MA Man Held Without Bail In Shooting Death

[grampajack]

You're arguing in circles. In one post you admit that brandishing is a crime in every state, then in the next you defend the Kleanbore incident, despite the fact that it would be extremely likely in this day and age to get a person in trouble. You have absolutely no objectivity. Moreover, you guys are presenting yourselves as a unified authority, so that's how I'm responding to you. I can't carry on three separate arguments when you're tag teaming me like this.

I'm also growing very tired of your legalese. We've established what the definition of brandishing is, and that it's always illegal. The most anyone can say is that it's more illegal in some states than others, and that it always has the potential or even likelihood of getting a person in trouble. I don't have to cite the exact language of every law in every state to you. All that's relevant is that Kleanbore tried to justify his actions by claiming that brandishing was not illegal in his state, and we know this to be false. The bottom line is that he used a gun to scare someone away in a situation that did not strictly justify lethal force, regardless of what state we're talking about. While this may have been deemed legal in some states, that is up to the prosecution and jury. The takeaway, however, is that a reasonable gun owner, such as Kleanbore, may feel the need to stop a threat before lethal force is strictly justified. And that's the issue that I think is relevant to this discussion.

You constantly claim that my argument is not relevant because I can't prove any of the facts presented by the media. This is true, but if we're treating everything reported by the media as irrelevant then this thread should have been locked down at post number one. If, however, we're going to discuss the facts as they are currently reported in reliable media sources, then it stands to reason that we should form our arguments based on all the facts at hand. So far as I can tell, I'm the only one who bothered to read more than one article, and that seems to be the main source of the issue we're having.

Again, if you take the Lovell story at face value, as it's presented in its entirety by the media, then there's not much difference between what is alleged to have happened to him and what Kleanbore alleges. Both incidents involved an intoxicated person trying to gain entry into a house that wasn't his, and the sole evidence to support the homeowner's version of events was damage to the door. Both homeowners felt the immediate need to stop the threat before it gained entry. The difference between the two cases is how the homeowner handled the situation. Kleanbore managed to avoid an incident, but his actions very well could have landed him in hot water. And likely would have had it happened today.

So, here's the question. How could both homeowners have handled this situation differently so as to try to stop the threat from gaining entry without putting themselves in serious legal jeopardy? i.e. without risking charges of murder or assault with a deadly weapon.

My suggestion is that less lethal should be employed in such circumstances, where lethal force is not strictly justified but the threat is of a serious enough nature to warrant immediate action. While brandishing may work in these situations, it also might lead to a murder charge. Brandishing escalates the situation, whereas less lethal has the potential to deescalate it. And if it leads to charges, you're dealing with an assault charge as opposed to murder or an assault charge involving a gun. And in the case that it fails to stop the threat, and the threat either gains entry or produces a weapon, then he will be at least somewhat incapacitated. So not only does less lethal have the potential to stop the threat without the use of deadly force, it improves the homeowner's odds in the case that the threat does gain entry and warrants the use of deadly force.

In past decades, I would not have suggested less lethal as a viable option for self defense, but the climate of public opinion has changed dramatically since those days. In the past, any reasonable person would concede that Kleanbore's actions were entirely justified, and rightfully so. Not so anymore. But obviously he felt, and rightfully so, that he needed to do something immediately to stop the threat from gaining entry. It's obvious to anyone that it is always preferable to keep a threat from getting inside in the first place.

Why does this topic warrant such hostility from the mods? Instead of rehashing the same material, why can't we move on and discuss ways that Lovell could have stopped the threat from gaining entry without putting himself in serious legal jeopardy?

 

[Robert]

We are going in circles and arguing past each other. I guess the main point we can take away from this is know your local and state laws and act accordingly.

 

[Kleanbore]

All that's relevant is that Kleanbore tried to justify his actions by claiming that brandishing was not illegal in his state,...

I did not!

I said that there is no crime called "brandishing" in my state today.

I did not use that as justification.

...and we know this to be false.

We do?

The bottom line is that he used a gun to scare someone away in a situation that did not strictly justify lethal force, regardless of what state we're talking about. While this may have been deemed legal in some states, that is up to the prosecution and jury.

It starts with the charging authority, and it would be up to a trial jury should it go to one, and up to appellate courts should it go that far.

The appellate courts would decide issues of law. In the earlier stages, it would be based on facts and evidence.

Such as the destruction of the door, which was being pulled from its frame, and was not damaged by knocking.

And maybe, just maybe, an accusation from the man who had broken the door, had he filed a complaint.

Likely?

Would his testimony have been considered credible?

The takeaway, however, is that a reasonable gun owner, such as Kleanbore, may feel the need to stop a threat before lethal force is strictly justified. And that's the issue that I think is relevant to this discussion.

Okay.

So far as I can tell, I'm the only one who bothered to read more than one article, and that seems to be the main source of the issue we're having.

Well, you are not, but have you noticed that all of the articles relate information that was given by the authorities on a couple of occasions? Most of it is the same stuff in different publications.

Again, if you take the Lovell story at face value, as it's presented in its entirety by the media, then there's not much difference between what is alleged to have happened to him and what Kleanbore alleges.

The difference is night and day (which has, in law, been relevant for centuries)--and a whole lot more. Life and death, if you will.

Both incidents involved an intoxicated person trying to gain entry into a house that wasn't his, and the sole evidence to support the homeowner's version of events was damage to the door. [/QUOTEIt has been established that that the victim in MA was actually trying to again entry. He may have been, but a broken pane of glass will not prove that.

Other evidence included the testimony of the occupants.

And in the case in Massachusetts, the testimony of two other witnesses.

And, of course, the forensic evidence of gunfire, and the body of the decedent.

Both homeowners felt the immediate need to stop the threat before it gained entry. The difference between the two cases is how the homeowner handled the situation.

Alrighty, then.

Kleanbore managed to avoid an incident, but his actions very well could have landed him in hot water.

Had the intruder chosen to come back and complain, there is that slight possibility,

And likely would have had it happened today.

Most unlikely, had it happened here today.

But if I lived in Massachusetts, I would have known the law there.

My suggestion is that less lethal should be employed in such circumstances, ...

How does one employ a less lethal weapon through a closed door?

Why does this topic warrant such hostility from the mods?

It doesn't. The problem is, you have repeatedly bought up irrelevant facts and speculation to justify Lovell's actions, and have made lot of inaccurate statements about the law.

Instead of rehashing the same material, why can't we move on and discuss ways that Lovell could have stopped the threat from gaining entry without putting himself in serious legal jeopardy?

Well, had Lovell not fired through the door, the victim might well have not gained entry at all.

That remedy--waiting--is not the only one available to me, but it is how things would unfold for me.