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

And that's the rub.
We have a new breed of scumbag that is so broken the life of others is meaningless. They cannot be reasoned with, are unfixable and are not deterred by the justice system but our government believes they should be allowed to roam freely among us.
Don't know if the perp fits into that category but it's likely nowhere near his first home invasion rodeo.
Not a new breed, and we have a term for it "savagery". In numbers, they have nothing to lose. If the lowest tier of 50,000,000 just riot, loot rape, steal and destroy, there is no standing army on this earth to stop them. Oh wait, the American Gun Owner (that's why they want us disarmed).
 
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.

bounty-law-thumb-1200w.jpg


OK, Jake Cahill. [rofl] [rofl]
 
Not a new breed, and we have a term for it "savagery". In numbers, they have nothing to lose. If the lowest tier of 50,000,000 just riot, loot rape, steal and destroy, there is no standing army on this earth to stop them. Oh wait, the American Gun Owner (that's why they want us disarmed).
We pretty much wiped out savagery in western civilization so it hasn't been an issue for 200+ years (in varying amounts)
The government has recreated a savage underclass through training and importation.
 
Interesting case, obviously will come down to whether he can convince the jury be shot the perp to stop a threat and not because the guy was talking shit about murdering the homeowner’s children.
 
The victim (guy who was legally there, not the dead a-hole) shot in self defense and ran away.
Wrestled with his emotions about what truly was the right thing to do, and after 8 minutes he went in to see if he could render aid to his fallen opponent.
The douchebag threatened him and tried to get up, the victim thought he was armed and put one in his hat.

Please pick me for the jury.

This BS about "you can only shoot when you're in danger" needs to go away. (yes, I know it's the law) Anyone who deserves to be shot should be shootable for the next 72 hours. And we need to realize that we can weaponize juries if we actually serve on them - since those who enforce justice don't seem to need to follow the rules, why should we?

I'd call this guy's death a suicide.
 
Interesting case, obviously will come down to whether he can convince the jury be shot the perp to stop a threat and not because the guy was talking shit about murdering the homeowner’s children.
In decent states, it's legal to shoot someone that you believe will go on to be a threat to the lives of others. In shitty states, the attacker would have been walking free in no time, so I suppose we're just arguing about timelines now.
 
In decent states, it's legal to shoot someone that you believe will go on to be a threat to the lives of others. In shitty states, the attacker would have been walking free in no time, so I suppose we're just arguing about timelines now.
I don't know of any state where that is true. The basic standard of when deadly force is justifiable comes from common law and is similar across all the states, according to attorney Andrew Branca (see The Law of Self Defense).
 
I don't know of any state where that is true. The basic standard of when deadly force is justifiable comes from common law and is similar across all the states, according to attorney Andrew Branca (see The Law of Self Defense).
You can shoot to defend a 3rd party in Texas, but it still requires the threat to be imminent, not a random future possibility.

Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
 
I don't know of any state where that is true. The basic standard of when deadly force is justifiable comes from common law and is similar across all the states, according to attorney Andrew Branca (see The Law of Self Defense).
e.g. Louisiana Laws - Louisiana State Legislature

§20. Justifiable homicide​

(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.

I was thinking of the "such an offense is about to be committed" and related prevention
 
For goodness sakes stop repeating this nonsense. In the unlikely event this was caused by an accidental discharge it is STILL manslaughter.

Feel free to ignore if you want, but this claim is, to me, an interesting theoretical legal claim about manslaughter when, hypothetically, a gun goes off "by itself", by which I would guess we mean as the result of some more or less normal interaction that does not normally cause firearms to discharge, e.g. the Type 94 Nambu problem.

This is purely hypothetical and I'm not arguing for the "gun goes off by itself" theory, merely exploring it legally.

In Massachusetts, to prove Involuntary Manslaughter the state must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt (1-3, and 4 if applicable):

  1. The defendant caused the victim's death;
  2. The defendant intended the conduct that caused the victim's death;
  3. The defendant's conduct was wanton or reckless;
  4. [Where there is evidence of self-defense or defense of another] The defendant did not act in proper self-defense or in the proper defense of another.

Given that we're exploring the consequences of a hypothetical AD/ND sort of thing at the moment, we need not concern ourselves with #4. Also, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the prosecution can show that the victim was alive when the second shot occurred. Then they have #1 in the bag.

We run into some trouble with 2 and 3. What conduct that caused the victim's death would you like to focus on?

Normally when a firearm is involved and the discharge is unintentional, we can hang our hats on merely pointing the gun at the victim. That doesn't work here because it is not wanton or reckless to keep the gun pointed at the downed invader. It is what virtually every reasonable and prudent person would do. Watch any police video where they light somebody up, and you'll see it every time. So that's out.

