2 Lives Saved...

[Jiro]

Man shot in Wilbraham condo threatened owner with a broken glass, D.A. says

WILBRAHAM - David P. Gatti, the man fatally shot inside a condominium on May 7, had armed himself with a broken wine glass, and was following the homeowner up the stairs when shot dead, according to local and state police.

Gatti, a star football and lacrosse player at Minnechaug Regional High School a decade ago, was "delusional and incoherent" when he entered the homeowner's unit, according to a prepared statement issued Thursday by Hampden District Attorney William M. Bennett.

Gatti suffered from severe depression and schizophrenia and was under a doctor's care, according to Bennett.


The information released by Bennett follows an investigation by Wilbraham police and state police attached to his office.

The investigation was aided with the cooperation of homeowner Ronald Duval and Gatti's parents, Bennett said.

The incident started about 8:15 p.m. when Duval, owner of Unit C20, heard a loud rattling on the front door of his unit and someone saying "let me in, let me in."

Before answering the door, Duval picked up his .380 handgun from his briefcase, which was by the door and placed it in his waistband.

Duval is properly licensed to possess and carrying a firearm, according to Bennett.

When Duval opened the door, Gatti, who lived nearby in Unit C25, stepped inside. When Duval asked him who he was and what he was doing, he felt threatened by Gatti's delusional and incoherent responses.

As Duval backed into his kitchen, he pulled the gun and pointed it at Gatti, demanding that he stop.

Gatti continued toward Duval, picked up a wine glass from the dishwasher, broke it and threatened Duval with its broken stem.

Duval continue to back away and yelled at Gatti that he would shoot him if he didn't leave. Gatti told him to go ahead and shoot.

Duval moved up the stairs and continued to yell at Gatti to stop.

When Gatti moved up the stairs, Duval shot him in the leg. When Gatti did not stop, Duval shot again, striking Gatti in the chest.

Gatti slumped to the floor and died from the wound to his chest.

Duval's wife, who had been upstairs taking a shower when Gatti entered the home, called 911.

Gatti's parents, Peter and Ann Gatti, arrived as investigators were working at the scene. They cooperated with requests for information and consented to a search of his condominium.

Ballistic evidence showed that two shots were fired from the landing of the stairs between the first and second floors. A broken wine glass was found partly in the sink and partly on the floor of the condominium.

Massachusetts law recognizes that deadly force may be used in self-defense in limited circumstances, according to Bennett.

Generally, the law requires that one resorting to deadly force in a claim of self-defense must avail himself of all reasonable means of retreat or escape before using deadly force, according to Bennett.

However, state law provides that a homeowner who reasonably believes that a person unlawfully in his home is about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon the homeowner or another person lawfully in his home, may resort to deadly force without first retreating.

Bennett said he has determined there is no probable cause to support criminal charges and that the case will be closed.

According to Bennett, there is insufficient evidence to conclude the homeowner did not act in conformity with the law.

Gatti's parents told investigators of his depression and schizophrenia, according to Bennett.

"The illness had deleteriously affected his career and quality of life," Bennett said. "Despite repeated efforts to find the right combinations of medication, his illness had deteriorated recently. While the symptoms of his condition had begun to manifest troubling thoughts, he had not exhibited violent behavior."

Gatti recently moved back to the area after working four years in Manhattan to take a job as an insurance agent at his parent's firm, G.W. Morisi Insurance Agency of Springfield.

Duval could not be immediately reached for comment.

 

[Jiro]

No charges in Wilbraham condo shooting

Gatti fatally shot after invading neighbor's condo

WILBRAHAM, Mass. (WWLP) - There will be no charges brought against a Wilbraham man who fatally shot a man who entered his home.

The decision was announced Thursday morning in a news release from the Hampden County District Attorney William Bennett.

The news release also identified the man who shot the intruder as Ronald Duval, the condo owner.

The D.A. ruled that Duval acted in self defense when he fatally shot 29 year-old David Gatti on May 7.

Gatti allegedly banged on Duval's door at the Woodcrest Condominiums on Boston Road, entered the condo, threatened Duval with a broken wine glass and refused to leave.

Gatti was shot twice when he pursued Duval up the stairs.

