MA Man Held Without Bail In Shooting Death

We -- as always -- really don't know the exact details of what happened.


But ... restraint. [strike]Should I?[/strike] [strike]Could i?[/strike] [strike]CAN I?[/strike] ... "MUST I shoot?"

Unfortunately, he's likely doing time as MA has a duty to retreat and finding a sympathetic jury who will nullify the state's horrible law is unlikely.


And here's the moral of the story (as repeated on THR time and time again)...

NEVER SHOOT THROUGH A DOOR !!!

Horrible law? He shot and killed a kid outside his door at one o'clock in the afternoon. I don't think he could find a sympathetic jury anywhere in the country.

Yea he is screwed. If he had been a elderly gent then a case could be made that he feared for his life after the glass was broken. Being that he is 42 he will be spending some time in prison. Under the must retreat law which is BS he did the exact opposite. It's Ma land of liberals, so of course the criminals get the edge. It will be interesting to see how this case plays out.

It's Ma land of liberals,...

Click to expand...

It's not Massachusetts.

It's not liberals.

It's using deadly force to defend yourself when your life is not in danger.

Just going on what is in the quoted news report, had Mr. Lovell shot the guy the same way at the same time of day and under the same conditions in Texas he'd still have a high likelihood of ending up in prison.

There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

I would be curious to know what steps the homeowner had taken to educate himself on the laws of self defense and the use of deadly force in his location.

Yep.

The man killed a 15 year old kid for the heinous offense of ringing the door bell in the early afternoon. He is going to the crossbar hotel for a long stay.

Click to expand...

The OP says "banging on the door" and "a pane of glass shattered".
It wasn't "ringing a doorbell".

As the kid was not "in his dwelling" he was not justified in using deadly force. He will most likely be doing time. And probably would be found guilty anywhere if the facts in the news were correct.

Of course, the Globe, MSN, and Facebook posts always capture all of the important elements of something like this. MSN says in the first line of its piece that the kid was "murdered." "Yep." Lock him up just based on these comments. That's exactly the kind of treatment that we would like to receive, right? No "...innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?"

Can't we do a little better here?

Of course, the Globe, MSN, and Facebook posts always capture all of the important elements of something like this. MSN says in the first line of its piece that the kid was "murdered."

Click to expand...

Nope. Doesn't fit the definition of a murder, based on the little info we have here.

A homicide yes, of course. And quite possibly a manslaughter conviction if he can't mount a successful self-defense claim.

Lock him up just based on these comments. That's exactly the kind of treatment that we would like to receive, right? No "...innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?"

Can't we do a little better here?

Click to expand...

We aren't a court of law, and our pronouncements do not decide this man's conviction or acquittal.

We host threads about real-world shootings for one reason: to evaluate the choices people make and decide if they are tactically sound, and how the law of their state addresses lethal force actions.

We aren't here to judge. We're here to learn from the mistakes and triumphs of others.

I guess it doesn't matter what the kids intent was. But I have to wonder why did the kid have to break the window out. And why didn't he leave when asked to leave the property forcefully. I had an incident like this happen when a drunk teenage girl was pounding on my front door calling out some guys name at 2:00 am. I used the exact same language cause I was scared. And the person left immediately. But if a window would have shattered I would have considered that an immediate escalation of threat.

Interesting that in MA the intruder has to be inside the dwelling. I was under the impression that in CA if BG is in the process of forcible entry the presumption of fear for one's life applies... here's the penal code section, what do you guys think? Does "unlawfully and forcibly enters" mean he has to be all the way in the house? To me it looks like if he breaks a window and starts climbing in, he's entering. If he broke a pane of glass but isn't trying to come in (why would he do that?) I suppose there could still be a justification to shoot depending on the rest of the circumstances? For example, he's outside the door brandishing a gun and says he's going to shoot you if you don't open the door...? What if the pane of glass he broke is the closest one to the doorknob and deadlock so he could let himself in by sticking his hand through, and he sticks his hand through?

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

If you are already inside your home - just how much further are you required to "retreat" under MA law?

