• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Manslaughter charges filed after kill shot fired 8 minutes post invasion. Wild story out of chesterfield MA.

Sounds about right, protect yourself or wait until the police show up and possibly document your death.
Probably decided that dead men tell no tales.

Seems you will lose in both cases. Maybe we should have an engagement checklist before you can shoot an intruder. /s

My guess the guy was not looking for a clean bathroom at 1230 in the morning.

Glad the guy was armed, girlfriend was on the phone for that time and no cop showed up before both shots.
Shows you are on your own waiting for police to show up.
 
gerrycaruso said:
In this state it will be especially difficult but it would be difficult in any state to justify shooting someone in the back of the head.
Click to expand...
Not just shooting someone in the back of the head, but returning 8 minutes later to shoot them in the back of the head after the threat had been eliminated.

This guy is going to prison for a long time. WTF was he thinking??? This guy was a licensed gun owner, not some street thug.
 
Gagne said Letendre was shot once in the front torso, and eight minutes and 37 seconds later, a second time in the back of the head.
Click to expand...

“It is our theory that Mr. Letendre remained on the ground and was still on the ground at the time that Mr. Camp delivered the second shot to his head,” Gagne said.
Click to expand...

It is quite possible that the second shot turned a justifiable shooting into murder one. It's not looking good for Mr. Camp.
 
gerrycaruso said:
In this state it will be especially difficult but it would be difficult in any state to justify shooting someone in the back of the head when he is on the ground more than 8 minutes after being shot the first time..
Click to expand...
Fixed it for you.

I can think of many situations where it would be justifiable to shoot someone in the back of the head.

But shooting someone in the back of the head while they are a bleeding out on the ground is a different matter.
 
xtry51 said:
Innocent. Don't want to get killed, don't break into someone's house. I honestly don't care the second shot was 8min later or an hour later.
Click to expand...
I understand your viewpoint and I can't say that I disagree with it from a moral and ethical point of view. But that's not in accordance with the law in most states.
 
Yeah, this will be interesting. The article makes it sound like to me that the second (kill) shot wasn’t necessary. Unless perhaps the perp indicated he would come back another time to finish the job. At that point an in heat of passion or fear of life shot makes sense, as does the manslaughter charge. Glad the folks and kids who’s home was invaded are ok, but I would not want to be in the shooter’s shoes.
 
Individualist said:
Unless perhaps the perp indicated he would come back another time to finish the job.
Click to expand...
Deadly force is only legally justifiable if you are in immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury. "I'm going to come back later" isn't immediate and is not a legally justifiable reason to shoot someone.
 
Sounds like emotions got the best of Mr. Camp. Overkill/excessive force after premeditation.
 
Individualist said:
Yeah, this will be interesting. The article makes it sound like to me that the second (kill) shot wasn’t necessary. Unless perhaps the perp indicated he would come back another time to finish the job. At that point an in heat of passion or fear of life shot makes sense, as does the manslaughter charge. Glad the folks and kids who’s home was invaded are ok, but I would not want to be in the shooter’s shoes.
Click to expand...
Could be a possibility. According to some “local talk of the town” comments on reddit the perpetrator was threatening his chrildren as well. When exactly those threats were made I am not sure.
 
Massachusetts does not have a Florida type "Stand Your Ground" law so he is FUBAR'd

this will boil down to one thing

Was there a threat or would a reasonable person feel there was imminent danger of severe injury or death

Did the first shot stop the threat

Was the person trying to get up, did they display a weapon or were they trying to get to an object that could be used as a weapon?

Subsequent shots, even when they are not 8 minutes from the first use of force are troublesome when the threat has been stopped

we discussed this after that diner robbery not too long ago, the initial shots were absolutely justified, no question about it..... the second volley of shots when the perp is face down, not moving, and not a threat are the ones that will get you jammed up... he fired 9 shots in total and the case was going to be presented to a Grand Jury.... the shooting was in January and so far no news about the shooters fate one way or the other has been released.
 
appraiser said:
Massachusetts does not have a Florida type "Stand Your Ground" law so he is FUBAR'd

this will boil down to one thing

Was there a threat or would a reasonable person feel there was imminent danger of severe injury or death

Did the first shot stop the threat

Was the person trying to get up, did they display a weapon or were they trying to get to an object that could be used as a weapon?

