Posted on 01/04/2005 2:29:19 AM PST by kattracks
NEW BEDFORD, Mass. -- A man who shot and killed another man on his property has been indicted for second-degree murder, according to prosecutors. The grand jury indicted Charles D. Chieppa, 56, for the July 17 shooting of 26-year-old Frank Pereira Jr. with a rifle.The fatal shots were fired near Chieppa's property just before dawn. By sunrise, motorists drove past Mr. Pereira's body, honking their horns and shouting in support of the shooting, the Standard-Times of New Bedford reported.
Chieppa, a Vietnam War combat veteran, lived in his parent's old home and largely kept to himself, neighbors said.
The home was next to Alfie's bar, which is known for drug dealing and prostitution. Pereira had snatched a purse from an Alfie's patron just hours before he was shot, police said.
Police had initially said the shooting happened when Chieppa confronted a burglar breaking into his home around 4 a.m. A day later, detectives acknowledged that they were investigating whether Pereira had actually entered the house before Chieppa opened fire.
[snip]
"My son didn't deserve to die the way he did, even if he was trying to break in," said Evelina Salgueiro, the victim's mother. "You don't shoot someone in the back like that. He was shot in the street."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
They sue now!
Wrong answer hoss. At least in Texas you can kill for property.
The point is you are seen as an executioner if you can shoot someone between the eyes while they are breaking in. Other things they look at are what type of weapon you use and what type of ammunition you use. Never use ammunition you reload in a self-protection weapon. Never use an exotic weapon. The best advice is use standard off-the-shelf guns and ammunition. Otherwise, they will portray you as an execution waiting to happen. You want to be seen as the terrified victim, not the highly trained and equipped executioner. The best advise if you have to use deadly force, is tell them how scared you were and then shut up until you talk to your attorney.
Bump for later
Decisions in these matters should not be decided in the light of a single case. That is a dangerous way to approach such issues. We would not want to governed by the precident set in "mob" rule, would we?
As for O.J., first there should have been a mistrial based on the jury behavior. That aside, he was found innocent, correct? I personally think he is guilty and that this trial was a travesty. But, innocent as he was found to be, yes, his legal fees should have been reimbursed, albeit with a qualification. There should be a set fee, an amount that represents a reasonable level of attorney expense.
Also, I must say I find it odd that you, as an attorney, would think that public perception about the correctness of a verdict in which the person was found innocent would in some way come into play in consideration of legal principal.
Well thank God you are a Chemist and not a politician.
OJ was found not guilty. He was not found innocent. You are confusing a very important concept in law. Not guilty does not mean innocent. It means that the prosecutor failed to prove the case, not that the accused was innocent of the charge.
That may be true. But that reply is also avoiding the point of the discussion. Unless you are saying that only those found innocent should be reimbursed for the legal fees and those found not guilty should not.
To me, that is splitting hairs. If the person is found not guilty, the state brought charges they could not prove just the same as if that person were free after being found innocent. I do not think someone that is found innocent, not guilty or that is acquitted with charges never to be brought again should be financially wiped out defending themselves.
"Gee, we are sorry, I guess the jury and/or judge does not think you should be punished over these charges. We know you have lost your house over the legal bills. That's too bad. Tough luck." should not be the way it is.
The burglar could just use brute force. Imagine someone the size of an NFL lineman breaks in and walks out with something. How is the average person going to stop them without a gun? In most cases, an average person would even get a bat or a club taken away from them if trying to stop a huge, strong guy with experience in street fighting.
A situation like this would be a really difficult situation. You can't stop the guy without a gun, but since he doesn't have a gun you can't shoot him as he is leaving. I know from reading this thread that TX law seems to allow this, but I wonder if a homeowner would really get away with shooting someone in the back.
The burglar could just use brute force. Imagine someone the size of an NFL lineman breaks in and walks out with something. How is the average person going to stop them without a gun? In most cases, an average person would even get a bat or a club taken away from them if trying to stop a huge, strong guy with experience in street fighting.
A situation like this would be a really difficult situation. You can't stop the guy without a gun, but since he doesn't have a gun you can't shoot him as he is leaving.
First, my comment about this being an absurd example was a bit out of line. It is not so absurd, as you point out.
Again...I believe that in each of my posts I have made it clear that I would not shot to protect a TV.....I was just "quoting" Texas law.....
Me too! Born & raised here.....
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time....occasionally that time is eternity....
Yes they do. If someone is breaking into your car, depending on state law, you can pull a gun on them and citizen's arrest them.
What you can't do is just willy nilly shoot them in the back even though you caught them breaking into or stealing your property.
If you are not in danger yourself, and they are not trying to flee after being appropriately warned, you have no right to make yourself judge, jury and executioner. To do so is murder in every state in the union.
Guess my memory isn't shot yet.
It was a Portugese fishing town in the 80's but was fast being overrun by illegals and Columbians, with a big coke trade.
What ever happened to “A Man’s Home is his Castle”?
Flee your home ... flee your car ...
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.