Brandishing firearm at home

Devils Paintbrush

NES Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
977
Likes
1,172
Location
North Shore
Feedback: 7 / 0 / 0
This is from a Colorado incident in 2019.

Anyone's best guess if it happened in Mass... probably guilty as charged.

Odds are likely against you when police and firearms interact on your property.

I am pretty sure if anyone opens up on me in my own yard there will be a problem.

A lot of ass covering in this mistake. Not completely clear if homeowner had a firearm during the encounter, but I would think so.

Gun Brandishing
 
a classic police story, goes like a poem.
-------------
Notwithstanding this, Deputies Powers and Baker climbed over the four-foot fence and walked almost two hundred feet to plaintiffs' home. The plaintiffs' dogs heard the deputies and began barking. Rather than going to the front door to knock and announce their presence, the deputies instead went to the back of the house. Mr. Hanson heard his dogs barking, looked out of the back window, and thought he saw intruders. Mr. Hanson opened the door and yelled out to the supposed intruders to identify themselves. Neither deputy did so.
Rather than identify himself, deputy Powers—believing that Mr. Hanson held a pistol— drew his service revolver and fired five times at Mr. Hanson, who stood in the doorway.
...
Deputies eventually informed Mr. Hanson that he was not free to leave, and that he was under arrest for felony menacing and second-degree assault on a police officer.
 
Guys. Its obvious the Deputeez had to climb a fence to create a crime to prevent a crime that wasn't ongoing at their time of arrival.

Thank God for their protection and service
what article skips is - if you would be employed in any modern firm/company - the moment you got charged with shit you are fired, lost all health insurances and income. then you'll need to get a lawyer. then it all goes for years to bankrupt you. a poem. 'felony menacing'. no matter what you do a police always wins and finds a way to destroy your life.
 
If the police can't get their members to stop attempting to use qualified immunity when they are acting like drunk a**h***s then they deserve to lose the protection.

This is like having a diplomat who keeps breaking local laws. One of two things will happen. The diplomat will have that immunity waived and be open to local prosecution or the diplomat will be expelled/recalled.

Our police don't seem to be interested in either of those. They don't like to open up their officers to deal with legal consequences of belligerent work, nor do they seem to be willing to shit can officers who clearly have zero business being a police officer. And these are the f***ing people who are in charge of society. Insane.
 
what article skips is - if you would be employed in any modern firm/company - the moment you got charged with shit you are fired, lost all health insurances and income. then you'll need to get a lawyer. then it all goes for years to bankrupt you. a poem. 'felony menacing'. no matter what you do a police always wins and finds a way to destroy your life.
I agree that that is usually how the song goes. But you should read about one of our own NES members - "Ballad of Rat187"
If I had to pick a song to relate to his issues and ultimate victory, it would be Tom Petty's " I won't back down".
 
what article skips is - if you would be employed in any modern firm/company - the moment you got charged with shit you are fired, lost all health insurances and income. then you'll need to get a lawyer. then it all goes for years to bankrupt you. a poem. 'felony menacing'. no matter what you do a police always wins and finds a way to destroy your life.
You missed the fact that in this case the homeowner was never charged with.....anything. the po po said that felony menacing is what he was being charged with at the station.....when the guy pushed and asked what the charges were.....but he was released and never charged with ANYTHING. That is actually the whole point of the guys suit against the cops.
 
You missed the fact that in this case the homeowner was never charged with.....anything.
you missed reading the link.
--------
However, Mr. Hanson was eventually charged with prohibited use of a weapon and failure to leave the premises or property when ordered by a police officer. However, the district attorney dismissed both charges.
--------
to get those charges dismissed you have to follow the process.

anyway.
looking at this document confirm the duration of the whole ordeal - started January 8, 2019. last page signature date - DATED this 22nd day of June, 2021.
if that does not qualify enough as a destruction of one`s normal life - excuse me.
 
Last edited:
you missed reading the link.
--------
However, Mr. Hanson was eventually charged with prohibited use of a weapon and failure to leave the premises or property when ordered by a police officer. However, the district attorney dismissed both charges.
--------
to get those charges dismissed you have to follow the process.
I was thinking dismissed meant before it even went to court. Guess I'm mistaken.
 
How did the dogs survive this?

The 2 deputies should be in jail! At the very least, the plaintiff should sue their asses since the court denied their claim of qualified immunity!
 
How did the dogs survive this?

