TG Pioneer
NES Member
-
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
And always have a 1/2 to 100% charged cell phone. One of the decent cops at the police station took my dying phone and charged it enough for me to make critical calls. Did they download contents, maybe, but mostly evidence of a exculpatory nature in fact all...
The paper did say the gun was a SigSauer.....go off all the time, and nobody can explain
Hell, it could have been unintentional while holding the gun on him 8 mins after an adrenaline dump. It’s a difficult case by the letter of the law. I’m usually one to focus on what the law is rather than what it ought to be, but the context being a home invasion like this, I have to admit I’m somewhat apathetic about what actually happened and why. You put me on that jury there’s no conviction.
That's cool and all, but he's still responsible for everything that gun did. It didn't fire itself.
How many times do we remind ourselves on here that we're responsible for every round that comes out of our guns? I think I read that about forty times in the thread about the Alec Baldwin case alone.
No. What matters is not when the second shot was fired but rather whether the perp was posing an immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury at the time the second shot was fired. If the DA’s statement is correct — that the perp was face down on the floor when he was shot in the back of the head — then the defense will have an uphill battle to convince the judge or jury that the perp was an immediate threat at that time.
The law doesn’t allow you to shoot someone for what they might do at sometime in the future.
Why do people keep posting this as though this would make the situation better? Yes, I know it is somewhat tongue in cheek, but really? In the unlikely event that the gun discharged accidentally, Mr. Camp is still responsible for the shot. The most it could do would be to reduce the charge to involuntary manslaughter.
Thanks, Captain Obvious, but you missed the point. My point was only that it’s one possible explanation of how the dirtbag got a bullet to the back of the head. That would be manslaughter, and no, I wouldn’t convict on it with this overall fact pattern.
If you say it's manslaughter, then why wouldn't you convict?
And if it's obvious, and he's responsible, then what do you think "he's still responsible" should mean, if not a conviction? What level of accountability do you think is appropriate for his responsibility to be discharged (no pun intended)?
The question is not whether he is "responsible" but rather what should be done about it. The law isn't perfect, and a felony conviction would result in a grave injustice.
Tartakovsky
NES Member
Listen, no one but Camp knows what was happening during those alleged 8 minutes given the GF was outside. He may have been struggling with Letendre who was being sustained by adrenaline and a sense of self-preservation in fear of death. It’s really too bad that Camp didn’t unload his sig immediately into him but maybe he didn’t want to end someones’ life and it became crucial to his own survival. Forensics will hopefully find exculpatory evidence justifying Camp’s actions. Regardless, I can’t get past a guy breaking in at 12:30 in the morning while the owner and GF are asleep and two little kids are in the next room. Sorry, but in my book, based on that alone, perp’s gotta die, and it was a good shoot. All said and done, Camp is NOT a danger to society, and locking him up would be a massive injustice.
added two letters
Devils Paintbrush
NES Member
Can't disagree with you, there will be a number of facets on how this is prosecuted.
Prosecutor is going to say the alleged second shot was an execution to a disabled/dying intruder that warrants a manslaughter charge.
Easier story to convince non-gun owners to convict. See what evil gun owners do?
I sit squarely in position that guy that was shot chose his fate. He could have avoided what happened if he did not enter the house.
The actions that happened are the result of his decisions.
There hasn't been any discussion on whether or not guy who was shot initially had or aquired a weapon once he got into the house.
There is a reason why there are so many home invasions and home burglaries. "Society" has found it reasonable to let animals continue being animals. You don't accidently break in to a house and attack the occupants. That is not something a reasonable person would do. Us "reasonable" people let these animals serve their laughable jail time where they become more dangerous animals. Until finally one of us "reasonable" people pays the ultimate price.
A reasonable person would contend that physically breaking in to a man's castle and attacking him should be a death sentence.
I don't wholly disagree, but that's not what I'm asking. Because that's not what this court case is about.
I don't think a reasonable person would give a coup de grace to a guy in the situation the DA is alleging.
SHOCKNAWE
NES Member
It absolutely should be and there is a window for being the judge, jury AND executioner it's just not 8 minutes after you drop the intruder.
If I'm on the jury I don't care I'm going to not convict this guy because the intruder made all this happen, realistically though it's a pretty damn good bet that the jurors are not going to think like me or most of us on NES
OK I am taking some grief on my opinion but...
You shoot to stop the threat, 2 shots center mass/largest exposed area of flesh and keep firing until the threat is stopped.
Guns 101
With the advent of cameras everywhere, and we saw this in the January Texas diner shooting where the guy was not charged at the time but the case is going before a grand jury, if you do more than you need to to stop the threat, in many states it is going to get you jammed up pretty good, especially if there are multiple camera views showing it.
I'm not suggesting anyone hold back when they are fighting for their life, but once the threat is stopped don't put yourself in the position of being accused of using more force than required
In the Texas case, 4 good shots fired, bad guy down.... 4 more shots fired.... well maybe a few too many, no movement, no weapon in hand, good guy picks up bad guys (toy) gun, bad guy is not moving, not a threat, good guy drills him in the back of the head with round #9
All on camera,
the first 4 shots... no problem
5th thru 8th shots .....ehhhh benefit of the doubt as to necessity
9th shot.... hard to defend that one
IMHO the mag dump was not needed and it makes the shooter, who was legally justified for at least the first 4 shots, and iffy on the next 4, look pretty bad at shot #9 which was a to the back of the head shot while the bad guy was incapacitated.
remember cameras everywhere, but in the case of the guy in MA he is going to get hung by a 911 recording
Good Rule of Thumb: Don't Mess With Texans Eating Tacos [VIDEO] - The Truth About Guns
◀Previous Post Next Post▶ An armed masked man stormed into a Houston tanqueria late Thursday evening and demanded money and valuables from the shop and its customers. While the robber walked around the joint, waiving a pistol and greedily grabbing up loot, one customer accessed his...
www.thetruthaboutguns.com
I've thankfully never needed to shoot anyone. If someone broke into my home, if they made me so angry that I went back and put another $5 of 5.56 into their face, I think that would be on them. I hope anyone on the jury is also capable of empathy for the real victims.
I would not count on a jury nullification.
I doubt it too
Society is falling apart because the state can consistently, reliably filter a jury down to people that have an easy time putting themselves in the shoes of criminals.
SFC13557
NES Member
Correct BUT they're not many reasonable people in the People's Republic when a firearm is involved in a killing. They don't believe in armed citizens and self defense.
Similar threads