We need something that is wanton or reckless while pointing a gun at somebody you do not mean to shoot (in that moment). Keeping your finger on the trigger works. I've seen police videos where I think this could have happened. The cop doesn't admit to it because that's tantamount to a guilty plea to Involuntary Manslaughter. However, we were talking about a gun going off "by itself", which obviously precludes unintentionally pulling the trigger. So what conduct which caused the victim's death was wanton or reckless?

The only thing I can think of is when the flaw is well known, e.g. the Nambu, but I don't think that would be the case with the Sig.
 
You can shoot to defend a 3rd party in Texas, but it still requires the threat to be imminent, not a random future possibility.

Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
You can defend a third party in all states
Otherwise you could not defend your children who are by law prohibited from effective self defense.
 
8 min sounds like a reasonable time for a good cleaning of the gun. Shit, if he was shooting corrosive, I'd take full 15min to scrub the barrel and oil it well. So he is cleaning the gun and it goes off? We all know that guns kill people, that gun obviously tasted his first blood and wanted more. Dude is innocent.
 
You can defend a third party in all states
Otherwise you could not defend your children who are by law prohibited from effective self defense.
If you back up the thread, you'll note that wasn't the question being asked.
 
If you back up the thread, you'll note that wasn't the question being asked.
By stating " You can shoot to defend a 3rd party in Texas," it usually insinuates that there is a state where third party deadly force defense isn't allowed.
That's how I read it but was obviously incorrect.
 
So, is the lesson learned here that you dial 911, tell them to come quick you are afraid for your life and then hang up despite them telling to stay on the line ?

A variation on "don't talk to the police" ?
The lesson learned is that in MA, you’ll be a victim and you’ll like it. Don’t defend yourself. Call the cops. If they come, great. If they don’t, too bad. It was nice knowing you, and when the perp kills you, your wife, and your kids, it was your fault for being part of a systemically racist system that created victims like the perp to begin with. Oh, and if for some reason you absolutely have to shoot someone in your own home, it better be painfully obvious to even a smoothbrained leftist that you or your family was about to die, so don’t shoot the guy or person or them/they (sorry pronouns) in the back of the head while laying on the floor after the threat has already been neutralized, 8 minutes later (allegedly).
 
Last edited:
The lesson learned is that in MA, you’ll be a victim and you’ll like it. Don’t defend yourself. Call the cops. If they come, great. If they don’t, too bad. It was nice knowing you, and when the perp kills you, your wife, and your kids, it was your fault for being part of a systemically racist system that created victims like the perp to begin with. Oh, and if for some reason you absolutely have to shoot someone in your own home, it better be painfully obvious to even a smoothbrained leftist that you or your family was about to die, so don’t shoot the guy or person or them/they (sorry pronouns) in the back of the head while laying on the floor after the threat has already been neutralized, 8 minutes later (allegedly).

SSS seems to be the best option. Sure, you might get in trouble, but that's only if you get caught - which is unlikely if you follow the third S. Doing things the correct way you WILL get in trouble.
 
Man, I'm so glad I live in Kentucky.

I don't have to wait until I'm on the ground getting my head kicked in, or until an intruder is already in my home to engage with deadly force.
 
Last edited:
In decent states, it's legal to shoot someone that you believe will go on to be a threat to the lives of others. In shitty states, the attacker would have been walking free in no time, so I suppose we're just arguing about timelines now.

Yeah good luck with that, no it’s not. Although I would hazard a guess the margins are better in other places, no state is going to let you plug a guy that’s already on the ground inop/out. Of course we’re assuming that’s true and I’m not really sure that it is. States/prosecutors love to fill in the blanks in a narrative when they can get away with it.
 
Man, I'm so glad I live in Kentucky.

I don't have to wait until I'm on the ground getting my head kicked in, or until an intruder is already in my home to engage with deadly force.

I’d be more glad that, you are more likely to not make the rookie mistakes this guy did. That’s literally 95% of his pain, not the state or its dumb laws.
 
Of course we’re assuming that’s true and I’m not really sure that it is. States/prosecutors love to fill in the blanks in a narrative when they can get away with it.
From the article back up in post #1:
“We contend you can hear the first gunshot,” [First Assistant District Attorney Steven Gagne] said. After 8½ minutes, the girlfriend can be heard screaming that another shot has been fired, Gagne said, though audio evidence of the shot is unclear.​
And from the Masslive story (Chesterfield man released on bail in December shooting death):
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.​
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom