1#post1772617
 
M1911 said:
mikefmcnally said:
Massachusetts is a "duty to retreat" State.[...]
Click to expand...
Just stop repeating this ignorant crap, OK? If you don't know the law, just close your mouth and read. People have already posted the law in this thread, which you didn't read and obviously you don't know.

Read it again: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...nse-question?p=1772617&viewfull=1#post1772617
Click to expand...

+1

Seriously! First time in ages I have been temped to neg someone on here. That's really saying something! [wink]
 
strangenh said:
+1

Seriously! First time in ages I have been temped to neg someone on here. That's really saying something! [wink]
Click to expand...
I restrained myself from neg repping him, but only just.

And to add to my response above, if you think you know the law, then post a citation.
 
M1911 said:
Just stop repeating this ignorant crap, OK? If you don't know the law, just close your mouth and read. People have already posted the law in this thread, which you didn't read and obviously you don't know.

Read it again: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...nse-question?p=1772617&viewfull=1#post1772617
Click to expand...

+1 and just to be clear...

The MA "Castle Doctrine" is merely an affirmative defense. It does NOT preclude one from being charged...

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.
Click to expand...

It will be up to the DA/Judge/jury to determine what does/doesn't qualify as "reasonable".
 
If I may comment here,IANAL but if someone is in my home univited he's there to do one of 2 things 1 take my hard earned possesions or 2 do me bodily harm and given the scenario I'm not willing to wait to see what his intentions are. So he has 3 options on what happens next.he can
A leave on his own
B leave with a police escort
C leave in a body bag.
 
mikefmcnally said:
When I posted this the newest post was from around 10:47AM. So what you are pointing out, I didn't see.
Click to expand...

I'm also pointing out that you don't know the law and yet you are pontificating about it, not just that it was already posted once in this thread.

Stop that. Please. Noobs might think you know what you are talking about, and MA laws are difficult enough to understand without people who don't know them confusing the matter.
 
strangenh said:
I still don't see how you folks question the threat presented by a willful intruder who charges at an obviously-armed person in their own home. What intent other than "great bodily injury or death" would any reasonable person infer from that behavior?
Click to expand...

Well, is the fact that I am armed giving me the legal cause to fire in this scenario? Devil's advocate here, it could be argued that I only had to fire because I was armed since the the threat to my life is now due to me being disarmed.

or maybe I've just had too much coffee...
 
je25ff said:
Well, is the fact that I am armed giving me the legal cause to fire in this scenario? Devil's advocate here, it could be argued that I only had to fire because I was armed since the the threat to my life is now due to me being disarmed.

or maybe I've just had too much coffee...
Click to expand...

IANAL, but I think the fear of being disarmed because you're armed is a flawed legal defense. My state of mind is that if any perp doesn't respect the sanctity of my home, knowing full well that there might be occupants inside, they're fully prepared to apply violence to the me. And bare hands are enough deadly weapons.

Read the book called 'Strong on Defense' by Sanford Strong. Home invasion is the most dangerous type of crime, more than any other crimes that will result rape, torture and murder of the victims. Your home is already crime location B (i.e. more secluded and away from attention). Your mind and trigger finger is the last line of effective defense. Don't let it cloud by the fear of prosecution.
 
Also, you are required to file a Massachusetts Self-Defense Situation Assessment Survey (M.A.S.S.A.S.S.)...

MASSASS.jpg


http://home.comcast.net/~massbackwards/selfdefensesurvey.pdf
 
USMA-82 said:
Interesting scenario.

As I understand the law, despite the Castle Doctrine you still need to be able to prove the intruder had the means, ability and intent to kill you or do serious bodily harm. The ability test is probably a non-issue - if he was physically able to break into your house, he's probably physically able to hurt you. The intent is there, given the charge towards you. The means (unarmed, no visible weapon) might be the sticky point, but certainly an unarmed intruder could kill you.

So, as usual, it all comes down to what the DA wants to push, and what the jury believes. In the words of the great Darius Arbabi, "try not to put yourself in the position of being a legal lab rat." Hopefully the intruder would choose the easy path and just un-ass the area.

*
Click to expand...

