Vermont: self-defense shooting verdict (Matthew Martel)

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

perlgerl

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
8
Location
Vermont now, NY before
I hope this is the right place to post this -- I didn't see it mentioned on THR yet.

A good verdict came down June 25 in northern Vermont.

St. Albans is a town that's had a bit of crime lately, and Matthew Martel had his handgun on him one night last August when he got approached by two other men. In short: they were drunk and behaved in a threatening way, he ended up shooting one non-fatally in the leg. Martel was acquitted after almost a year, after living under stressful release conditions.

Lots of detail about the case here, including quotes from local officials that make you wonder...
http://samessenger.com/NewsView.asp?ID=3458
 
Said the State's Attorney:
Carrying a gun to go hunting is different than carrying a handgun on Federal Street at three o’clock in the morning
Click to expand...
And he's absolutely right. Deer will not usually stalk you, taunt you, and threaten you.
 
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Seems pretty clear that Martel panicked. Caused a lot of his own grief. Not all, certainly, but a lot.

His is a poor example of the gun carrying community. Not very competent, he.

But he paid a price for it, so he's likely to be inhibited with his gun in the future.
 
Best quotes from the story, IMHO:

The DA about Heller v. DC
“I think it is an unfortunate decision,” Lavoie said. “It limits the government’s ability to control guns.
Click to expand...

Yes it does, sir. The government hasen't done a good job controling guns in the last 20 yrs, lets give something else a try.


And the Police Chief.

could be interpreted as a message to the bad guys that people were going to stand up for themselves
Click to expand...

Well we can't have that, can we?

And FCFC, you've thrown that hammer quote around a lot lately. Let me expand on your analagy. This particular problem might not have been a nail, but the hammer was more effective then not having any tool.

You seem to like picking on weather a shooter absolutly had to shoot someone, while convenently ignoring the fact that in all the situations you're nitpicking, it wasen't the shooter that precipitated the situation.

It's pretty simple, If you don't want to get hammered, don't look anything like a nail around someone with a hammer.
 
Seems pretty clear that Martel panicked. Caused a lot of his own grief. Not all, certainly, but a lot.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you there FCFC.

Although IMHO I would have been scared too if I was being stalked and threaten by a bunch of drunk people.

Though I would like to think that martel could have avoided most of the conflict hadn't he panicked and brandish his gun to a bunch of drunken lunatics.
 
FCFC wrote:
Seems pretty clear that Martel panicked. Caused a lot of his own grief. Not all, certainly, but a lot.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, but I think the jury made the right decision.

This encounter had two distinct parts.

Part 1:
A fairly young (per http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=...-v3oog&usg=AFQjCNHb_EeCqUHiluJ73OVzCHwPivaA_Q, he was 22) guy, most likely sober, faces two drunk young miscreants (Bushee was 20 -- ibid) in the wee hours of the morning, in a town which has had a recent, uncharacteristic crime wave. To me, being drunk is the opposite of an exculpatory factor. Instead, you know the person is even less likely to act rationally. Martel brandishes a weapon, possibly without enough justification, because he's scared.

IF Bushee were completely "innocent," he could have gone to the police at this point, accused Martel of brandishing his weapon without cause, and he'd have avoided getting shot. The jury might have easily found Martel in the wrong in that case. Or Bushell (an underaged drunk guy who couldn't exactly go to the police in his current condition) could have just walked away. To Martel, this incident was over, and that should have been obvious to Bushee. Instead, we have Part 2.

Part 2:
Bushee--and to a lesser extent, Wells--escalate the situation, decreasing the distance between them and increasing the verbal threats. Martel is outnumbered, two to one, and shoots Bushee. Luckily for Bushee, death does not result.

If this had JUST consisted of Part 2, would you still have a problem with Martel's actions? Part 2 was all in Bushee's hands. He could have avoided it, but instead, he acted like a violent drunk miscreant instead of just an obnoxious drunk miscreant as in Part 1.
 
I think it's a shame that Martel says he's learned 'to wear running shoes' from all this and not carry a gun. He'd be better off to carry the gun AND a cell phone to dial 911 once he had the criminals at bay. But he's still young and has a lot to learn in life.

Turning and running would likely elicit a 'chase response'. Even if it's only "for fun" from the chaser's perspective it's serious for the one being chased. While the fight or flight decision is an 'in the moment' decision, my experiences have taught me that flight carries it's own type of risks as well. I think it's better to choose a spot and your own timing to stand your ground.
 
Hum...........so whats the deal??????????????????Seen this time and Time again through the years.

Group of punks, scrota's, thugs, bangers get together, get douched up and spot a long prey and decide to exude testastaron and go for the pack mentality.

After all, society has conditioned the pack that the prey will not fight back but consent to being prey..........right?

And the pack is always astonished when the prey does not only fight but fight effectively...........

And they cry and gash teeth that he the shooting victim was really a well intentioned kid who was misunderstood and didnt get to watch bugs bunny as a kid so he has to act out his aggression but he didnt really mean it..........yeah right.

Typical school yard bully that got his.............

Any body remember the Missouri story from what the late 70's Town punk, bully that was shot up and killed.........on main street in broad day light and no one saw a thing..................

