Contents of the legal refrigerator thrown at the wall, hoping something will stick?
-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Manslaughter charges filed after kill shot fired 8 minutes post invasion. Wild story out of chesterfield MA.
- Thread starter maltc
- Start date
Depends on the context.
The problem here legally is not the guy being shot in the back of the head but apparently, they had evidence to determine that this happened while the guy was face down on the
ground. There's a big difference between a whirling dervish retard prancing about in your house and someone whose KOed on the floor basically.
The article discusses the difference between murder and manslaughter and how the grand jury came to the decision it was manslaughter. Using the legal definitions provided to the grand jury it's not a murder. It will be very hard to escape the manslaughter charge for the 2nd shot, however.
Because "reasonable person". They're already up against a tough rroad because you're prosecuting a guy who killed a home invader, something which shouldn't be illegal to begin
with. So they have to lower the bar to guarantee that the average juror will suck for pulling the guilty vote. Also the average person hears "so and so killed a home invader" they're not thinking "murder" either, even if some conditions may rise to that legally. (it should never be but thats a whole other story).
Mass has castle doctrine. Try as I may, I can't find in the law the requirement that shots must occur within a prescribed timeframe. Dude was defending himself from a home invasion. That's how I see it. Grand Jury shouldn't have indicted at all...
The perp was apparently face down, bleeding out on the floor. Deadly force is not legally justified unless you are in immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury. It's pretty hard to argue that you are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury when you shoot someone in the back of the head while they are on the floor bleeding out.
Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for the deceased. But I think Mr. Camp's defense attorney is going to have a very hard time keeping him out of jail.
In the unlikely even that someone invades my house, I want to win both battles -- the one at the scene and the one in the courtroom. I'd rather not spend my retirement years rotting in prison.
Lol in this case it has nothing to do with castle doctrine. There's no state in the US that lets you put a quieting shot into someone that isn't a threat anymore. How the "state" determined that this was the case or not is another story, obviously.
The law is f***ing retarded, obviously, and I think any home invader should basically be fair game for anything below cruel and unusual punishment. The discussion of charging the guy should have ended after it was determined that the individual broke into his house. We'd be a lot better off as a society if that was allowed, and if night time no knock raids were banned in anything other than extroardinary circumstances. The "castle" should be sacrosanct.
The sad thing if he had done things differently he could have gotten away with it. And even given the first shot theres a good chance the guy would have died anyways, getting the same outcome with less legal jeapordy. Of course most people arent thinking about how to game the system, eagerly run thier mouth to the cops when they come etc, instead of calling up their version of Saul Goodman on the phone right after they call the police.....
"He was crawling away from me while yelling he was going to shoot me. Then he reached into his appendix area. In fear for my life, I shot the assailant a second time."
The blood on the floor will indicate whether he was crawling or not and if his hand wasn't found underneath him than the argument that he was reaching for a weapon seems unlikely to work either. In other words, good luck with that.
My guess here based on some of the reddit comments is that while the perp was on the floor he threatened the shooters children. 100% speculation again. Still does not justify the second shot… sadly. Needed to be in self defense.
I think he will have very good luck with it...
"I didn't want to shoot him again. He did initially stop after the first shot. I kept my weapon trained on him and observed, waiting for law enforcement to arrive, which was not prompt. But when he said he was going to shoot me and made a motion to reach for a weapon, what choice did I have? What choice would you have had in the same situation?"
Case closed.
Now if that's the case, then he's got a tough road.
Good luck with that.
The DA will eat him alive if he takes the stand. My prediction is he takes a plea.
I disagree. Although if he does plead out it will be because he lacks the resources to mount a competent legal defense. Not because he is guilty.
Sadly, justice is directly tied to one's ability to pay for it.
I said nothing to the police during my rodeo, so they invented something
fencer
NES Member
It is not beyond the realm if possibility that the perp, after a period of time, tried to grab a weapon and attack the kid a second time.
What is really a shame is that the cops could not get there in under 8 and a half minutes after report of a home invasion. And the article said the girlfriend was already on the phone with 911 when the first shot was fired, so more like 9-1/2 minutes from the start of the call. The town is only 5 miles wide at its widest.
What is really a shame is that the cops could not get there in under 8 and a half minutes after report of a home invasion. And the article said the girlfriend was already on the phone with 911 when the first shot was fired, so more like 9-1/2 minutes from the start of the call. The town is only 5 miles wide at its widest.
Ask a criminal defense attorney two questions:
1) How many times has his defendant talked his way out of a conviction in a bad shoot, with no evidence to support his tory?
2) How many times has his defendant talked his way into a conviction in a bad shoot.
I'd guess the answer to 1) is 0 and the answer to 2) is too many to count.
You simply aren't going to talk your way out of a conviction in a bad shoot. It's not going to happen.
He can easily be guilty under the letter of the law, because the laws on this kind of thing are completley f***ing stupid and don't offer nearly enough deference to the property owner. Even places like Texas which offer greater latitude, are still not nearly where I think they should be.
Ok... Tell that to OJ, who literally bought his way off a murder rap. If you have enough money for lawyers.... you can burn down the white house and get away with it in this country. All it costs is money.
We agree on that.
If he ran his trap to the fuzz, he's probably jammed up good. But if he STFU and lawyered up, he's got a very good chance IMHO.
I’d rather suspect it would be the girlfriend had more motivation to put a second shot, in at eight minutes timestamp…. And that’s just pure speculation.
so the lesson here is once you decide that you are going to shoot, shoot to stop the threat, make sure you get the job done by repeated pulling of the trigger, but don't empty the mag because it doesn't look good
OJ got lucky because the state was grossly incompetent and negligent in multiple aspects of its investigation and prosecution, and he had good enough attorneys to put that stuff in a
cuisinart and present reasonable doubt.
By constitutional design the state is only supposed to get one shot. They took their shot and they f***ed it up.
Even if I was on that Jury I still would have acquitted him given that reality, while simultaneously hoping he got hit by a car on the way out of the courthouse.
Similar threads
