Home defense question

je25ff

je25ff

NES Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
14,016
Likes
9,955
Feedback: 10 / 0 / 0
The scenario I am curious about is:

1. Someone enters your home.
2. You arm yourself.
3. You confront the intruder and see no visible weapon (knife, bat, gun, et. al.)
4. The intruder charges at you.

In this scenario, would the use of deadly force put yourself in legal jeopardy?
 
S. S. S.

Kidding. You have to evaluate the situation in that very split second.

Why would an unarmed intruder charge you, rather than complying with your order to get on the floor and don't move?
 
Seriously? A home invader charges a visibly-armed homeowner inside the dwelling and this is a question?
 
Bang, rinse, repeat. It is (presumably) dark and there is an intruder in my home who has demonstrated malicious intentions. I am obliged to protect my family and don't have time in that moment to consider the legality of doing so.
 
Last edited:
He had a knife... look see.... he must have gotten it from my kitchen.....
(I would never suggest tampering with a crime scene but.......)
 
How can you be sure that he does not have a weapon - its dark, your senses are on high alert, better safe then sorry.
As soon as intruder charges all bets are off as to if he came ready to harm.
 
Case in Wilbraham Mass in May 2009.

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/wilbraham_shooting_release.pdf

The copy isn't great but the intruder ended up grabbing and breaking a wine glass as he advanced on the homeowner. The homeowner then fired as he retreated through his house. It ended as he was at the top of the stairs and the intruder was at the base of the stairs.
 
boilermaker said:
Case in Wilbraham Mass in May 2009.

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/wilbraham_shooting_release.pdf
Click to expand...

The end result was in favor of the homeowner, however, the wording at the end of the press release is troubling to me.

It says: "...the district attorney has determined there is insufficient evidence to conclude the homeowner did not act in conformity with Chapter 278, 8A and therefore there is no probable cause to support criminal charges."

To me this says, "the district attorney was looking for a way to charge the homeowner who was acting in self defense but couldn't find the necessary evidence." In other words, the homeowner starts off as guilty instead of innocent, and its only a lack of evidence against him that saves him from being charged. The scales of justice seem very skewed.

Wouldn't it be nice if the guy whose home was broken into was assumed innocent until there was evidence to the contrary? [thinking]
 
Last edited:
DavyJones said:
The end result was in favor of the homeowner, however, the wording at the end of the press release is troubling to me.

It says: "...the district attorney has determined there is insufficient evidence to conclude the homeowner did not act in conformity with Chapter 278, 8A and therefore there is no probable cause to support criminal charges."

To me this says, "the district attorney was looking for a way to charge the homeowner who was acting in self defense but couldn't find the necessary evidence." In other words, the homeowner starts off as guilty instead of innocent, and its only a lack of evidence against him that saves him from being charged. The scales of justice seem very skewed.

Wouldn't it be nice if the guy whose home was broken into was assumed innocent until there was evidence to the contrary? [thinking]
Click to expand...

You wouldn't be in MA if it was like this! [thinking] [sad]
 
DavyJones said:
The end result was in favor of the homeowner, however, the wording at the end of the press release is troubling to me.

It says: "...the district attorney has determined there is insufficient evidence to conclude the homeowner did not act in conformity with Chapter 278, 8A and therefore there is no probable cause to support criminal charges."

To me this says, "the district attorney was looking for a way to charge the homeowner who was acting in self defense but couldn't find the necessary evidence." In other words, the homeowner starts off as guilty instead of innocent, and its only a lack of evidence against him that saves him from being charged. The scales of justice seem very skewed.

Wouldn't it be nice if the guy whose home was broken into was assumed innocent until there was evidence to the contrary? [thinking]
Click to expand...

Exactly. In Massachusetts, you are supposed to wait for the police to arrive the whole time your wifes eyeballs are being scooped out with a spoon.

(Just kidding, I think).
 
DavyJones said:
The end result was in favor of the homeowner, however, the wording at the end of the press release is troubling to me.

It says: "...the district attorney has determined there is insufficient evidence to conclude the homeowner did not act in conformity with Chapter 278, 8A and therefore there is no probable cause to support criminal charges."

To me this says, "the district attorney was looking for a way to charge the homeowner who was acting in self defense but couldn't find the necessary evidence." In other words, the homeowner starts off as guilty instead of innocent, and its only a lack of evidence against him that saves him from being charged. The scales of justice seem very skewed.

Wouldn't it be nice if the guy whose home was broken into was assumed innocent until there was evidence to the contrary? [thinking]
Click to expand...

Actually isn't every scene the DA visits a crime scene until s/he determines otherwise? In other words, when a person is dead, the DA has to rule out foul play as opposed to assuming there is none right? I am not a lawyer but I'm extremely knowledgeable as I watch all shows on TV [wink] So YMMV...
 
when i took my firearms safety class the instructor said that in MA you are obligated to retreat, even it your own house, until you can not retreat any more. Then you can use deadly force.
 
MassBan said:
when i took my firearms safety class the instructor said that in MA you are obligated to retreat, even it your own house, until you can not retreat any more. Then you can use deadly force.
Click to expand...

Then the instructor needs to take up on some English comprehension lessons:

MGL 278, 8a:

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...

Folks like this who perpetuate the MA myths are partly to be blamed for the sheeple culture in this Commonwealth.
 
June4th said:
:

MGL 278, 8a:
Click to expand...

"Shall be a defense" that you don't retreat makes sense to me. It means, to me, that if you do kill someone, you can do so without attempting to hide in your own home. The part, "that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling" is where I'm unclear of the legal precedence. If I am armed, and the assailant isn't armed, I would basically have to prove that he would be capable of overpowering me if I were not armed. The tricky part would be, I claim that, if I were disarmed, he would be a deadly threat..
 
MassBan said:
when i took my firearms safety class the instructor said that in MA you are obligated to retreat, even it your own house, until you can not retreat any more. Then you can use deadly force.
Click to expand...

What he must have meant is that you need to find a wall to rest your back and get a cover to shoot [WINK].

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
 
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.

*
 
If the BG has anything on his person that's black, or silver, or anything that reflects any light, I can see a reasonable homeowner, under extreme stress, considers it a weapon.

(The homeowner) 'acted in the reasonable belief' is one of the keys here. It introduces 'state of mind' into the equation. And it's why you should STFU, and work with a competent attorney to establish that before speaking to the investigators.
 

Similar threads

Mass compliant list Question
2
Replies
34
Views
633
Bender
B
Private Sale Question for 2024
Replies
13
Views
314
MAJoe
M
Question on LTC's
2
Replies
37
Views
997
drgrant
drgrant
Preban AR Lower Question
2 3
Replies
62
Views
2K
drgrant
drgrant
Moving to MA Question
Replies
29
Views
947
TZCHRIS
TZCHRIS
Back
Top Bottom