What little we know the individual was continually hammering the door to the point a window broke - I suspect the defense will be a forcible entry was being attempted. Time of day does have something to do with it as many neighborhoods are nearly abandoned in daylight hours because of the typical 8-5 work shifts most have. There are a lot of B&E then because of it.

If you are in your home you have retreated about as far as you can from the rest of the general population and from being outside in the world - somebody is pounding on the door and ignoring your continued, loud, and relatively rough comments to leave, the next thing you hear is breaking glass - it takes a lot of force beating on the door to do that unless it's deliberate. There's an escalation of forced entry going on here, and the VP is on record you should shoot thru the door to stop evil people from coming in . . .

NO defense on that but there you are. Lots of gun owners aren't up to speed on legal and tactical defenses, all they hear are what's in the news. Sounds like someone believed what the talking heads told him was ok to do.

How many of you believe the door to your home is the last barrier of retreat, and any further you are under a lethal threat when it's being demolished?

As said, we discuss these events to have a better understanding. Is it case law with decisions from the bench in MA that the perps have to break in the door and stand inside before you can shoot - or are we just seeing an anti gun administration haul an innocent citiizen thru the wringer for their political agenda? We ARE talking MA where the AG just banned all semi auto firearms unilaterally without the people's approval.

Plan2Live said:

I would be curious to know what steps the homeowner had taken to educate himself on the laws of self defense and the use of deadly force in his location.

Click to expand...

I'm going to go with "hearsay and innuendo".

I was reading this yesterday and reflecting on life.

I was living in base housing at Chicopee AFB back in '87 and '88 when I was going to the S1C Prototype in Windsor, CT for training. This guy was a 13 year old kid, then. Kind of tragic to think that a pre-teen/young teen that may be running around playing right now might find themselves in such a predicament some years/decades in the future.

vongh said:

I guess it doesn't matter what the kids intent was. But I have to wonder why did the kid have to break the window out. And why didn't he leave when asked to leave the property forcefully.

Click to expand...

Because...he was a 15 year old teenager. Worse, he was a 15 year old teenager that had apparently been drinking. We can infer whatever we want about what this may indicate about the teen's character and upbringing, but right now I'm just going to say that it's apparent that these two things alone evidently didn't do much for his common sense or behavior.

In fact, there may be a great deal more about the kid's "intent" that we don't know about. Again, this is pure speculation, but there may have been verbal threats exchanged, violent acts leading up to the window breaking, a clear threat, combined with a clear ability, to inflict harm. We just do not know.

(Even so, it still may not justify the shooting, but it might go a long way towards explaining why the guy felt the need to shoot.)


I don't want to engage in all kinds of hypotheticals one way or the other...suffice it to say that, as usual, we DON'T know the full story, the media is notoriously inaccurate and unreliable, and we may never know the full story.

I don't want to engage in all kinds of hypotheticals one way or the other...suffice it to say that, as usual, we DON'T know the full story, the media is notoriously inaccurate and unreliable, and we may never know the full story.

Click to expand...

Bingo. A jury will hear testimony from the defense as to exactly what (the defendant says) happened, and from law enforcement as to what the physical evidence at the scene suggests. And they'll hear instructions from the judge about what MA's laws governing self-defense say about such actions.

Then they'll have to decide what they think really happened, and how they think what happened compares to the justifications for a homicide under MA law.

They won't have a perfect view of the event, but they'll have a lot more to go on than we do, or than we ever will.

If you are already inside your home - just how much further are you required to "retreat" under MA law?

Click to expand...

From what I've read, in MA it means to a back room, and if possible, out a back door. That's right, you're supposed to run away and let them do whatever they want in your house.

This is just one reason that when I was offered a very good job in MA some 10 years ago, I turned down the offer. One of the classic "people republic of" type state.

SSN Vet said:

From what I've read, in MA it means to a back room, and if possible, out a back door. That's right, you're supposed to run away and let them do whatever they want in your house.

This is just one reason that when I was offered a very good job in MA some 10 years ago, I turned down the offer. One of the classic "people republic of" type state.

Click to expand...

As has already been pointed out earlier, this is incorrect.

There is no "duty to retreat" in Massachusetts law with respect to killing or injuring a person who is unlawfully in a dwelling, and it's specifically spelled out in black and white here:

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleII/Chapter278/Section8A