There is a tragic case out of Chicopee, Massachusetts where a 15-year-old boy was shot after he appeared to go to the wrong house after a night of drinking. 42-year-old Jeffrey Lovell is accused of shooting through the door and killing teenager Dylan Francisco. Lowell is facing a murder charge.
It is a case reminiscent of the most notorious case involving the shooting of a Japanese student in Baton Rouge. The 16-year-old Japanese exchange student, Yoshihiro Hattori, was looking for a Halloween party and scared the wife of Rodney Peairs when he spoke a strange language and approached the house. Peairs shot him in the chest with a .44 Magnum handgun and was later cleared under a Make My Day law as mistaken defense of his home and self. We also saw a tragic such case involving the killing of a law student last year.
Francisco was trying to find a friend with another teenager after drinking a bit. The similarity of the homes in the neighborhood probably contributed to the confusion. The teenagers knocked on the door and they may have broken a pane of glass on the door.
Lovell is known to pose with various guns and has been a vocal advocate of the Second Amendment.
These cases often raise “Castle doctrine” issues where home owners are allowed to use lethal force in the cases of intruders within their domicile or home. In Massachusetts, you generally must show that you are acting in reasonable self-defense. However, there is an exception under G.L. c. 278, § 8A :
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.
Thus there is no duty to retreat but you must show (1) that he or she reasonably believed that the intruder was unlawfully entering the dwelling, (2) that he or she reasonably believed that the intruder was about to inflict death or serious bodily injury upon the defendant or someone else who is lawfully in the dwelling, and (3) the defendant acted with reasonable means of self-defense or defense of another person who was lawfully present. Here Francisco did not enter the dwelling but may have broken the pane of a window in the door. There is also the question of whether it is reasonable to believe that he was facing either death of serious bodily injury. Again that pane of glass could be key to a defense. Moreover, Lowell says that he first tried to speak with the teenager but fired after the breaking of the glass.
What do you think?
Source: Washington Post
slohrrs29
I hope you also taught your son to not break more than one law at the same time.
Randyjet
G Gordon Liddy used to say,” My wife has a gun but she keeps it on my side of the bed.”
Actually, upon release from prison this guy can own a lot of firearms. Muzzle loaders. Cap and ball revolvers. Cannons.
Issac makes a good point at 11:04, but not to strengthen his argument. Yes to most of those things, and that is exactly why common sense is so important. When my son was learning to drive, I didn’t tell him to do everything because the law said it was OK, I told him to use common sense. Just don’t turn left at a green arrow–be sure of what is coming anyway. It’s your car in the end, if it gets smashed, they were wrong, but you are out a nice car, and a lot of time, expense, and headache with the whole scenario. Shortly thereafter a texter blew through a standing red light (seeing more and more of that…) helping to illustrate my point. Gun crazy society… don’t knock a window out of a door in the middle of the night. Yeah… yeah… may or may not be against the law what he did, but regardless, he’s dead now. Caution, response to sneaky sidebar: Oh… and what about us who don’t just follow talk and hate, but instead follow actions? You’ve got big-mouth Trump, but you have proven Clinton who is working on getting up there with Shiva, destroyer of the world… got to call it like it is wherever it shows up, sidebar or not…
Isaacbasonkavich
You never fire a warning shot.
If you have time to fire a warning shot then you are not in imminent danger. And frankly any discharge that’s not made to save your life or prevent serious injury is likely to result in unintended consequences.
Frankly, this guy would have been in almost the same fix if he took your advice.
Well, there is some good to come out of all this. The fact that this joker got blown away will help deter others from breaking into homes while people are there. There are a lot of “shoot the burglar” laws across the U.S, and the liberal pansies always go into hysterics about how it will turn into the Old West, and innocent people will get shot all over the place. And there are a few times that happens, but by and large our criminal class eschews home invasion as a source of income and pleasure.
I think a few Francisco’s here and there is a small price to pay. Personally, I would not have blown him away until I saw for sure who it was, at which time if I thought he was a serious threat I would have emptied a few 7.62×39 full metal jacket bullets into him. And if I was not pretty sure he meant me harm, I would have probably just shot him in the foot or something if he didn’t stop.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
randyjet – “I will bet the killer broke the glass himself to justify the shooting. Assuming he didn’t stage the scene,…”
Yea, and he probably bought the dumb kid the beer too and got him drunk and led him to his house. Good grief.
Comparing rolling your eyes or giving someone the finger to some drunk person showing up in the middle of the night banging on your door to the point it breaks the glass is really just about as dumb a comment as one could make. Isaac just can’t admit that the kid caused his own problem. This was preventable and it all starts with the kid.
And like KCF stated…
“KCFleming
“..and he deserved a death sentence because of it? ”
Deserves got nothing to do with it.”
