Posted on 07/20/2016 8:10:44 AM PDT by PROCON
A Massachusettes man was charged with murder after he shot and killed a 15-year-old boy who was trying to force his way inside the man’s Chicopee, Massachusetts, home Saturday afternoon.
Jeffery Lovell, 42, called the police to report what he believed was a break-in in progress just before 1 p.m. According to reports from the Chicopee Police Department, three teens went to Lovell’s home and began banging on the front door repeatedly. Lovell said he attempted to communicate with the youths through the door, but was unsuccessful.
As the banging continued, Lovell believed the teens were trying to break in, so he called the police and retrieved a firearm. But before the responding officers arrived on the scene, one of the teens struck the door with enough force that it broke a window pane within the door. At that point, more convinced the teens were trying to force their way into his home, Lovell fired a single shot, striking one of the youths.
When police arrived a short time later, they found the injured teen lying on the ground outside of the home. He was suffering from a gunshot wound to his abdomen and was transported to a local hospital, where he died. He was later identified as 15-year-old Dylan Francisco.
Investigators later learned that Francisco and the other teens had been drinking at a friend’s home nearby and began walking through the neighborhood when they mistook Lovell’s home for someone else’s.
Hampden District Attorney Anthony D. Gulluni called the incident “unfortunate,” but nonetheless determined Lovell’s actions warranted a murder charge.
“This was a tragic and avoidable incident that resulted in a young man losing his life,” Gulluni said in a statement.
Although there is no duty to retreat in the state of Massachusetts, the law clearly states that in order for deadly force to be deemed justifiable, the suspect must be inside the dwelling and the occupant of the home must have a “reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death.”
Lovell is currently being held without bail.
He shot through a closed door. Typical Democrat who is too stupid to own a gun. He violated all the rules of firearms safety.
Something like this happened in Louisiana years ago. IIRC, a drunk/high Japanese exchange student tried to break into a house where he thought a Halloween party was going on. Owner shot and killed him. The owner was cleared of any criminal charges but the civil suit totally destroyed him.
"3.) You need to shoot to kill."
“Poor guy, will a Massachusetts jury convict him?”
Probably.
“He shot through a closed door. Typical Democrat who is too stupid to own a gun. He violated all the rules of firearms safety.”
I think that post wins the award for the dumbest post of the day. The right to defend yourself, your family, and your property is a God-given right and I don’t give a d*mn what the local jurisdiction says. This incident is exactly what jury nullification is for.
What would happen to this guy if those three “innocent” youth had gotten into his house? Many 15-year-old boys are man-size and are going to be much stronger and faster than the man who shot them.
4. And if you do shoot him outside drag him inside.
Well, if one goes by zoning rules where I live that I’ve been recently investigating in my desire to have a shed workshop:
A porch under roof attached to a house is outside. If you enclose a porch it makes your house larger.
A porch under roof attached to a shed is apparently inside, which is to say that just having a porch at all counts towards the point that you have to use brick.
This is why I advocate having large capable dogs.These idiots would think twice if a Rottweiler or German Shepherd was having a fit on the other side of the door.
Was this at 1 PM or 1 AM? The youths were drunk and mistook a house in the middle of the day? Typo maybe? It makes a difference.
PROCON wrote: "Poor guy, will a Massachusetts jury convict him?"
A conviction is likely if reports follow MassLive.com narrative:
Dylan Francisco, 15, of Springfield, who was entering his sophomore year at Chicopee Comprehensive High School, was shot when he accidentally knocked on the wrong door of a home at 120 Boucher St.
Contrast the news narrative against the quote from guns.com:
"As the banging continued, Lovell believed the teens were trying to break in, so he called the police and retrieved a firearm. But before the responding officers arrived on the scene, one of the teens struck the door with enough force that it broke a window pane within the door. At that point, more convinced the teens were trying to force their way into his home, Lovell fired a single shot, striking one of the youths.
