MA: Drunken Teens Attempt Break in. 1 Shot, Homeowner Charged

Gun Watch ^ | 19 July, 2016 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Massachusetts has a very weak "castle doctrine" law.  It provides for a defense that can be hard to prove.  It may provide little protection for the homeowner in this case.


Three young males, at least two of which had been drinking, approach a dwelling and pound on the door.  The door is locked. The resident "tried to communicate".  At least one continues to pound on the door.  The resident calls 911 to report an attempted break in. Someone (presumably the person pounding on the door)  breaks out some glass.  The resident, fearing a home invasion, fires through the door, striking a 15 year old suspect who later dies.  The resident is charged with murder. From masslive.com:

"It was determined that three parties went to the residence believing it to be (the home of) a friend. One party, the victim, was banging on the outside door, when the homeowner shot through the door, striking the male," Wilk said.

Investigators found the victim and a friend were drinking alcohol at a nearby home. The two friends were confused while walking in the neighborhood and believed they had arrived at the home of another friend, said James Leydon, spokesman for Hampden District Attorney Anthony Gulluni, said.

Lovell, the homeowner, tried to communicate with the victim, who was still knocking on the locked door, Leydon said.

"When a pane of glass broke, the suspect fired a single shot, striking the victim," Leydon said.

Notice the way the article is written after the fact.  The homeowner could not know that the people who were breaking in were drunk and disoriented.  He "tried to communicate", but they persisted to the point of breaking glass.

The article even goes so far s to use the passive voice "when a pane of glass broke".   Why not: When a pane a glass was broken?  If the victim did not intend to break the glass, I would expect some pretty heavy pounding on the door to cause a pane of glass to "break".

Note that the 15 year old was already engaged in illegal activity, underage drinking.   But in Massachusetts, there is no presumption that some one breaking into your home reasonably puts you in fear for your life.  You have to prove that.

Comments at the article indicate that the 15 year old shot may have a history.  From the comments:

Springfield 61 10 hours ago

Some of us know those kids. Assuming they weren't to be feared is a blind statement. They were under the influence, walking down the street yelling and not only continued to bang on the door but apparently broke the glass. The homeowner did call 911 to report the attempted break in. Any one of us could have been that homeowner and could very well fear for our safety. I'm not saying that the homeowner should have shot a gun but again we weren't there. For the people who assume 15 year old kids aren't to be feared haven't been around today's youth. People don't know their backgrounds and there is more to the story than has been reported. It is still under investigation.

The Massachusetts castle doctrine is stated at this site:

Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 278, Section 8(a): In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

Compare it to  the law in Colorado, CS 18-1-704.5:

18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

I recall a similar case in Colorado, where a drunk was dropped off at the wrong house.  As in this case, the homeowner called police.  As in this case the homeowner told the drunk to leave.  As in this case, a window was broken, and that is when the homeowoner fired and killed the drunken man.  In that case, the drunk was said to be reaching inside.  I do not know if that happened in the Massachusetts case.

The Colorado prosecutor determined that the homeowner was justified, and no charges were filed against him.  Under Massachusetts law, the homeowner is allowed a defense after charges are filed.  He also faces civil liability.  In the Massachusetts case, the homeowner is in for a rough ride, and may end up impoverished and bankrupt.

Know the specific laws in your state.  

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch

[Red in Blue PA]

Does sleep count as “under the control of owner”?

[Ueriah]

Let them come into your home before opening fire for a better legal outcome.

Once they are in your home, I think most juries would not press charges.

I agree that fear makes people a little rash, and understandably so.

[Common Sense 101]

What jury would ever convict him?

A jury filled with residents from libtard-infested Marxachussetts.

[TalBlack]

Ditto. Shooting through the door is a few seconds too early.

[Jim Noble]

Does sleep count as “under the control of owner”?

I have no idea.

MA gun laws are very confusing. For example, a "Class A large capacity license to carry firearms" does not allow you to carry large capacity firearms, which are banned.

The problem is, every time they pass a new one, they don't repeal old ones that the new one conflicts with. And they pass lots of them.

[Mouton]

Personally I would not shoot through a solid door. Now if I could see someone were trying to kick it it by seeing through the glass I’d take me out and take my chances as I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by six. I’m 70 plus and would not be able to scramble away from youthful invaders. Once the door goes I’d not want to take the chance they would be on me before I could take more then one out. Last month someone here in north fl broke into a home and got killed. Seems he had some mental issues and no one could fathom what he was doing. The sheriff said what people have to understand here is if you are breaking into homes here most residents are armed and will shoot you. No charges.

[NonValueAdded]

I thought Slow Joe Biden advocated shooting through the door?

[Fireone]

Yes, that would be my first line of defense! Crazy Joe told the entire world, on public TV, to shoot a shotgun through the door.

[DIRTYSECRET]

In Calif. the other drunks would be charged with the murder.

[suthener]

I know what the law says, but three armed intruders (do you know at that time they are not armed?) are trying to break in your front door with extreme violence. You’re going to wait for them to enter before shooting? Possibly three people are going to come through your door shooting. Are you good enough to get all of them? If not, You’re dead and your wife and kids are at thier mercy. I would take my chances with the law. Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.

[BobL]

In California they train you to try to draw the crook into your bedroom before opening up. If all you do is wait until they get into the house, you’ll be safe from criminal prosecution, but you may have to deal with a lawsuit. If they are in your bedroom, it becomes very unlikely that that the next-of-kin will even be able to find a lawyer to take the case.

[kagnew]

“The liberals have hog tied the citizen.”

The liberals want to totally neuter all American citizens. GOD help us if hillary and her gang are elected.

[COBOL2Java]

Shooting THROUGH a door means not being sure of your target and what is beyond.

Hey! That's what Joe Biden told us to do! :0)

[Rannug]

An old man is having a heart attack. He stumbles to a house. Pounds on the door. A window is broken. He does not die from the heart attack, but he does die from the bullet which was fired blindly thru the door. Stated with respect.

[deadrock]

Is Massachusetts in Canada?

[marktwain]

“An old man is having a heart attack. He stumbles to a house. Pounds on the door. A window is broken. He does not die from the heart attack, but he does die from the bullet which was fired blindly thru the door. Stated with respect.”

The homeowner looks out, and sees 1 failing old man, instead of 3 aggressive young men who refuse to leave when asked. He does not shoot.

[arl295]

No, its located close to the People’s Republic of New Jersey

Where one has to retreat to their bedroom closet in order to not get charged with murder if an intruder breaks into your house with a gun.

You can’t shoot the ferals, they have rights you know, more rights then you do

[DrPretorius]

“I’m baffled. Three intruders and the homeowner can’t use force after they broke his window? He’s dead if it reaches three to one in his house.”

“What jury would ever convict him?”

I’d rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.

[JimRed]

What they need to do is send some drunk teens to the homes of politicians late at night.

That might be easier than we think, what with social media. Just tweet out "PARTY" and the politician's address...