THe laws we are preached to so much don't work for us the common joe..........just the punks..........thats why so many feel compelled to carry now and to self defend .........cause they know intuitively the law doesn't support them any more................and the law really gets up set when the good guy does stand for himself against the pack..........and it frightens them the law and order at any cost crowd.......................ok.......Rant off:fire:
 
Turning and running would likely elicit a 'chase response'.
Click to expand...
How is this worse? He's sober, he'll probably be more effective running. He'll have at least a drunken reaction time head start. And if, despite those advantages, they are gaining on him, he can stop and fight. Then when the prosecutor asks why didn't you just run away, he can say, "I tried, but they were gaining on me." In that case, it might not even be brought to trial.
 
How is this worse? He's sober, he'll probably be more effective running. He'll have at least a drunken reaction time head start. And if, despite those advantages, they are gaining on him, he can stop and fight. Then when the prosecutor asks why didn't you just run away, he can say, "I tried, but they were gaining on me." In that case, it might not even be brought to trial.
Click to expand...
All the more reason why ALL states need a "no duty to retreat" law. No law-abiding citizen should ever be placed in a position of having to try to run away from any place they have a legal right to be in order to be allowed to defend themselves against assailants.
 
Even if there is no duty to retreat, it may still be a good idea. Does anyone think that, overall, this was a good outcome for Mr. Martel? Even he is wishing he handled it differently.
Mr. Martel's "Problem 2" wasn't caused so much by his actions, as it was caused by how the prosecutor viewed his actions. Is there a duty to retreat under VT law? If not, the point is moot. If there is, do you think the absence of such a requirement would have changed the prosecutor's perception of Mr. Martel's course of action?
 
Like many criminal cases, no one in the case had entirely clean hands.

Mr. Martel didn't act all that well. But he was the victim.

The prosecutor, the chief of police and other local officials demonstrated that they are statist buffoons.

Bushee survived to potentially add his unique contribution to the gene pool. This is the most dismal prospect of all--more Bushees may come into being.
 
How is this worse? He's sober, he'll probably be more effective running. He'll have at least a drunken reaction time head start. And if, despite those advantages, they are gaining on him, he can stop and fight. Then when the prosecutor asks why didn't you just run away, he can say, "I tried, but they were gaining on me." In that case, it might not even be brought to trial.
Click to expand...

True in some ways, but running away isn't an option for everyone, aged, ill, injured, etc. In my case running away, when I pretty much don't have a left knee, is kinda a problem.

There is a real simple solution for those like Mr. Bushee to keep from getting shot. Don't attack/threaten to attack other folks!

The problem here isn't the act of defending ones self, its the act of attacking someone!
 
How is this worse? He's sober, he'll probably be more effective running. He'll have at least a drunken reaction time head start. And if, despite those advantages, they are gaining on him, he can stop and fight. Then when the prosecutor asks why didn't you just run away, he can say, "I tried, but they were gaining on me." In that case, it might not even be brought to trial.

It may be possiblyworse for a few reasons:
1. the lead chaser may pick up a pipe, bottle, etc which you won't see when your back is turned
2. the pack can split up and one or more can flank you with a shortcut
3. they get their adrenaline worked up during the chase, and while yours is too, you may not be feeling especially aggressive while they are ...
 
My reply to the paper (I'm a legal resident of VT even though I haven't lived there for almost 18 years):

"Taylor was silent. He e-mailed Mayor Marty Manahan and Dominic Cloud, city manager, warning them that the verdict “could be interpreted as a message to the bad guys that people were going to stand up for themselves..."

I am not sure why Mr. Taylor thinks this would be a bad thing. If he truly does, perhaps being police chief is not the right position for him. The best possible message to send to criminals is that attempting violence on law-abiding citizens can end in the violent injury or death of the criminal, and the citizen will not be liable for any "damages" incurred by the criminal.

"During Lavoie’s closing remarks, he reminded the jury that even though they would rather take Martel to dinner than Bushee, the case was about an unnecessary, illegal use of deadly force."

Mr. Lavoie has just proved himself unfit to hold any public office. A law-abiding citizen, going about lawful activities, is accosted by two individuals engaging in unlawful activities, who then state their intentions to do him violent harm and move in a manner that underscores their threat. The citizen has no obligation to submit to criminal activity, no legal or moral obligation to retreat, and should indeed be morally and legally obligated to resist unlawful activity being forced on himself. If Mr Lavoie believes we should grovel to criminals, he should be in criminal defense, not in the State Attorney's office in the guise of a "public servant".

Stand up for your rights Vermonters.
 
but running away isn't an option for everyone
Click to expand...
Agreed, and for that reason it should not be a requirement. However, if it is an option, it may be the best one.
It may be possiblyworse for a few reasons:
1. the lead chaser may pick up a pipe, bottle, etc which you won't see when your back is turned
Click to expand...
Contact weapons- I don't plan on letting them get within contact range. Picking up a weapon will allow me to get an even greater lead, as well as providing even more justification if I have to shoot. The only weapon I'm really worried about is a projectile weapon.
2. the pack can split up and one or more can flank you with a shortcut
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but that's hard to do if they don't know where I'm going and if I never double back on my path.
3. they get their adrenaline worked up during the chase, and while yours is too, you may not be feeling especially aggressive while they are ...
Click to expand...
The goal of running is twofold:
  • Avoid the fight, if possible.
  • Establish that you did everything you could, short of submitting, to avoid shooting them.
Fight with your mind, not with your hormones.

I'm with PavePusher, Lavoie is part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
 
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Click to expand...

And every once in a while it is indeed a nail, hence the acquittal.

“I think it is an unfortunate decision,” Lavoie said.
Click to expand...

I assume he's speaking of the State's decision to hire him?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top