Killing in the Hilltowns: Mass. man on trial after shooting home invader - Brian Camp vs. John Letendre

[Reptile]

Killing in the Hilltowns: Why a Mass. man is on trial after shooting a home invader

A Chesterfield woman heard creaks outside her bedroom on a cold, wintry night in 2022. It was an ex, and less than 20 minutes later, he was dead from a gunshot to the head. A Mass. man is now on trial for manslaughter.

www.masslive.com

Self-defense or needless killing?: Manslaughter trial of Brian Camp, 24, features compelling testimony on opening day​

Self-defense or needless killing?: Manslaughter trial of Brian Camp, 24, features compelling testimony on opening day

NORTHAMPTON — Opening statements in the manslaughter trial of Brian Camp gave further insight into what happened shortly after midnight on Dec. 27, 2022, the night Johnathan Letendre, 27, lost his life after entering the house of Camp and his...

www.gazettenet.com

 

[jakeroub]

Killing in the Hilltowns: Why a Mass. man is on trial after shooting a home invader

A Chesterfield woman heard creaks outside her bedroom on a cold, wintry night in 2022. It was an ex, and less than 20 minutes later, he was dead from a gunshot to the head. A Mass. man is now on trial for manslaughter.

www.masslive.com

Self-defense or needless killing?: Manslaughter trial of Brian Camp, 24, features compelling testimony on opening day​

Self-defense or needless killing?: Manslaughter trial of Brian Camp, 24, features compelling testimony on opening day

NORTHAMPTON — Opening statements in the manslaughter trial of Brian Camp gave further insight into what happened shortly after midnight on Dec. 27, 2022, the night Johnathan Letendre, 27, lost his life after entering the house of Camp and his...

www.gazettenet.com

Ok, great, you posted. You obviously have feeling about this. How about adding something of value. What are your thoughts?

 

[Reptile]

Ok, great, you posted. You obviously have feeling about this. How about adding something of value. What are your thoughts?

If the intruder has been shot once and is no longer a threat - it is not a judicious use of lethal force to shot him in the head 20 minutes after the first shot.

I predict the home owner will go to jail.

He would have been wise to get some training on use of force.

 

[knucklehead]

He should've just emptied the magazine in him when he got the pistol, just like the police are taught in their use of force training. But he didn't and he shouldn't need Use of Force Training to defend yourself inside the home. What's not mentioned was if the assailant was getting up again to attack when he was shot in the head. A reasonable person who was just attacked and had the possibility of being attacked again can argue for fear of their life.

 

[Sparky123]

When someone breaks into your home with the intention of hurting or killing you, you do what you have to do to protect yourself and your family. Anyone who has ever been in that position would never convict this man. The suspect whether he knows it or not put his life in danger the minute he entered this man's home. So, whatever happens should be on him, not on the homeowner. Sadly, Massachusetts laws make criminals out of victims, and victims out of criminals and whackos. In the eyes of our politicians, all gun owners are criminals or potential criminals. Representative Michael Day is a perfect example of how other Democrats look at gun owners.

 

[SHOCKNAWE]

Without all the specific details it's hard to get the facts surrounding the second shot, if it happened the way the article reads that the homeowner shot the guy after he was down over 8 minutes later to finish him off he is f'ked.

If the guy who was shot got an adrenaline rush and got up after 8 minutes and tried to attack the homeowner then he should be fine but justifying a kill shot to the back of the head might be hard.

As @knucklehead said he should have emptied the mag into the guy rather than firing a single shot, had he done that this thread wouldn't have happened

 

[M1911]

When someone breaks into your home with the intention of hurting or killing you, you do what you have to do to protect yourself and your family. Anyone who has ever been in that position would never convict this man. The suspect whether he knows it or not put his life in danger the minute he entered this man's home. So, whatever happens should be on him, not on the homeowner.

I understand your point of view but that is not in accordance with the law in Massachusetts or in most other states.

 

[HARRYM]

Put me down for saying Johnathan Letendre should not have broken into that residence that night.

