Image 01 Image 03

Charged or Not? MA Woman Shoots Attackers Who Kicked in Door

Charged or Not? MA Woman Shoots Attackers Who Kicked in Door

In rare event, user of deadly defensive force not charged and prosecuted.

It has long been standard prosecutorial practice in Massachusetts to put any use of deadly force in claimed self-defense in front of a jury.  The attitude of prosecutors is that it might have been lawful self-defense, but it might not have been, so they’re going to make you prove it to a jury before they’ll cut you loose.

Of course, with a trial defense of a murder (or similar) charge easily running into tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, this policy has the effect of “making the process the punishment.”  Even if acquitted, one’s life is largely destroyed economically, and likely emotionally.

Even here in the Commonwealth, however, there is the occasional act of self-defense that is so obviously justified that the authorities are simply unwilling to present it to a jury as legitimate grounds for long-term incarceration.

Once such case occurred last week in Springfield MA, a town I personally would never visit unless armed, hence my very rare visits–and then only to go to the Smith & Wesson facility still located there.   Indeed, it was such an open-and-shut case of lawful self-defense, even by Massachusetts standards, that the police announced within hours that they did not intend to bring charges against the defender.

WSHM news out of Springfield reports that brothers Jordan and Jason Eady began ringing the doorbell and kicking the door of a local residence shortly after midnight.

When these actions failed to gain them entrance, they threatened to “light up the house,” and then kicked in the front door.  Confronting the homeowner, they refused to leave.

The homeowner convinced them of the prudence of departing by shooting at them, striking one of the brothers in the chest.  Fleeing the scene, the brothers were promptly arrested by arriving officers.

So, what are the facts of this shooting that contributed to the authorities electing to not bring charges?

Already mentioned, of course, is that this was a home invasion of genuine intruders.  Even in MA, that’s a tough case to put before a jury and expect to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

In addition, the defender was a woman.  Another favorable building block for a compelling narrative of innocence on the part of the defensive shooter.

Furthermore, the woman was at home with her three-year-old child.  Yep, that’s going to be a tough sell.

And, to put the icing on the cake, the woman possessed a valid MA license to carry a firearm.

Even in Massachusetts, under these facts it took the police less than 10 hours to conclude that charges would not be brought against the homeowner in this case.

Of course, had almost any of those facts varied, the outcome could well have been far different.  For example:

Had the homeowner and intruders been known to each other.

Had the homeowner been a male (particularly as the Eady brothers were apparently unarmed).

Had the homeowner not possessed a firearms license (which is required under MA even for possession of a gun in one’s home).

Fortunately, in this instance the defender was not walked out of their home in handcuffs.  Instead, it was the Eady brothers who were charged with armed burglary, threat to murder, and defacement of real property.

NOTE: Featured image courtesy of Glock’s “Wrong House” video:

–-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

NEW! The Law of Self Defense proudly announces the launch of it’s online, on-demand state-specific Law of Self Defense Online Training.  These are interactive, online versions of the authoritative 5-hour-long state-specific Law of Self Defense Seminars that we give all over the country, but from the convenience of your laptop, tablet, or smartphone, and on your own schedule.  Click over for more information on our state-specific Law of Self Defense Online Training, and get access to the ~30 minute Section 1. Introduction for free.

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and the author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” available at the Law of Self Defense blog (autographed copies available) and (paperback and Kindle). He also holds Law of Self Defense Seminars around the country, and provides free online self-defense law video lectures at the Law of Self Defense Institute and podcasts through iTunes, Stitcher, and elsewhere.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


>> convinced them of the prudence of departing

Ta-ta, and right-o, they said as they perambulated away…

Char Char Binks | February 15, 2015 at 6:15 pm

Not “Jason”, “Jovan”. That name gives an even clearer picture of whom she was dealing with, if it wasn’t already crystal clear.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Char Char Binks. | February 15, 2015 at 6:39 pm

    Yes, it was crystal clear already.

    Such gun laws make states adopting them havens for savages to commit this type of violent crime, as well as other crimes such as rape and armed or strong-arm robbery. People think it will never happen to them so they don’t bother with jumping through the endless and rigorous hoops to legally acquire and keep weapons for self-defense.

    Most residents of such places are sitting ducks because they’re law-abiding.

It only took the police and prosecutor 10 hours to decide they had no case? That should have been at max a 5 second decision. Another reason to detest Massachusetts.

JackRussellTerrierist | February 15, 2015 at 6:52 pm

I seem to remember a somewhat similar set of circumstances of a door being kicked and beaten on at 4;30am, screen door pulled off and other behaviors suggestive of a break-in occurring in MI to one Mr. Ted Wafer, who is spending the rest of his life in prison, the real reason being that the victim was a young, black female, the defendant was a middle-aged white male, and it was a Detroit jury. Her behavior and condition mattered not, even though she was out of her irresponsible, hostile, demanding mind from alcohol and a drunken car wreck with a street-parked vehicle that she fled from.