The 2 deputies should be in jail! At the very least, the plaintiff should sue their asses since the court denied their claim of qualified immunity!
if i would see somebody in my enclosed backyard at night time pointing a piece at me, damn, i have my tavor on the first floor by the kitchen just for that.

just this noon wife saw an another a**h*** walking on our street - in the hoodie with top on and sweatpants - in the 93deg heat. no wonder what the hell he is walking for like that, fecking junkie. i bet as soon those covid handouts will finally dry out it will be a shitload of home invasions.
 
if i would see somebody in my enclosed backyard at night time pointing a piece at me, damn, i have my tavor on the first floor by the kitchen just for that.
Just be aware that the Massachusetts “Castle Doctrine” does not apply to your home's “curtilage”, i.e. your yard, porch, driveway, detached garage or out buildings. If you are not within the four walls of you actual home, you still have the duty to retreat. Shoot someone in your backyard in MA, and unless they are actively engaged in firing at you (not sure if “just” pointing a gun at you would be considered shooting at you), you will likely be charge wit first-degree murder.
 
Just be aware that the Massachusetts “Castle Doctrine” does not apply to your home's “curtilage”, i.e. your yard, porch, driveway, detached garage or out buildings. If you are not within the four walls of you actual home, you still have the duty to retreat. Shoot someone in your backyard in MA, and unless they are actively engaged in firing at you (not sure if “just” pointing a gun at you would be considered shooting at you), you will likely be charge wit first-degree murder.
i am very well aware...
 
I've told this story before but for this thread i will repeat it. I was on a mediation jury a few years back concerning a case where a central MA car dealer gut shot a cop. The cop was suing the car dealer for the serious injury he incurred on duty. Needless to say some of the jury members were the "guns always bad" type. The gist of the case was that a neighbor had reported that the family was on vacation and the neighbor saw lights on in the house. It turned out the car dealer came home early, did some stuff, drank some booze( 10-12 hours before incident iirc) and went to bed. he wakes up to see someone coming into his bedroom, gets gun and shoots. It turns out according to the lawyers that the cop never identified himself when he entered the residence and I explained the castle doctrine as well as i knew it at the time to the antis. Surprisingly they came around and agreed that the cop was derelict in not announcing himself while in the house. It was a pretty interesting case except the cops lawyer didn't agree and it was out of our hands. The cop ended up losing the lawsuit.
 
Just be aware that the Massachusetts “Castle Doctrine” does not apply to your home's “curtilage”, i.e. your yard, porch, driveway, detached garage or out buildings. If you are not within the four walls of you actual home, you still have the duty to retreat. Shoot someone in your backyard in MA, and unless they are actively engaged in firing at you (not sure if “just” pointing a gun at you would be considered shooting at you), you will likely be charge wit first-degree murder.

So, if this happened in MA., the owner heard a commotion outside, and viewed from a window a unknown person, he is inside his home and opens his door to yell to the intruders to identify themselves. From the homeowners view, he then gets fired upon. He does indeed retreat inside the home to a bedroom (isn't that the duty to retreat thing?) .

This all within his own home. The homeowner never brandished or fired upon any "intruder". So, in Massachusetts, what is the homeowners next step?

Asking for a friend. :confused:

Jay
 
So, if this happened in MA., the owner heard a commotion outside, and viewed from a window a unknown person, he is inside his home and opens his door to yell to the intruders to identify themselves. From the homeowners view, he then gets fired upon. He does indeed retreat inside the home to a bedroom (isn't that the duty to retreat thing?) .

This all within his own home. The homeowner never brandished or fired upon any "intruder". So, in Massachusetts, what is the homeowners next step?

Asking for a friend. :confused:

Jay
it is something one will have to define for himself - what is that minimum acceptable risk before intruders will storm your household and rape/kill your family, or you engage them and go to jail for a very long time.
the law is always on the side of the criminals, just look at it from that perspective. law does not care of your intentions, it exists to keep you in fear of your government. and nothing more than that. just like a law enforcement personnel exists to write up reports and get bonuses based on the number of reports they generate.
 
You guys got no idea. “In my years of training and experience”

Make sure you well hydrated/fed every time you exit your house, especially if you hear a knock on the door..Might not be a bad idea to make sure you’re fully dressed..:.

There’s nothing like coming outside to a firing squad that’s claiming they’re there to help you...

Fences and cameras are a good idea but I think if I add to the stump wall then ill have a “safe space”
 
So, if this happened in MA., the owner heard a commotion outside, and viewed from a window a unknown person, he is inside his home and opens his door to yell to the intruders to identify themselves. From the homeowners view, he then gets fired upon. He does indeed retreat inside the home to a bedroom (isn't that the duty to retreat thing?) .

This all within his own home. The homeowner never brandished or fired upon any "intruder". So, in Massachusetts, what is the homeowners next step?

Asking for a friend. :confused:

Jay
As @paul73 said, it’s something you will have to define for yourself. A true case in MA is that of Jeffrey Lovell, who shot and killed a 15 year old that he thought was breaking into his house. Originally charged with 1st degree murder, it was reduced to voluntary manslaughter by a grand jury before he was found not guilty in a bench trial over a year and a half after the incident. This article gives a good review of the case:


So there is precedent in using deadly force against someone at your threshold. But Lovell had to fight the charge for over a year and a half and the last I heard was that he was still fighting a wrongful death suit by the deceased’s family:


And the DA (who originally brought the 1st degree murder charge) still implies that justice was not done in the case.
 