I see our pilot is doing his best Inspector Clouseau impression.
I had a guy pounding on the door late at night. I tried to talk to him but he was incoherent (and had a heavy accent) I called the police and they said there was nothing they could do unless the guy entered my home. ( this is a nice upper middle class neighborhood). The guy punched through the stained glass and reached through to open the door. I used the ambush code on my alarm and several cars showed up. He was drunk and thought he saw his wife’s car in front of my home. I was stunned that the police were unconcerned until he entered.
If people are afraid when there’s a knock at their door they should stop watching TV. It’s all fear porn anyways. Besides I advocate the gray man strategies, they work quite well.
It’s the Zimmerman doctrine: I felt threatened BANG!
KCFleming, “Not ‘should.’
‘Is more likely to.’”
Really? You are are still advocating that the value of peoples lives that do stupid things is very small. The next time you do something stupid, perhaps rolling your eyes at someone that says something you find distasteful, maybe that person will see you roll your eyes, a stupid thing do do, and pull a gun and kill you. I’m sorry, I just don’t find that a very nice society to live in. Because all of us, everyone of us, does stupid stuff on occasion. If death is a likely consequence of doing stupid stuff, we are in serious trouble as a society.
He’s toast. Kid didn’t enter. No evidence that kid was going to do him or anyone else great bodily harm.
Not only is he toast, but the Massachusetts castle doctrine is milktoast. Stripping away its excess verbiage, it’s the same law that one is under in the street: if there’s a reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm, one can use reasonable force in defense of oneself or in defense of others.
In this state, if someone is INSIDE THE HOUSE after breaking in, there’s a legal presumption that he or she is there to do great bodily harm. The burden shifts to the intruder to prove he was there for another reason. If somehow it’s proven that he was only there to see what was in the fridge, then the homeowner who shoots him is in trouble. The Massachusetts law requires that the homeowner gauge intent of the intruder to a far greater degree and not only increases the potential for liability of the shooter if he doesn’t but increases the potential of harm to the homeowner who’s trying to figure out why the intruder’s in his or her kitchen.
If there’s going to be a castle doctrine, I think the California rule is an appropriate compromise between being able to shoot anyone who breaks and enters no matter his or her intent, and somehow having to figure out what the intruder’s there for before shooting. That said, the intruder has to be INSIDE THE HOUSE, and the law should not include the curtilage, because in that case the homeowner is defending property rather than lives. If the intruder is rummaging through the shed, call 911.
I will bet the killer broke the glass himself to justify the shooting. Assuming he didn’t stage the scene, he still should be charged and probably convicted of murder or at least manslaughter. Either way, we will be safe since he will be locked up and away from the rest of us, and best of all, can never get close to a firearm again. That will probably hurt more than prison for nuts like this. Then the kids parents can sue him for the murder.
“how many big talkers here would actually pull the trigger
Your straw man is valiant.
KCFleming – I have screened metal security doors. I would be afraid the bullet(s) would bounce back and I would be the one shot. 😉
Paul
Nice to read someone who has a modicum of rationality about him. The issue at hand in the US over the past few decades is attitude. The attitude is fine tuned, either reinforced or curtailed. It is impossible to stop the mindless actions of citizens armed to the teeth in their castles. However, they can read and certainly watch TV. So when this sort of knee jerk, mindless response takes the life of a goofy teenager and the ‘serves em right’ tide comes in, others are reinforced and more likely to go out and shoot. When the ‘ya can’t do that’ tide comes in some might just think a moment longer before pulling the trigger. There will always be those that say shoot first and ask questions later cuz that moment you took thinking might cost you your life. There will always be those who say, think. Recently there has not been a lot of thinking going on. Reading this blog is the best education one can receive illustrating the profile of America. There are worse blogs, both left and right leaning. Chapeau to Turley’s blog for including a fairly reasonable mix. If often wonder how many big talkers here would actually pull the trigger or are just spouting off, venting their spleens, Trump like. Remember when venting gets a guy like Trump elected. You can’t take him back. Remember Bush.
“So anyone that does stupid shit should die?”
Not ‘should.’
‘Is more likely to.’
So, if you prefer to live longer, maybe don’t do that.
It ain’t rocket surgery, Paul.
What a minute. You say that the two robbers may have broken a pane of glass on the door?
Shoot em.
“knock, knock, knock. Dave!”
Inside:
Dave’s not here man!
Outside:
No I’m Dave. Come on man open up I got the stuff.
Knock.
Dave’s not here man.
-Cheech and Chong
KCFleming, “Deserves got nothing to do with it.”, that is exactly the point you are making. Sorry, I completely disagree. “Don’t do stupid sh!t and you’ll live longer.”, So anyone that does stupid shit should die? It must be nice to be without flaw. But I am guessing, kind of lonely as well.