This fits very well into the FAFO thread.

 

[Mountain]

Put me down for saying Johnathan Letendre should not have broken into that residence that night.

This fits very well into the FAFO thread.

Totally agree with your point.

From my side I would add that Camp should have fully neutralized the threat upon that first opportunity to shoot. If indeed he re-entered the house and 'executed' Letendre, Camp will go to jail for that.

 

[M1911]

Put me down for saying Johnathan Letendre should not have broken into that residence that night.

This fits very well into the FAFO thread.

That’s really two different things. I don’t have any sympathy for Letendre. I don’t feel bad about his demise. But that doesn’t change the reality that, if the facts are as described, the second shot was unlawful.

Legal vs illegal != right vs wrong.

 

[pupchow]

If the intruder has been shot once and is no longer a threat - it is not a judicious use of lethal force to shot him in the head 20 minutes after the first shot.

I predict the home owner will go to jail.

He would have been wise to get some training on use of force.

But how long did it take the cops to show up after receiving a phone call?

 

[jkelly1229]

Ok, great, you posted. You obviously have feeling about this. How about adding something of value. What are your thoughts?

@Reptile 's thoughts... current lady's bf is in jail for shooting her ex...

 

[namedpipes]

Killing in the Hilltowns: Why a Mass. man is on trial after shooting a home invader

A Chesterfield woman heard creaks outside her bedroom on a cold, wintry night in 2022. It was an ex, and less than 20 minutes later, he was dead from a gunshot to the head. A Mass. man is now on trial for manslaughter.

www.masslive.com

Self-defense or needless killing?: Manslaughter trial of Brian Camp, 24, features compelling testimony on opening day​

Self-defense or needless killing?: Manslaughter trial of Brian Camp, 24, features compelling testimony on opening day

NORTHAMPTON — Opening statements in the manslaughter trial of Brian Camp gave further insight into what happened shortly after midnight on Dec. 27, 2022, the night Johnathan Letendre, 27, lost his life after entering the house of Camp and his...

www.gazettenet.com

I thought you had duped yourself but it's a different Northhampton murder than the one you just posted.

Are you sure you're not reading murder cases from TV Guide? Can you imagine living somewhere like Longmire, Wyoming? With a murder rate in the triple digits per thousand!

Must be a rough neighborhood.

 

[M1911]

Northampton used to have the Northampton State Hospital. It has been closed for 40 years, but I still wonder if this has had an impact on the local population.

 

[Reptile]

Northampton used to have the Northampton State Hospital. It has been closed for 40 years, but I still wonder if this has had an impact on the local population.

Yes, the closing of the hospital has had an impact on the local population.

The Northampton area has the highest concentration of mental health workers in the in the US. There are hundreds of psychologists, psychiatrists, and all sorts of therapists in the area. There are all sorts of services for the mentally ill in this area due to such a high number of clients.

The police have all sorts of training for the mentally ill population. There is even a special police force that deals just with the mentally ill.

 

[namedpipes]

Northampton used to have the Northampton State Hospital. It has been closed for 40 years, but I still wonder if this has had an impact on the local population.

It was so good of the State to set all those people free so they could pursue their best life without the burden of health care, clean, safe and clean housing and three nutritious, if unappetizing meals.

They must be so happy living free.

 

[Palladin]

as no one's asked yet....is the GF Hot??? I mean, this guy died for her, I certainly hope she isn't a scag

 

[Dennis in MA]

If the intruder has been shot once and is no longer a threat - it is not a judicious use of lethal force to shot him in the head 20 minutes after the first shot.

I predict the home owner will go to jail.

He would have been wise to get some training on use of force.

 

[HARRYM]

That’s really two different things. I don’t have any sympathy for Letendre. I don’t feel bad about his demise. But that doesn’t change the reality that, if the facts are as described, the second shot was unlawful.

Legal vs illegal != right vs wrong.

Wrong again. When the shit hits the fan, and someone is in your house and you have no real understanding as to what the hell is going on, stop expecting people to be able to think in a calm and rational manner.