Subsequent shots, even when they are not 8 minutes from the first use of force are troublesome when the threat has been stopped

we discussed this after that diner robbery not too long ago, the initial shots were absolutely justified, no question about it..... the second volley of shots when the perp is face down, not moving, and not a threat are the ones that will get you jammed up... he fired 9 shots in total and the case was going to be presented to a Grand Jury.... the shooting was in January and so far no news about the shooters fate one way or the other has been released.
Click to expand...
I think what you are referring to is Florida's castle law, not stand your ground.
 
Yeah, a guess is that invader was running his mouth and managed at length to convince the defender that he very much needed to be dispatched forthwith, like Zec in the first Jack Reacher movie.



Back of the head makes it hard to construct a believable cover story, so hard it almost makes me reach for an innocent explanation, like:

MY FABRICATED STORY: "I'd shot him once and he was on the ground. I was holding him at gunpoint when he started trying to get up. I told him to stop, stay on the ground or I'd shoot him again, but he rolled over on hands and knees facing away from me and was starting to stand up. All the while I'm shouting at him to stay down or I'll shoot. He started to stand, still facing away from me, and I shot him."
 
Florida Stand your ground allows the use of deadly force to protect yourself without the requirement to flee, as long as you have the legal right to be there and you are not the aggressor.

You do not have to be in your home, just in a place you have a legal right to be, which is why it provides protection from prosecution in or out of your home.
Massachusetts has a "castle doctrine" in theory, thanks to former Governor Ed King, but as with every law in MA that is supposed to allow you to use a weapon to defend yourself, you always run the risk of getting jammed up and bankrupted by legal fees trying to defend yourself from the Commonwealth.

The guy referenced above better hope his defense team can get a Doctor on the stand that will convince a jury that the perp was already dead when the second shot was fired, or that the first shot was going to be fatal (death before medical help arrived, death from the first shot was going to be fatal even with medical intervention) and the second shot may have caused immediate death, but death was imminent anyway.

A person is allowed to act in self-defense. If evidence of self-defense
is present, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant did not act in self-defense. In other words, if you have a
reasonable doubt whether or not the defendant acted in self-defense, your
verdict must be not guilty.

 
Do not be deceived by the "first shot was considered self defense".

It is VERY likely that this prosecutions position would be quite different if there were not a second shot. With the second shot, conceding the first shot was legit is a strategy to show a fair and balanced approach, NOT an indication that they state would have accepted the first shot as self defense if they did not have another attack surface for a charge.
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
Do not be deceived by the "first shot was considered self defense".

It is VERY likely that this prosecutions position would be quite different if there were not a second shot. With the second shot, conceding the first shot was legit is a strategy to show a fair and balanced approach, NOT an indication that they state would have accepted the first shit as self defense if they did not have another attack surface for a charge.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

But that said, the first shot might have been more easily defensible, whereas the second shot appears to be far harder to defend.
 

Similar threads

MA Out of state LTC
Replies
19
Views
359
drgrant
drgrant
85-year-old Idaho woman hailed as 'hero' in fatal shooting of home invasion suspect
Replies
7
Views
135
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
James Crumbley, the father of Michigan school shooter Ethan Crumbley is found guilty of involuntary manslaughter
Replies
28
Views
597
Palladin
Palladin
Manhunt Underway After Mother and Daughter Shot, Killed in Gun-Controlled Massachusetts
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Varmint
Varmint
Killadelphia: 8 Teens Shot Near SEPTA Bus In Northeast Philly
Replies
11
Views
252
ridleyman
R
Back
Top Bottom