WILBRAHAM - A Boston Road condominium owner who shot and killed a neighbor Thursday night at present faces no charges because the shooting appears to be in self defense, Police Chief Allen M. Stratton said Friday.
Stratton said the Woodcrest Condominium resident, whose name was not released, told police he shot twice at a man who came into his apartment without permission, refused to leave and then became aggressive. The shooting took place just before 8:30 p.m.
Sounds pretty cut and dry, right? Dude comes into your home, ranting and raving, won't leave, and then starts getting violent. Homeowner retreats, gets gun, dude keeps coming. And gets two to the chest for his trouble. No reason to think the homeowner would be charged, is there?
Well, chew on this:
Stratton said the initial investigation so far indicates the "control, possession and use of the firearm was defensive in nature and consistent with Massachusetts General Laws."
Wow. I am simply stunned... Martha "we discourage self help" Coakley must be beside herself.
Dead Goblin Count: 17.
That is all.
4 comments:
It's surprising the DA would make any statement about his decision whether to charge in this case less than 24 hours after the death. It's doubtful that he even has an autopsy (and especially a tox screen) of the decedent yet. It would also be interesting to know what the decedent's prior contacts with the police have been. Of course, the DA only said that he had no reason to charge the homeowner 'at present'.
Massachusetts actually has a pretty reasonable version of the 'castle law', which is pretty well described in the article. The bottom line is that in Massachusetts one ordinarily has an obligation to retreat if feasible before using deadly force in self defense, but that there is no obligation to retreat in your own home.
There's no mention of any witnesses, so the physical evidence in the apartment could be crucial in figuring out what really happened. No, Jay, I don't think it's cut and dried, unless you take the homeowner's story at face value.
Sounds like a good shoot!
I see no problems with his actions. I agree that the situation should be reviewd to insure that there are no nefarious conditions, but if you enter my house without my permission, make threats against me or my family (or even the dog), I will ventilate your ass.
CW,
My comment about "cut & dry" was more in the abstract than pertaining to this specific case - I agree that there is insufficient data at present time to form a concrete opinion either way.
I was merely commenting that it's rather unusual for a defensive shooting in Massachusetts to be handled like it would in the rest of America... ;)
Old NFO,
On it's face I agree this was a good shoot - assuming, of course, that we don't find out down the road that there was bad blood between the two men or something like that. News reports - and this is universal whenever it comes to a defensive gun use - are woefully inadequate in either direction as a general rule. Also, they're most often decidely against the citizen who uses deadly force...
agg79,
My impression, and I'll readily admit I have nothing more than my gut upon which to base it, is that the deceased was drunk, came to the wrong condo, and started banging on the door.
Homeowner opens the door (mistake in my book), drunken (soon-to-be) deceased barges in and starts making threats. Now, it could be that he honestly thought he was in his own place. Maybe he thought his roommates were being jerks by locking him out; who knows?
He starts threatening to "kick your ass" to the homeowner, under the drunken impression it's one of his roomies' buddies or something, homeowner retrieves his sidearm for defense.
Things can go south in a heartbeat. I'm certainly not inclined to give a drunk who just barged into my home too much leeway, especially if he's making threats and continuing to advance on me even after I'm armed.
Sometimes, stupid is fatal.
Or, "Play stupid games, get stupid prizes"...
Post a Comment