In a somewhat surprising victory, 24-year-old Brian Camp was recently acquitted of manslaughter in the shooting death of a home intruder, who also happened to be his girlfriend’s obsessed ex. The verdict marks the end of a nearly two-year-long ordeal which completely upended Camp and his family’s lives and almost cost him his freedom. And while this particular case ended favorably for the defendant, it should serve as a cautionary tale about how a legal “duty to retreat” from an aggressor seems to punish victims by criminalizing self-defense.
The Home Invasion
Camp; his girlfriend, Brooke Janik, and their two children were asleep at the family’s Chesterfield, Massachusetts home during the pre-dawn hours of December 27, 2022, when 27-year-old Johnathan Letendre forced his way into the residence and made a beeline for the couple’s bedroom. Letendre attacked Camp, leading to a lengthy struggle between the two men while Janik called 911.
Camp didn’t recognize the intruder. He was unaware that Janik had briefly dated Letendre during a break in the couple’s relationship earlier that year, or that Letendre was assaulting him in a jealous rage. And he certainly had no clue that Letendre’s frustration over Janik’s decision to break up with him and get back together with Camp had reached its boiling point. All Camp knew was that he was fighting for his life against a larger man whose hands were wrapped around his neck.
As soon as the opportunity arose, Camp rushed downstairs and grabbed his muzzleloader. He pointed it at Letendre and ordered him to “get the fuck out.” But Letendre refused to leave and grabbed the barrel of Camp’s firearm, leading to another struggle. The men also fought over a shotgun, breaking it in half, then beat each other with the pieces.
Nearly eight minutes into Janik’s 911 call, police had still not arrived, and Letendre was still attacking Camp. Fearing for his life and for his family’s safety, Camp grabbed a Sig Sauer pistol out of a cabinet and shot Letendre in the stomach. Eight-and-a-half minutes later, Camp shot Letendre in the back of the head, killing him at the scene.
Camp’s Legal Battle
Prosecutors charged Camp with manslaughter, arguing that the first gunshot legally qualified as self-defense but that the second gunshot occurred when Letendre was incapacitated and therefore no longer posed a threat to the victims. Describing the second gunshot as an “execution,” the authorities accused Camp of taking the law into his own hands.
Camp maintained his innocence, noting that the 20-minute police response time essentially gave him no choice but to handle the situation on his own. He claimed that he believed he was in imminent danger when he fired both gunshots, and that Letendre had continued to threaten his life after the first gunshot. Testifying in his own defense in late November, Camp claimed that he decided to pull the trigger for a second time when he saw Letendre getting up off the floor despite his injuries.
The Verdict
After deliberating for less than five hours, a jury found Camp not guilty. He left the courthouse a free man, finally able to move on with his life.
First Assistant District Attorney Steven Gagne expressed disappointment at the outcome but admitted that the state knew it would be a difficult case. Despite the acquittal, he maintained his belief that charging Camp was the right thing to do.
A “Duty to Retreat”
Self-defense laws in Massachusetts and New York (where I live) are extremely similar. Both states adhere to a “duty to retreat” clause, which means that a person cannot legally defend themselves with lethal force if there’s a possibility of escaping the situation. I’m not a legal expert, so please don’t rely on my interpretation of the law. But from my understanding, a person can only use lethal force in states with a “duty to retreat” clause if their life is in imminent danger and there are no other options for achieving safety.
In some states, the parameters for what qualifies as self-defense are much broader. If Camp lived in Florida, Texas, or perhaps Tennessee, he may have avoided criminal charges altogether.
Die, or face prison time?
To me, it seems like the burden for proving self-defense in “duty to retreat” states is so immense that in many cases, a person who legitimately defends themselves will still likely undergo a life-ruining uphill battle in order to prove their innocence. Camp, for example, lost two years of his life to his criminal proceedings. If he had been found guilty, he would’ve faced up to 20 years in prison. In the meantime, his responsibilities as a partner, a father, and an adult in general did not disappear.
I feel anxious and nauseous just trying to imagine the stress of having a potential two-decade sentence hanging over my head for two years leading up to trial, with no idea what the future holds and no control, whatsoever, over my fate. All because I stopped someone from killing me.
Simply put, I firmly believe that a “duty to retreat” is more harmful than beneficial to good people. It seems to protect criminals while putting victims on trial. And, however unintentional, it conveys the message that intruders have a right to enter property that isn’t theirs. That this is a safe thing to do.
Camp’s case exemplifies why I’d be afraid to defend myself against my stalker where I currently live.
My stalker is not going to leave me alone voluntarily, and the authorities aren’t going to force him to leave me alone until he puts me in imminent danger. It shouldn’t come to that, but welcome to New York, where criminals’ “rights” matter more than their victims’ safety. And, based on the glaringly obvious signs (including my stalker’s explicitly stated intentions to continue targeting me indefinitely and his blatant disregard for court-imposed contact bans), an eventual confrontation is likely inevitable. It’s not a matter of if, but when he tries to severely harm me (or worse).
If I’m still in New York when this happens, it means I’ll have to choose between letting my stalker kill me or defending myself and possibly facing a criminal case for it. And I’m not even referring to gun use (I don’t own a gun). In the event of a home invasion, I’d be afraid to even punch my stalker in the face or slug him with a baseball bat out of fear that I’d be the one to land in legal hot water.
Again, welcome to New York. Mi casa es su casa. Not because I want it to be, but because the law says so.
People love to simplify stalking situations by saying “oh, just buy a gun,” but this is a highly problematic mindset.
When I express a fear for my safety due to my stalker, many people say “oh, just get a gun.” They aren’t thinking about the consequences of using it, other than the fact that I’d still be alive. But would that even matter if I was facing decades behind bars for defending myself? That I saved my own life just to potentially end up in prison? And to likely lose my job, go broke, catch a record, and receive unwanted, life-ruining publicity even if I manage to avoid prison?
Considered from that angle, it really isn’t as simple as “oh, just go buy a gun. That way, you can shoot him if he endangers your life.” I’ve never seriously considered acquiring a firearm and I have no plans to do so, because my first thought is always “it absolutely cannot come down to that.”
Even in a state with stronger self-defense laws, I’d never treat gun use as a go-to response to most situations. I think people are way too quick to do that, and it’s pretty fucking scary. But I’d feel much safer in a state where I know I can reasonably defend myself without hugely risking my freedom or having my life completely fall apart if, God forbid, a confrontation got really ugly.
My own circumstances often cause me to seriously consider relocating to another state (most likely one with a “Stand Your Ground” law), but cases like Camp’s really drive the point home. After diving down this rabbit hole (and others like it), it seems like moving is a common-sense way to at least feel slightly safer while this wack-job continues to relentlessly terrorize me.