Estimated reading time: 2 minutes
In a dramatic verdict that drew sharp reactions, a Hampshire County jury found Brian Camp not guilty of manslaughter after the fatal shooting of his girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend, Jonathan Letendre.
The case, aired live on CourtTV, spotlighted self-defense laws, the human element in jury deliberations, and the visceral fear of home invasion.
Table of contents
The Incident
In December 2022, Letendre broke into Camp’s home in the middle of the night, leading to a confrontation.
Camp testified that he shot Letendre in self-defense, fearing for his life and the safety of his children.
Prosecutors, however, argued that Camp’s second shot, a ‘kill shot’ — fired over eight minutes after the first — was excessive and unnecessary.
The Jury’s Verdict
The jury deliberated for just over four hours before delivering their unanimous verdict.
“Not guilty,” declared the foreperson.
The courtroom witnessed palpable relief from Camp, who “started breathing again” and looked stunned by the decision, as noted by CourtTV analysts.
Heated Debate on the Verdict
CourtTV commentators dissected the case, with strong opinions on both sides. Criminal defense attorney Michael Allen emphasized the emotional weight jurors bring to cases like this, saying:
It’s everybody’s worst fear: someone breaking into your house at night. That visceral fear influenced their decision more than strict legal definitions.
Former prosecutor Mary David highlighted the challenges of second-guessing actions taken during traumatic events.
“The trauma of someone trying to enter your home impacts your decision-making,” she explained, suggesting the jury gave Camp the benefit of the doubt.
The Law vs. Emotion
Prosecutors argued the second shot, delivered to the back of the head, violated self-defense laws. As CourtTV analysts pointed out:
If this were a jury of robots, Camp would’ve been convicted. But human jurors bring emotion, and they clearly saw a father protecting his family.
This divergence between legal theory and practical human fear underlines why self-defense laws continue to spark debate.
What’s Next?
While Camp walks free, the case has left legal experts and commentators reexamining the fine line between protecting oneself and crossing into excessive force.
For our community, this case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of knowing your rights and the legal boundaries of self-defense.
As the panel concluded, “This verdict will spark discussions in law schools and living rooms alike.”
What’s your take on the jury’s verdict?
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***
I consider this a good call. I’ve seen several people take several center mass shots and kept on coming, or got back up or managed to fire from a laying position…
Now what we really need is a federal law that prevents criminal’s families from filing civil suits on ‘not guilty’ cases… Maby we should arrest & prosecute them for not raising their child to be a decent person. Like the recent case where the father was convicted after his son went on a shooting spree….
As an L.E.O. we are taught to continually assess the situation.
We are taught that what may very likely be an (eventyally) fatal shot does NOT mean instantaneous.
There are thousands of documented cases of criminals being shot and falling down only to get back up and continue to kill innocent people.
I applaud the jury for coming to the conclusion they did.
If the perpetrator wished to remain alive, DONT BREAK INTO PEOPLES HOUSES.
The victim protected his people and his castle.
Yes, it was the right decision. Stop breaking into people’s homes to steal or worse.
Not knowing the details of the incident, and with the media not providing them, only those that actually watched the trial know if something happened that caused the defendant to shoot again later on. I can think of several scenarios where that might be necessary. Again, without the media providing more details, this story, while I applaud the verdict, is far from complete.
So as a retired LEO, if I had done that under color of law, I would have faced charges and likely been convicted of excessive unnecessary force and homicide due to the time frame and execution style of the shot. I have ALWAY’S advised citizen’s when asked, should someone unauthorized come into your home uninvited whether it be daylight or at night, you ARE NOT obligated to issue a warning to anyone, and I tell them if you are going to use a firearm, first be proficient with it, meaning regular practice and able to hit your target within 25 yards, under stress, and ALWAYS fire to stop the threat- meaning until no further movement!! NEVER leave a hostile witness to testify later against you working with an overzealous prosecutor who more likely than not, does not believe in your right to self defense! No witness makes it harder to skew the case against you and your rights to self defense and the defense of others, also better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. ( and yes, most new age LEO’s & prosecutors DO NOT think ANY citizens should own weapons, meaning firearms mainly!! ) I policed by, and believed wholeheartedly in the Constitution and the Bill of rights especially the 2nd Amendment !!
Two the center of mass and one to the head, one right after another – that’s within bounds as far as I’m concerned. One to the back of the head eight minutes later _might_ be an execution, and therefore brings the father’s state of mind very much into question. What happened in those eight minutes? Did a conversation take place that convinced the father the ex was going to keep coming after his daughter?
If the subject remained alive, what would prevent him for trying again? In my opinion, I feel the jury made the right decision.
Given only the evidence that is described in this article, I would have to vote guilty.
There are extenuating circumstances which may justify shooting an assailant a second time, eight minutes after a ‘stopping’ shot was fired but I don’t see one here.
Perhaps it is time to rewrite self defense laws to allow a person to use excessive force when a perpetrator breaks in to your home.
If the bad guy had the gun this would have ended with a much different, but too common Massachusetts narrative… Was the offender not there to inflict bodily harm and possible death?
For once the good guy wins.
Well let’s be damn glad the jury was t made up of robots! As to that “kill shot”, and I’ll admit I didn’t follow this case and have no clue. Nor is there enough information in this article. So with those two things all I can say about the “kill shot” is, if the guy he shot may have said and or kept saying, I get out I’m gonna come after you, after your kids, anything like that, that may have prompted that last “kill shot”? Ask me, I don’t know because as Insaid, I didn’t follow it and there isn’t enough information here. But personally, I’m glad he got off.
But I know a jury where I live might not feel the same way and decide as these non robot jurors did? But yea, let’s be damn glad jurors aren’t robots and hope they never will be!
P.S.
Had a law enforcement officer made a kill shot, no matter what state, he’d of been convicted of excessive force and murder!
This finally sends the proper message to the criminals. If you don’t want to die, don’t break into peoples houses, they will kill you w/o consequences.
BR…”without consequences”? Are you not aware of civil suits? You might escape being arrested and charged, but you will likely face a civil suit that will literally put you in the poor house.
What appears to be bad judgment by the father (should have shot the man absolutely dead initially) could very well cost him everything he owns.
There are not enough details in this article to form an opinion. I think one would have to hear the actual testimony and see the forensic data.
Generally, if someone come into my house to steal and no children are there, I would probably call the cops and try to hold him at gunpoint. However, if I had good reason to believe he was there to do harm I would shoot to stop him. If a crazed ex threatened to “never give up” on his vendetta, I might go beyond that.
The “fine line” blurrs and the clock goes away when someone actively breaks into your home. The fear of future retaliation from the perpetrator, if they survive, is real. The perpetrator loses his rights when he commits the crime and breaks in. People don’t have to worry about losing their rights or life, if they never break in to some else’s home.
Good. Finally us citizens are being recognized as the victims. The poor family went through enough and the cops feel obligated to put them through a whole lot more.
Good call Jury.
It’s usually not the cops charging in a case like this, it’s the district attorney and that’s usually after presenting the facts to the grand jury (12 civilians who caught jury duty) who decided to indict him.
right call!!! you sure don’t want the guy coming back for another round……..round…..get it…….