So if I understand this correctly ... if a man in a wheelchair breaks into my home, I shouldn't shoot him right away. We should ... talk it out. Or a man with a partial disability due to a torn tendon flap arising from a drunken fall years earlier. Unless I determine that he has a handicap-accessible weapon of some sort. Like a modified zoo-bow, or auto-launching hurlbats?

What if a man with no arms breaks in, and I shoot his sorry ass, and then he's found to be carrying Mass-prohibited ninja throwing stars? And he's wearing toe socks. Do I get points for being ... prescient?

Damn, Ken. Mass law is hard. Maybe I'll move to Maine. Wanna come along? You and me on Frenchman Bay ... selling bait and tackle to the locals, painted sea shells and driftwood clocks to the tourists.

PM me and I'll tell you more about my retirement plans! [wink]
 
Maxspeed said:
I have wondered the same thing. I have searched but can't find any Mass self defense laws?
Click to expand...

Mass law states you must attempt retreat through either a ventilation duct or up the chimney prior to use of deadly force.
 
je25ff said:
Well, is the fact that I am armed giving me the legal cause to fire in this scenario? Devil's advocate here, it could be argued that I only had to fire because I was armed since the the threat to my life is now due to me being disarmed.

or maybe I've just had too much coffee...
Click to expand...

You've had too much coffee. If a person breaks into a home and rushes a visibly-armed occupant, they may or may not want to disarm them, but whatever they intend to do, they are not dissuaded by the fact their intended victim is prepared to defend themselves with deadly force.

SO, again: What intent other than "great bodily injury or death" would any reasonable person infer from that behavior?
 
strangenh said:
You've had too much coffee. If a person breaks into a home and rushes a visibly-armed occupant, they may or may not want to disarm them, but whatever they intend to do, they are not dissuaded by the fact their intended victim is prepared to defend themselves with deadly force.

SO, again: What intent other than "great bodily injury or death" would any reasonable person infer from that behavior?
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I appreciate all the comments, even the funny ones. It's one of those subjects that has been rattling around in my head while trying to fall asleep. Figured I would just air it out.
 
If youre really unsure, just kneecap the intruder and wait for police to arrive.. or tell the wife to hire a redecorator because you had to protect your family and splatter the intruder all over the walls. Just learn how to talk to the cops after an incident like this, say as little as possible until your attorney arrives.
 
theGringo said:
Maybe I'll move to Maine. Wanna come along? You and me on Frenchman Bay ... selling bait and tackle to the locals, painted sea shells and driftwood clocks to the tourists.

PM me and I'll tell you more about my retirement plans! [wink]
Click to expand...

Hey, sounds good to me! Well, except for the fact that my wife would never move north given her hatred of all things cold and snowy. However, if I ever get divorced, I'm with you, pal!!!!

As far as the home defense scenario goes, I think Matty and his home defense Mosin Nagant would shoot first and ask questions later. There's something to be said for being a kid with a gun, a sharp eye, and no legal hang-ups....

Wait - did I just say that?

*
 
USMA-82 said:
Hey, sounds good to me! Well, except for the fact that my wife would never move north given her hatred of all things cold and snowy. However, if I ever get divorced, I'm with you, pal!!!!

As far as the home defense scenario goes, I think Matty and his home defense Mosin Nagant would shoot first and ask questions later. There's something to be said for being a kid with a gun, a sharp eye, and no legal hang-ups....

Wait - did I just say that?

*
Click to expand...

With a Mosin Nagant, you could bayonet the guy without ever getting up out of bed.

Hey, maybe we could retire to a warmer climate, and take up ... gardening. The secret's in the fertilizer.
http://www.fancast.com/tv/Alfred-Hi...796787878/And-the-Desert-Shall-Blossom/videos
 

Similar threads

Mass compliant list Question
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
steven grammont
steven grammont
Private Sale Question for 2024
Replies
13
Views
359
MAJoe
M
Post ban fixed mag AR15 style rife question
Replies
3
Views
141
Shevchenko
Shevchenko
Question on LTC's
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
drgrant
drgrant
Preban AR Lower Question
2 3
Replies
62
Views
2K
drgrant
drgrant
Back
Top Bottom