*****
Another MassLive.com article states:
"Francisco, of Springfield, and two other teens went to 120 Boucher Circle at around 1 p.m. looking for a friend, but it was the wrong house. Lovell told police his wife woke him and said two people were trying to break in.Lovell said he saw Francisco walking around in his yard, and then he knocked on a locked door that had three vertical panes of glass. Prosecutors said Francisco's knocking broke one pane, and Lovell shot through another pane, hitting Francisco in the chest.
Interestingly, the guns.com article mentions another detail avoided/ignored in the MassLive.com narratives:
"... three teens went to Lovell’s home and began banging on the front door repeatedly. Lovell said he attempted to communicate with the youths through the door, but was unsuccessful.
Sounds like these kids were looking for trouble and found it.
Home invaders who knock and then break in anyway when the homeowner shouts a them through the closed door?
This is why several states have “Stand your Ground” laws or “Castle Doctrine” laws.
It protects the VICTIM when they have to defend themselves regardless of where they are. They can only be charged if there is doubt about their expectation of threat.
Disclaimer: Each state that has these laws have different rules and details.
Not to mention if a screen makes it “inside” then your property taxes get raised. If it’s attached to a shed, then said shed is no longer taxed at shed rate but at the higher house rate. Face it, no matter what, you lose.
Nice screen name..
Concerning the OP, there's a Seinfeld in there. Joe Davola leaves the door open to encourage intruders. d:^)
Even in Texas, the anecdote is if you shoot them breaking in through a window, you better drag them all the way in the window. The bottom line is you need to convince the powers that be that you were in fear for your safety/life. Loud in the back yard may be a hard sell.
"4.) And if you do shoot him outside, drag him inside"
I dont’ believe that is true since you can shoot someone for trespassing at night in Texas... during the day, you must reasonably believe that deadly force is required to stop harm to you or another person, or the person is trying to steal from you.
In Texas, there are several situations where a person is justified in using force or deadly force.
A person may use force against another to the degree the person believes that it is reasonably necessary to protect themselves or a third person from another’s unlawful use of force.
Deadly force is defined as the degree of force likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, which includes actually firing a gun. However, the threat of using deadly force by displaying a weapon, if it is intended to cause apprehension that an actor will use deadly force if necessary, is defined by law as the use of force not deadly force.
In Texas it is presumed that deadly force was reasonably necessary if it is used against an individual who was unlawfully or forcibly entering or entered into an occupied home, business, or vehicle or is attempting to forcibly remove another against his or her will from an occupied home, business, or vehicle. Deadly force is also presumed to be justified to prevent the commission or attempted commission of murder, aggravated kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery and aggravated robbery.
In Texas if a person is present in any place where they have a right to be, they have no duty to retreat and have the right to use force, including deadly force, if they reasonably believe that it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to themselves or to prevent the commission of murder, aggravated kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery or aggravated robbery.
Texas law allows a person to use force in the protection of property to prevent or terminate another’s trespass or other unlawful interference with the possession of real or personal property. Deadly force can be used in Texas when the crime against property is classified as arson, burglary, robbery, criminal mischief at night or theft at night. Deadly force may also be used to prevent a person from fleeing with property immediately after the commission of a burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime if the actor believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means or the use of force other than deadly force would expose the person to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Texas also allows a person to use force and deadly force to protect the personal property of a third party. The use of force is permissible if the person believes that the force or deadly force is necessary to prevent the commission of theft or criminal mischief, or if the person believes that the third party has asked them to protect the property, the person has a legal duty to protect the property, or the third party is the spouse, parent, child or under the care of the person using force.
Pennsylvania
2.1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2.2), an actor is presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat if both of the following conditions exist:
(i) The person against whom the force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered and is present within, a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; or the person against whom the force is used is or is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove another against that other's will from the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle.
(ii) The actor knows or has reason to believe that the unlawful and forceful entry or act is occurring or has occurred.
When seconds count, police are minutes away.
He shouldn't be convicted but will be. It's outrageous he's being held without bail.
I hope not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.