Plenty of people believe in armed citizens and self-defense, but don't believe it's reasonable to execute people who aren't threats any longer. It's not as binary as you're pretending.
IF the DA's story holds up, this wasn't self-defense.
-
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.
- Thread starter maltc
- Start date
Plenty of people believe in armed citizens and self-defense, but don't believe it's reasonable to execute people who aren't threats any longer. It's not as binary as you're pretending.
IF the DA's story holds up, this wasn't self-defense.
SFC13557
NES Member
NOT the majority of Ma**h***s I'm afraid and especially not in the Northampton area.
-Most people don't even know they can nullify;
-Most boring normies will suck for the DA putting a standard male in jail for pretty much anything by default. (Because basically society tells us that men are responsible for all evil and basically trash by default.... /sarc.
On the other hand a 110 pound broad does this same thing (or a variation of it) and ends up walking "cuz female". Make her a single mom of 2 kids for mint frosting and extra "save the orphans" wailing points ....
Nothing. You mentioned Baldwin, but it's precisely the ways this situation differs from Baldwin that changes my attitude towards it.
1. Letendre was, at the moment he was shot (both times), committing a very serious felony, 20 years to life on the home invasion alone, not even considering possible attempted kidnapping.
2. Camp was justified in holding the home invader at gunpoint. It was lawful to be pointing a gun at him.
3. Letendre was unknown to Camp at the time. While there is a backstory, apparently, between Letendre and the girlfriend, there's no indication that Camp's actions were influenced by it.
4. They aren't alleging that the first shot was unlawful. The prosecution is tacitly admitting what we would all expect from a felony home invasion in the middle of the night that resulted in a struggle: it was reasonable to believe that Letendre was a threat prior to being shot the first time. It doesn't matter what they would have alleged had there been only one shot: alternate universes don't count.
So, we have a dangerous home invader in the home apparently being held at gunpoint. Camp had exactly zero culpability in engineering the circumstances that found him lawfully pointing a gun at a man currently committing felony home invasion (and possibly attempted kidnapping) in the middle of the night. That earns him a lot of slack with me. Camp didn't consent to being awakened in the middle of the night to be given a gun safety test after successfully defending the family, nor do I concede that deadly force was excessive even if Letendre was seriously impaired by the first shot. If he continued to struggle in any way, e.g. grabbing an ankle or whatnot, then Camp doesn't need to reassess the level of force in the middle of the incident. That'd be a new thing. Bottom line, if it was an accident, I don't care, and consequently, I guess I'm not qualified to be a juror on this case. I recognize that the letter of the law might support a conviction, but I won't participate in that outcome.
Now, if it was a Jack Reacher moment, I'm not here to imply that I would do the same or in any way endorse that, but the prosecution will need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Currently they're saying things like the first shot "most likely incapacitated the victim". "Most likely" is not the standard of proof that we require, nor is it sufficient to demonstrate forensically that Letendre was still on the ground. They will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Letendre was actually incapacitated and that no movement he was capable of making could have been interpreted as reaching for a concealed weapon. How many police shootings have we seen ruled justified or resulted in acquittal because the victim made some movement that was reasonably interpreted as reaching for a weapon?
They'd probably jam him with 'mutilation of a corpse' if that were the case.
Lol i think in 2023 the answers you get on this in a real survey are going to be contextual. It's easy for a guy to play "limp wrist, finger in the air intellectual" until his daughter is being bound and raped by a home invader.... or some other heinous shit. Remember that, someone willing to break into an occupied house is a special, elevated kind of a**h***. This isn't some dowanna stealing Tide from the self checkout at Walmart here.
I think you'd be surprised at the results.
ETA: I think the only reason people get convicted of this kind of thing is because the jury is more or less pitched a dog any pony show about how killing a non threat after the crime has occurred is illegal. So they get the "appeal to authority" thing and suck for that. Most people are f***ing lemmings.
That's a strawman. Nobody's daughter got tied up and raped in this case.
As I've already said, this case is going to be about something very specific: that second shot. Not about the home invasion (which was wrong), nor the first shot (which was fine), nor some hypothetical crime that didn't even happen.
Not my point
My point is if you honestly surveyed people youd get a wider stretch of beliefs wrt killing home invaders. Or killing thieves for that matter.
It's easy for many to armchair QB when they're not the victim.
IF the story the DA is telling is true, and he was shot in the back of the noggin while facedown on the ground with a wound to the torso, and absent anything else we've not yet been told, would you have shot him?
Because of the law? no. of course not. But at the same token I’m not going to consider someone else doing it to be “unreasonable” or immoral etc. regardless of the stupidity in the laws.
Tartakovsky
NES Member
1000% this.
pastera
NES Member
Unfortunately the state is interested in protecting itself not you.
Criminals aren't afraid of what the state can do to them but you are. Hence punishing you for any usurpation of their perceived power.
Yeah, the shitbag was shot too much for this to be a possibility.
pastera
NES Member
From what I understand the dead guy presented a past and present (to the shooting) threat to the guys girlfriend and child.
If he was on the ground threatening to visit the children's school once he healed then I'd have a hard time convicting if on the jury because the state had already proven unable to protect the children.
That's not been alleged, from what I've seen.
If he wasn't? If he really was helpless, facedown? Do you think it's reasonable to kill him?
It's the question the jury will be forced to consider, and I think it's a wise question for EDC people to think about.
There should be a Domino’s clause in the law;
If the cops aren’t there on time any additional shots are free.
Also, I humbly request that if I’m ever found to be in this situation, God forbid, please don’t try to help the prosecution convict me. Silence is golden. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
If the cops aren’t there on time any additional shots are free.
Also, I humbly request that if I’m ever found to be in this situation, God forbid, please don’t try to help the prosecution convict me. Silence is golden. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Chose your poison...It's a roll of the dice
Truth is Brian is dumb as eff, like most of us...A less chivalrous man should handed the GF sperm repository the Sig and told her "take care of your own shite....I'm not getting involved. No jury would convict no matter what happened
Yes, he can. Why do you think that would be better for him?
pastera
NES Member
The moment the perp decided to forcibly enter an occupied home HE willingly abdicated his right to live.
Notice I didn't say he deserved to die only that he willingly gave up his right to life.
Do I think it was reasonable to kill him?
I don't know.
You don't know either.
If the perp was CNS hit and incapable of movement waste down, he still could have been making movements that the homeowner could have under the fog of extreme duress reasonably interpret as attempting to retrieve a weapon.
Or it could have been a bad shot taken under that same extreme duress.
Either way the perp owned the outcome 100% since he was there with the intention of grievous harm.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
What kind of jury do you think he is going to get?
One tailored to state prosecution.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
I've been on jury duty in MA and it's not really like that. The problem is I have been on trials not involving use of a firearm and while shooting the breeze with some of the jurors I discovered some were absolutely openly hostile to 2A to the point where I would be worried about drawing at least some jurors hostile to the notion of self defense. Skimming out the bias may not be possible to weed out the haters here in this state when it comes peremptory challenges.
If it were me I would be wide open to the notion of jury nullification. It's the only tool that we the people have left to prevent our government from imprisoning us all.
Similar threads