    Wafer’s door was never breached. Had it been, I doubt he’d been charged, much less convicted. HE opened his door.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Andrew Branca. | February 15, 2015 at 7:28 pm

      Does the breach occur when the victim hears the wood crack, assuming no hearing problems? Or is it when the perp doesn’t have the strength to kick through and changes course to a brick the window? Or when the victim sees the toe of the perp’s shoe coming through? The whole foot? The whites of their eyes? Or does the perp’s whole body have to be through the door and he’s about to or is capable of overpowering you before you can legally fire? If Joe Sixpack errs in that analysis in that moment of fear and panic with the fog of just being awakened at such an odd hour, he should spend the rest of his life in prison, lose everything he has?

      Wafer wasn’t arrested until the DA succumbed to political pressure from laughable ‘civil rights’ ‘leader’ Al Sharpton and local Trayvonista activists bellowing about stand your grand and racist whites shooting blacks.

        Methinks Andrew was telling how it is, as opposed to how it should be, which is why he authors, speaks, and blogs, so that the rest of us may avoid Ted’s fate should we find ourselves in a similar spot.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to 1moremisfit. | February 16, 2015 at 2:05 am

          I know that. I know his style and I’ve read several hundred of his posts over time. My argument relates to politics and the law.

          My disagreement is that, given the facts of the case, I don’t think Wafer would have been charged without the political pressure and certainly not sentenced so harshly, whether he opened the door or not.

          At about the same time that case was going on, we saw an off-duty NJ cop get a walk from a MD jury for shooting a white guy to death whom he could see in broad daylight was unarmed, after standing there doing nothing while the guy walked 150′ toward him, and then told three different stories about what he did during that time.

          I’m pleased the shooter in this thread won’t be charged, but it shouldn’t even have been a question.

    The difference between the two incidents were huge. One; the girl was drunk and needed help and was banging on the man’s front door. Two; the two thugs were yelling at the woman and telling her that they were going to kick in her front door if she didn’t let them in. And the biggest difference was that the man in MI OPENED his solid front door! Would you open your door to a darkened porch with someone banging on your door? Once he did that his claim of her breaking and entering his home was finished. I have no doubt that he didn’t intend to kill that girl but if you do not know how to handle a gun then don’t pick it up. He also said that he didn’t think it was loaded. He was more dangerous than the drunk girl.

legacyrepublican | February 15, 2015 at 7:03 pm

Thus proving that, when it is 12 O’Glock at night, all will be very, very secure for a woman and her three year old.

JackRussellTerrierist | February 15, 2015 at 7:04 pm

Photos of suspects and more details (note this account states the shooter was male) from a story published two days after the one in the opening post:

    Yeah, what’s up with the gender error? Or maybe, being in the East Coast version of the Castro, he/she was accurate? Cross-dresser? Male in process of surgical mutilation?

    Note: masslive is the group that outed the schools teaching kids how to do fisting and other All-American activities.

This is what pisses me off about the state of jurisprudence in America today. Laws are frequently enforced based on the sex, status and arguably race of the would be defendant. When shooting an intruder, what difference does it make whether or not the intended victim stands up or sits down to pee? All the should be relevant are the facts of the events. While I’m venting, should a would be victim of a home invasion have to choose between forfeiting his life or facing prison because he neglected to obtain permission from the State to save his life with a gun? As I ramble on, two cases that illustrate my point that happened here in Maryland. An underage female uses a forged ID to get served alcohol at a wedding reception and while driving across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge on her way home passes out and runs a tractor trailer off the bridge and kills the driver. No criminal charges. Fast forward a few years and a tractor-trailer driver rear ends a female driver on the same bridge pushing her car into the water and she survives pretty much unscathed and the truck driver gets, if I remember correctly, four years. I could go on about David Gregory vs some guy in DC who was prosecuted for having a dummy bullet on his desk, but you get my point. From Mike Nifong on to the above, I have come to the conclusion that the law is as corrupt as the politicians who flaunt it for personal gain.

I’m so glad she won’t be charged, but my question is, why live there? It must be awful to live in a State like that. Here in Georgia, just about everyone “carries”.

Similar case in Texas. See statement of sheriff below the link.

Sheriff Michael Lindsey Ray stated, “Presently, as the result of underfunding and inadequate staffing at the Van Zandt County Sheriff’s Office, homeowners need to take appropriate precautions to protect their families. I will continue to support the law abiding citizens of our community when they are forced to take actions to protect their lives, liberty and property.”

Video girl better check her grip – she beggin’ for some serious slide bite at 1:31 …

The Friendly Grizzly | February 15, 2015 at 8:24 pm

I wonder what her “connection” is? Who does she know? Who wielded influence on her behalf? Is she related to the Kennedys or something?

Dumb and evil lose on the offense. Rational and reasonable prevail.

I am very proud of the LI commenters that it took 22 comments before some misogynist, patriarchal, white male privileged jerk like me pointed out the woman in the video is kind of hot. Well done, you PC-suppressed wussies. (j/k)

This is not over. Bet anyone here $5 that within a year, this nice lady is visited by the police on some excuse and is found in some violation of the Mass. gun laws. They will not let this stand.

Let me guess: the legislators and prosecutors live in gated communities, and/or have body guards…