Manchester Shooting Ruled Self-Defense

Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
10,089
Likes
851
Location
New Ipswich, Finn-Land
Feedback: 19 / 0 / 0
It's obvious that this was going to be the outcome, but it's a bit disconcerting that the investigation took this long -- in NH.

http://unionleader.com/article.aspx...rticleId=8af41570-48f9-4144-a21e-2939d24b8488

52 minutes ago

Manchester – A fatal shooting in a Manchester apartment last October has been ruled self-defense and will not lead to criminal charges against the man who fired the gun.

In a press release issued this morning, police and state prosecutors announced that Greg Stroman of 253 Conant Street had reason to believe that the shooting victim, Francisco Cruz, 21, and another man had entered his third-floor apartment to commit armed robbery or to use deadly force against him or a relative.

The press release follows:

Released By: Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte

Date of Release: February 7, 2006

Time of Release: 9:00 a.m.

Subject: Investigation of the Death of Francisco Cruz

Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte and Manchester Police Chief John Jaskolka announce that the Manchester Police Department has concluded the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Francisco Cruz. Mr. Cruz was discovered shot in the chest in the third floor apartment at 253 Conant Street on October 16, 2005. Following review of the investigative reports, the Attorney General's Office has concluded that the shooting was not a crime.

On October 16, 2005, the Manchester PD responded to a 911 call of a burglary in progress at 253 Conant Street. When the officers arrived they learned that gun shots had been fired. Subsequent investigation determined that Francisco Cruz (DOB 9/3/1985) was dead in the living room of the third-floor apartment from a single gunshot wound to the chest. The investigation determined that Cruz and Rafael Pamphile went to the third floor apartment at 253 Conant St. with the purpose of robbing the occupants. Cruz was armed with a handgun and Pamphile was armed with brass knuckles. Greg Stroman, one of the residents of 253 Conant St., answered the door. Several other individuals were in the apartment, including Stroman's uncle and his fourteen-year-old cousin. Pamphile and Cruz entered the apartment. Cruz had his gun drawn and pointed at Stroman. When Stroman's uncle and cousin got up to leave the room, Cruz turned and pointed the gun at them. While Cruz's attention was diverted, Stroman retrieved his own handgun from another room and shot Cruz. In the process, Cruz also fired his gun and hit Stroman in the hand. Stroman's shot was immediately fatal to Cruz. Once Stroman was shot, he jumped from the third floor apartment and went to the second floor apartment. Stroman then returned to his apartment, retrieved his handgun, which he had dropped, and some marijuana. On his way out of the apartment, Stroman looked at Cruz and determined that he was dead. Stroman then fled the apartment without calling the police. Before leaving Manchester, Stroman discarded the gun and the box holding the drugs. Stroman then went to Springfield, Massachusetts, where he was treated at the hospital. On his way to the hospital he contacted the police and informed them that he had been injured in the robbery. Stroman eventually was interviewed and provided a complete statement to the police. His statement was corroborated by the other witnesses and by the physical evidence.

RSA 627:4, II(a) provides that "A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person . . . s about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person." Alternatively, "[a] person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person . . . s likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor's dwelling or its curtilage." RSA 627:4, II(d). Under either version of the defense, the shooter is not required to retreat when he is in his own home and he was not the initial aggressor. RSA 627:4, III(a).

The facts of this case present a fairly straightforward application of the self-defense law. Cruz and Pamphile came to Greg Stroman's apartment with the intent to rob it. Both men were armed (Cruz with a gun and Pamphile with brass knuckles). Cruz was the initial aggressor by threatening Stroman and then Stroman's uncle and teenage cousin with his gun. In response, Stroman retrieved his own gun and shot Cruz. Stroman himself was wounded by Cruz in the process. Thus, the evidence established that Stroman had a subjective belief he needed to use deadly force to protect either himself or his uncle and cousin and that that belief was objectively reasonable. Alternatively, the evidence supports the finding that Stroman was reasonable in believing that Cruz and Pamphile were about to use unlawful force in the commission of a felony in Stroman's home, namely armed robbery. Consequently, Cruz's death was not a crime.
 
Well, the illegal drugs and leaving the scene does complicate it. Maybe that's why it took so long to decide.

At least one of the perps got what was coming.

If these home invasions keep up we'll have to put up concrete walls w/glass shards arounds our home like they do in el tercer mundo.

I wish they'd mention the immigration status of the perps.
 
Supposedly AG Kelly Ayotte is supposed to be some great shining star of the Republican Party in NH, but I just don't see it ... Last year several local towns (mine being one of them) were charging Illegal Aliens as they came across them (traffic stops and so on) with trespassing (after all, they were trespassing on US soil and had no right to be here). She put a stop to that, turned them all loose and told all of the towns to stop doing that because it wasn't their job to be enforcing federal laws ... [roll] I'm surprised she didn't give them a scholarship while she was at it.
 
BigWarden said:
Supposedly AG Kelly Ayotte is supposed to be some great shining star of the Republican Party in NH, but I just don't see it ... Last year several local towns (mine being one of them) were charging Illegal Aliens as they came across them (traffic stops and so on) with trespassing (after all, they were trespassing on US soil and had no right to be here). She put a stop to that, turned them all loose and told all of the towns to stop doing that because it wasn't their job to be enforcing federal laws ... [roll] I'm surprised she didn't give them a scholarship while she was at it.

Although I sympathize with your sentiment 1000%, there is a distinct separation of powers that does not legally allow a local/state LEO to enforce US Law (when there is no similar state law). Thus, they really didn't have the legal authority to do more than turn them over to INS, who does NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH THEM!

Someone recently told me that during the DNC in Boston a few years ago, the US Gov't and State Gov't gave temporary complimentary powers to those LEOs working the event. Thus, temporarily the local/state LEOs had the equivalent of Deputy US Marshall powers and the Feds had temporarily Special State Police powers. This was necessary so that they could do whatever was necessary in keeping the peace regardless of which laws were broken by a perp. Those powers were only good for that single event and "disappeared" after the DNC was over.

I'll let legal counsel correct any errors in my above statements as IANAL and don't play one on the Internet either! [wink]
 
The argument is that they weren't attempting to enforce federal (i.e., immigration) law, but local (i.e., trespass) law. Of course it's all a fiction, but the law is built on fictions.

What I'm wondering is just what their source for all this information is. Did the guy run off with his smoke to avoid getting busted for possession, then turn around and tell the police exactly what he had done? He'd have to be stoned out of his skull to do something like that. Oh, wait a minute ... never mind ... it all makes perfect sense now.

Ken
 
Back
Top Bottom