 

[M1911]

Wrong again. When the shit hits the fan, and someone is in your house and you have no real understanding as to what the hell is going on, stop expecting people to be able to think in a calm and rational manner.

You missed my point entirely.

You are arguing about right and wrong, or what is just and unjust. That is entirely different from what is legal and illegal.

I’m not saying what he is alleged to have done was wrong or unjust. I’m saying what he is alleged to have done is illegal. An action can be just but illegal, or vice versa, unjust and legal.

In the Jesse Stone movie Night Passage, there is a scene where police chief Jesse Stone is talking to Michelle Genest:

• Michelle Genest: You said stuff was legal or illegal. Well, what about it being right or wrong?
• Jesse Stone: I'm not in the right and wrong business. I'm in the legal and illegal business.

Like Michelle Genest, you are talking about right and wrong, or about what you think the law should be. I’m not talking about right and wrong, or about what the law should or should not be. I’m talking about what the law is. Like it or not, if his actions were as has been reported, then what he did was illegal.

The legal yardstick that will be used is whether a reasonable man, knowing what he knew at that time, believe that he was in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury from a home invader who was reportedly prone and immobile on his stomach on the floor. In my opinion, the court will likely rule against him if it goes to trial. I expect him to take a plea.

If the perp had gotten up and resumed the attack, then the forensic evidence would show that and he likely would not have been charged.

 

[PaulR]

Read only half the story so far, to the 8 minutes between shots thing.
In MA, that's gonna be tough sell.

Just saying: If my girls ex broke in and I shot him in the stomach and he was bleeding out on the floor in front of me, that'd be enough for me, don't think I'd do the head shot thing.

 

[Reptile]

I expect him to take a plea.

If he was smart he would take a plea.

 

[knucklehead]

I understand your point of view but that is not in accordance with the law in Massachusetts or in most other states.

Massachusetts just says “reasonable fear”. In law enforcement a reasonable fear is what your threat perception is and everyone has a different level of threat perception. For cops that can be 7 yards for a CO that can be arms length.

 

[M1911]

Massachusetts just says “reasonable fear”. In law enforcement a reasonable fear is what your threat perception is and everyone has a different level of threat perception. For cops that can be 7 yards for a CO that can be arms length.

The legal yardstick is called the reasonable person standard. Would a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at that time, have believed they were in danger of death or grave bodily injury?

The first shot is legally defensible and the DA has said exactly that. But it is the second shot that is unlikely to pass that reasonable man test.

 

[knucklehead]

No one knows how the second shot was applied (was he lying down, on his knees or getting up) and that will come out in trial. But if the reasonable standard is “I’m afraid of getting assaulted again by him and he’s getting up” then a reasonable person would continue to defend themselves. That’s when one juror can hang the trial with reasonable doubt not to convict him.

 

[MGnoob]

No one’s living 20 minutes around here you’re not gonna survive the initial hail of gunfire unless I have to reload.. or have a jam

 

[Agnotology]

This is most likely one of the cases I would have been on for grand jury duty.

Based on the reported facts, he is guilty of manslaughter. Having evidence of an 8 minute long gap between first and second shot is not going to help the man.

Should have mag dumped him to begin with.

His public service in executing him should be weighed against any crime he may or may not have committed in carrying out said public service.

Based on the liver, large intestine, spleen hit, he was not going to survive to the hospital.

 

[Palladin]

The legal yardstick is called the reasonable person standard. Would a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at that time, have believed they were in danger of death or grave bodily injury?

The first shot is legally defensible and the DA has said exactly that. But it is the second shot that is unlikely to pass that reasonable man test.

so he should have done a mag dump into the guy...

 

[M1911]

so he should have done a mag dump into the guy...

I wouldn't necessarily recommend that. But if he had shot him several times quickly in a row and then stopped, he probably wouldn't be in this pickle.

 

[MGnoob]

Without a doubt that would be the longest 20 minutes of your life