As @paul73 said, it’s something you will have to define for yourself. A true case in MA is that of Jeffrey Lovell, who shot and killed a 15 year old that he thought was breaking into his house. Originally charged with 1st degree murder, it was reduced to voluntary manslaughter by a grand jury before he was found not guilty in a bench trial over a year and a half after the incident. This article gives a good review of the case:


So there is precedent in using deadly force against someone at your threshold. But Lovell had to fight the charge for over a year and a half and the last I heard was that he was still fighting a wrongful death suit by the deceased’s family:


And the DA (who originally brought the 1st degree murder charge) still implies that justice was not done in the case.

I kinda remember that case and rereading your references brings out even more questions. And yes, it is sad that a teenager is dead because of stupid "teenager decisions"

I do acknowledge @paul73 statement "it is something one will have to define for himself". Spot on.

And I also know it is a civil case, but, back seat driving and blaming Mr. Lovell's wife...WTF?

"The lawsuit alleges that Michelle Lovell woke her husband when the teens arrived, telling him they were trying to break in.

Lovell testified in his criminal trial that he took his 9 mm handgun from a bedroom safe and went to the home’s front entryway. He told the court he was afraid someone would get in and seriously hurt or kill him and his wife. He then fired through the door, killing Francisco.

Mason ruled that Heather Francisco may pursue her claims that Michelle Lovell knew her husband had a firearm when she told him they were in imminent danger; that she did not ask her husband to warn the teens that he had a firearm; did not call the police to report the potential break-in; did not ask her husband to fire a warning shot; and did not try to find out why the youths were pounding on the door.

Mason summed up his decision, “I am satisfied that the complaint sets forth a valid claim that Ms. Lovell’s actions proximately caused Mr. Watson-Francisco’s death.”

[sarcasm]


So, when a Massachusetts resident is awoken by their husband/wife, they are supposed to go through a checklist before taking action?

Wife: Honey, someone is breaking into the house. Honey! Honey! Are you up? We are in imminent danger! I'm scared. I know you have gun beside the bed in your gun safe.

Husband: Ya, I'm awake, I'm awake. I got my gun and going to the front door.

Wife: Now make sure you yell that you have a firearm!

Husband: Ya, I got this.

Wife: Honey, I'll call the police and tell them our house is potentially being broken into to.

Husband: Uhhh? O.K. Ya, I got this.

Wife: Honey, now remember to fire a warning shot.

Husband: Huh?. O.K. I got this.

Wife: Hold on honey, one more thing, STOP! Let ME go find out why the "Yoots" are pounding on our front door.

Husband: Huh? Ya, O.K. I'm going back to bed and you let me know what to do next. Good luck. I love you.

[/sarcasm]

So, in all gun safes, there should be a small index card with all the pertinent questions. Laminated and BOLD typeset. And make the index card is in bright florescent green.

Oh, and ask your wife "what to do next"


Jay
 
Last edited:
So, if this happened in MA., the owner heard a commotion outside, and viewed from a window a unknown person, he is inside his home and opens his door to yell to the intruders to identify themselves. From the homeowners view, he then gets fired upon. He does indeed retreat inside the home to a bedroom (isn't that the duty to retreat thing?) .

This all within his own home. The homeowner never brandished or fired upon any "intruder". So, in Massachusetts, what is the homeowners next step?

Asking for a friend. :confused:

Jay
I have cameras around my home. If anyone is in my yard, I call the police. There is nothing out there I want go to jail for. Break down my door or come into my home and its go time.
 
Here we go. Here is your card. Just need to laminate them and tape them to the inside of all safes. Now, we are protected from all civil suits.

Jay


IcRJsyH.jpg
 
a classic police story, goes like a poem.
-------------
Notwithstanding this, Deputies Powers and Baker climbed over the four-foot fence and walked almost two hundred feet to plaintiffs' home. The plaintiffs' dogs heard the deputies and began barking. Rather than going to the front door to knock and announce their presence, the deputies instead went to the back of the house. Mr. Hanson heard his dogs barking, looked out of the back window, and thought he saw intruders. Mr. Hanson opened the door and yelled out to the supposed intruders to identify themselves. Neither deputy did so.
Rather than identify himself, deputy Powers—believing that Mr. Hanson held a pistol— drew his service revolver and fired five times at Mr. Hanson, who stood in the doorway.
...
Deputies eventually informed Mr. Hanson that he was not free to leave, and that he was under arrest for felony menacing and second-degree assault on a police officer.

I'm pretty sure the Deputy's dad built condo complex across from Bushwood Country Club.

"You scratched my anchor!"
 
Back
Top Bottom