Oct 5, 2010

Cheerful news

From the localish rag:
"A Prattsburgh man who authorities say was shot by a homeowner during a break-in has been indicted on multiple charges by a Steuben County grand jury."

43 year old breaks in to a house, in the process waking up the 80 year old resident and his wife. Resident picks up his gun and confronts the intruder. Intruder advances and finds out what a gutshot deer feels like.

"Investigators deemed the shooting justifiable and did not charge Boyechko."

(Emphasis mine.)

This is, as the ArfCom ninjas say, a "GOOD SHOOT."

New York Penal Law Article 35 covers the use of force in various situations.

In this instance, the relevant sections are 35.05(2) and 35.20(3).

Such conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occure by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and which is of such gravity that, according ot ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such injury clearly outweight the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue.

In English, this means, "It makes sense to hurt him before he hurts me."

A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.

(Emphasis mine.)

Disparity of force. Yep. Imminent threat of death or grave bodily injury? Yep.

Justified use of force? Absolutely.

Not one for the Goblin Count, but a great defensive gun use.

Hey - Japete, Jadegold, Laci, Mike-whatever ... what would YOU have this senior citizen do? What if it was your father/grandfather?


Bob S. said...

And remember, we only have the criminal's word -- after the fact-- that he 'only wanted to rob' the place.

Murder, mayhem, rape? Could have been anything.

It's not like the criminal applied for a permit, listing the crimes he was going to committed, eh?

Anonymous said...

Bob has a good point. But either way, this case sounds like a textbook example of justifiable defense of person and property.