Was it self-defense or firearms offense?

[beevul]

Was it self-defense or firearms offense?

Hanover caterer confronted intruder with gun, and faces charges

By Milton J. Valencia
Globe Staff / May 15, 2008

The racket came from the dark kitchen area, and it startled David Crest as he slept in the office of his Hanover catering business. He suspected he was being burglarized again, and as he crept toward the noise, he grabbed the Mossberg 500 12-gauge shotgun he had kept by his side.

"Freeze," he screamed. Crest believed he had finally caught the culprit who had taken thousands of dollars in meats, alcohol, and equipment from the shop. But when he flicked on the lights, still aiming his shotgun, and saw the intruder, he felt betrayed like never before: It was, he said, his head chef.

April 21 marked the second consecutive night that Crest had stayed in his business office, the first night keeping his vigil until 3 a.m. He had figured one of his employees was involved in the heists - although he never suspected O'Connor - and told his crew he was going on vacation. If the thief was going to strike, it would be then, he figured.

Crest was awakened just before 11 p.m., he said, when he heard the freezer door open and shut, then heard a commotion in the equipment room. He discovered O'Connor in the shop, he said, and told him to get on his knees. Words were exchanged and O'Connor reached for the door, according to Crest's account in court documents.It was then that Crest fired - twice, toward the ground, he said - as O'Connor ran outside and toward his car. Crest said he then fired two more shots, aiming for O'Connor's tires.

On the scene, Crest told investigators that he had an active firearms license. But, to his surprise, police told him they would seek a criminal complaint against him. A Hingham District Court magistrate clerk agreed to bring charges two days later.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/05/15/was_it_self_defense_or_firearms_offense/?page=2

An interesting read.

Is the owner of the catering business a vigilante for attempting to protect his property?

[atufal1c]

1. No. He's a vigilante for firing at an unarmed man when there was nothing to protect.

His life wasn't in danger.

His property wasn't in danger.

He could tell the police EXACTLY who the intruder was, he wasn't getting away.

This dumbass fired twice inside the property and then followed to fire twice out in public at a fleeing intruder.

He is EXACTLY the kind of person that people bring up whenever we talk about right to carry.

Just what the hell was he trying to do?

Idiot.

[beevul]

2. Except...

"for firing at an unarmed man..."

He didn't know if the man was unarmed, AND he said he fired at the TIRES, not the man.

[atufal1c]

10. Then why didn't he shoot to kill?

"He discovered O'Connor in the shop, he said, and told him to get on his knees. Words were exchanged and O'Connor reached for the door, according to Crest's account in court documents."

The guy was going to run. Crest fired to stop him from fleeing.

Even if he worried that he WAS armed, he was fleeing.

THEN after the guy is INDISPUTABLY fleeing, he followed him out and fired shots in public.

No-brainer.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

3. Although I understand the shooters frustration, I'm afraid I have

to agree. The ONLY reason to shoot at someone is if your life is in peril.

[shireen]

4. we should ask ourselves, what would we do in that situation?

If it was me, I would not have fired those shots, simply because he did not try to physically harm me. He did not come towards me, he headed for the door. I would not have followed him out the door, I would have immediately locked it shut, then called the police.

Personally speaking, the only justification for shooting at someone is if I'm protecting myself and others from physical harm. Shooting someone who is trying to escape does not make sense. (Shots fired at the ground are dangerous, the bullet could ricochet and hurt an innocent bystander.)

I wish more people would take those intro gun classes conducted by the NRA. They are very useful; they drill into you all the possible scenarios that could go wrong if guns are used improperly. If you've never taken them, I highly recommend it.

As for the charges filed against Crest, were they fair? I don't know. Each situation is different and if the thief had done something to indicate that he was about to physically harm Crest, maybe the outdoor shots would have been justified. It's hard to tell what really happened from reading a newspaper article.

[iverglas]

5. "Is the owner of the catering business a vigilante for attempting to protect his property?"

Let me join the chorus:

Why do you ask?

I'm not even certain from the account in the news report that any property was being taken.

Makes no difference whether the individual was "armed" or not. He was leaving the scene and not committing an assault or threatening bodily harm, so there was certainly no "self-defence" involved.

Strikes me that a video camera would have been a useful tool in this situation. Hmm, then maybe the little fit that the man with the shotgun is pitching wouldn't mean the burglar would avoid conviction:

How Crest (the owner) pleads next week will largely determine what happens to O'Connor (the chef). Crest, facing the possibility of conviction, and even jail time, may invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, said his lawyer. Without Crest's testimony, there is no case against O'Connor.

Just an aside for those who might be interested in solutions to problems, this is how that particular one is handled in Canada, under the Canada Evidence Act:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-5/whole.html

Incriminating questions

5. (1) No witness shall be excused from answering any question on the ground that the answer to the question may tend to criminate him, or may tend to establish his liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or of any person.

Answer not admissible against witness

(2) Where with respect to any question a witness objects to answer on the ground that his answer may tend to criminate him, or may tend to establish his liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or of any person, and if but for this Act, or the Act of any provincial legislature, the witness would therefore have been excused from answering the question, then although the witness is by reason of this Act or the provincial Act compelled to answer, the answer so given shall not be used or admissible in evidence against him in any criminal trial or other criminal proceeding against him thereafter taking place, other than a prosecution for perjury in the giving of that evidence or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

[Lasher]

6. Let's say it was a policeman who fired two warning shots to stop a thief who was getting away.

And let's say the policeman also fired two shots at the thief's tires as he was driving away. Should the policeman be brought up on charges?

[atufal1c]

7. Yes. Police shouldn't fire warning shots. And neither should you or I.

It's unnecessarily dangerous.

Shoot or don't shoot.

And while arguably I would agree that the cop can fire shots at the tires of a fleeing suspect, I've got problems with THAT if the only risk is that a burglar already known to the police will get away.

[AndyTiedye]

9. Shooting Out the Tires of a PARKED Car Would be Hard to Justify, Even for the Police

Shooting out the tires of a moving car is a bit questionable as well, since it will tend to cause the car to go out of control and crash into something or someone.

Also if you miss you have a good chance of hitting the gas tank. :hide:

[Lasher]

20. So should police be brought up on charges whenever they use spike strips?

It's exactly like shooting tires, in that (as you claim) "...it will tend to cause the car to go out of control and crash into something or someone."

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lasher]

24. You don't seem to be in a good mood right now.

If I'm right I hope things get better for you.

I am not engaging in deceit. Instead, I made a fair appeal to the principle of similar circumstances. If the business owner in the OP should be charged for firing warnins shots and shooting at tires of a fleeing thief, then I wondered if police should face the same accountability for doing the same or similar things.

Atufal1c believes they should, where warning shots are concerned but seems unsure about shooting at tires. AndyTiedye said this practice is hard to justify and offered some good points about the vehicle going out of control and the possibility of hitting the gas tank (although it is very unlikely that a bullet would cause a fire or explosion in this scenario).

You have correctly noted that police do not usually lay down spike strips in school zones and residential neighborhoods. That is about being careful, and these precautions could also be employed with tire shooting. You are not correct, however, when you assert that the whole "fucking" point in using spike strips is that the location of their use can be predetermined. The main reason they are used is because they are highly effective.

But this consideration has not been afforded our Mr Crest in the OP by those who want the book thrown at him. Maybe he was just as careful as an average policeman would be if they were to deploy spike strips, shoot tires, or fire warning shots. Maybe not.

[atufal1c]

26. Let me be clear.

I don't know the laws of the state in question.

But in the mythical state of Atufalia:

No civilian should fire ANY shots--including warning shots--at a burglar unless a life--or at least property, is at risk.

Not at the burglar, not at the car.

No law enforcement officer should fire warning shots. Ever.

A law enforcement officer may use deadly force, as a last resort, to detain. Failure to follow commands may get you shot center of mass.

No law enforcement officer should shoot at a fleeing car of a known sneak thief when said officer could simply call for backup to meet him at the house of the thief.

Basic principle: Civilians are not cops. These are not similar circumstances because the heroes are not similar. Mr. Crest would have also been wrong to force a drunk driver off of the road or to frisk a person on the street that he believed to have a gun.

He is not the police.

He has a RIGHT to defend himself and his property. An officer has a DUTY to enforce the law and arrest suspected lawbreakers.

[AndyTiedye]

8. Shooting to Stop Someone from Running Away is NOT Self-Defense

Shooting at someone's parked car to prevent him from driving away is not either.

Add to that the fact that the erstwhile fugitive was known, and so had little chance of escaping justice.

[greenvpi]

11. "shotgun he had kept by his side" proves him a murderer

He was just looking to kill someone. Hopefully he spends the rest of his life in prison and is never allowed to touch one of those things again.

[atufal1c]

12. Nonsense. Absolute twaddle.

He surely didn't PLAN to kill anyone.

If he'd intended that, the guy would be dead. I don't think this guy took even a pellet.

But that doesn't mean he wasn't wrong.

[Ready4Change]

14. Nonsense.

He had the chef get on his knees. In the time that takes a murderer would have killed his victim.

Then 2 shots at the floor, then 2 more at tires? While, from the story, those were reckless, they clearly weren't murderous.

[atufal1c]

15. Did chef get on knees?

My reading of the story is that he ordered him to, but the guy went for the door instead.

[Ready4Change]

19. Ah. I misread that.

You are correct. The story says he ordered the chef to his knees, but doesn't ever say the chef actually went to his knees. So, perhaps the chef just ran, rather than dropping.

Thanks for correcting me.

[atufal1c]

16. Did chef get on knees?

My reading of the story is that he ordered him to, but the guy went for the door instead.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. "just posting this comment " proves you an idiot

[Richard Steele]

27. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and thus appear foolish. nm

[jody]

13. States differ on whether to convict a citizen for protecting property in cases like this. It will

be interesting to see what happens in gun-grabber territory like the Boston MA area.

[iverglas]

18. it would be especially interesting

to hear what jody's take on the situation was. Sigh. Not to be, it seems.

[Indy Lurker]

17. Vigilante.

Sleeping in his office with a shotgun is fine,

Attempting to detain and arrest a thief is fine,

Blocking the door so the thief couldn't leave would have been fine. But if your too slow to catch the guy, your out of luck.

What's not fine is taking a shot at a thief as he is running away. Especially if he is empty handed.

It's clearly not self-defense, and it appears it's not even defense of property, which may or may not be legal in Hanover, Mass.

So, in response to your question, if the thief was empty handed, there is no valid way to argue he was attempting to protect his property.

That makes him a vigilante.

This guy was out of line.

[TPaine7]

22. Stupid, reckless, unnecessary offensive action.

People who don't know when it's appropriate to use guns shouldn't have them.

I'm sure he was angry at catching his head chef stealing--so what? Fire him, report him to police, sue him for damages.

Shooting when there is no threat should not even be a theoretical option in a gun owner's mental vocabulary.

[gorfle]

25. Stupid, reckless, and poor judgement.

No property nor life was at risk. The guy was clearly retreating. The owner had no cause for shooting at anything.

If it was me and I suspected an inside job I would have installed hidden cameras.