According to the news release, Gatti had been suffering from depression and schizophrenia and his condition had deteriorated prior to the shooting.

 

[Jiro]

interesting comments by readers -

any guesses what the headline would be if they took the gun out of the equation?

This is exactly why there should not be gun control. How are we going to defend ourselves from people like this?

By relying on our government and the nice police to protect us of course... You trust them with your life and personal security right?

What isn't needed is more gun control. What is needed is better enforcement of existing laws rather than the half-assed enforcement we currently have now, more oversight on sellers to ensure they are doing the stuff they are suppost to do by law, and more responsable gun owners who are educated and trained in firearms use, safety, and aren't going to go full retard/redneck on people and wear them on the hip in plain sight like a new age john wayne.

Nice to see a justified use of a personal weapon in self defense. This is reason why we need firearms in this country in the hands of responsable, capable private citizens. It's sad this man had a mental disorder that made him do this, but that doesn't justify an open season on the homeowner and his wife with a deadly weapon (Yes, a broken, jagged bottle counts as a deadly weapon.)

And before the internet toughguy crowd asks "why not just try to take the bottle away from him?", it's very, VERY dangerous and hard to unarm a person with a sharp object, let alone a man who is mentally unstable and sees everyone as a threat. It's even difficult for a person trained in close quarters combat to do it. People have to make a decision in these events to shoot or not shoot in less than 10 seconds (the time it takes to close the distance at 8 feet is less than 10 seconds for a capable assailant)

I guess that people have this magical idea of a feel-good disney-esque world where nice words and flowers will stop people who are determined to do bad things to you. This man may not have been in control of his facilities, sadly, but there was nothing else this homeowner could have reasonably done to help himself and his wife without risking being killed. He was backed into a corner, trapped in his own house, and had no other choice.

I live in England. Guns are illegal. Well you can have a shot gun if you own so many acres of land, but the average citizen doesn't. I wish guns were legal here. I'd feel so much safer knowing I don't have to have the baseball bat I have by my bed incase anyone brakes in. Infact I think it's completely wrong that guns are illegal. If you had to have a licence to own one, and they were regulated properly there would be no problem. If an army invades England, our army will go to war (with guns). On the same principle, if a person invades my land why can't I defend it with a gun?

It's a different situation. It's called the prinical of appropriate applied force under law. if someone's tresspassing on your land, you cannot shoot them unless you feel your life is threatened. In a concealed carry and personal defense class, they teach you never to draw unless you are going to fire. You're not a cop, you don't tell them to stop or I'll shoot. If you draw, you intend to shoot at that target. Either you do, or they will or try to take the gun away and use it on you.

If an ARMY invades your land, unless your a member of the Brittish Territoral Guard (or another Volunteer Milita entity), I highly recommend you don't attack them. Most armies tend to execute ununiformed combatants on sight.

this guy did the right thing. he's alive and well thanks to his gun.
there should be stories posted about guns saving lives and not
just the criminals who use them to commit crimes.

 

[missywinks]

are you trying to justify reasons for owning a gun?

 

[Jiro]

are you trying to justify reasons for owning a gun?

i'm pleased to hear this kind of positive news instead of hearing bunch of tragic news about criminals using them for crimes

 

[jillio]

i'm pleased to hear this kind of positive news instead of hearing bunch of tragic news about criminals using them for crimes

You consider this to be positive. Personally, I see it as a failure of the system on more than one level. The death of a mentally ill person who should not have been on the streets is certainly a tragedy. The person who shot him will now have to live with having taken the life of another for the rest of his life. That is a tragedy. This entire story is a story of society's failures, not of their successes.

 

[Jiro]

You consider this to be positive. Personally, I see it as a failure of the system on more than one level. The death of a mentally ill person who should not have been on the streets is certainly a tragedy. The person who shot him will now have to live with having taken the life of another for the rest of his life. That is a tragedy. This entire story is a story of society's failures, not of their successes.

while you go ahead and criticize about failed system, it doesn't solve the immediate problem when your life's on the line. This is not about success. This is about 2 lives being spared from a dangerous intruder with a piece of sharp glass.

Granted - this is a tragedy that a man died but I don't think this news is any worse than the headline of 2 couples being brutally stabbed to death by a mentally-ill man.... all because they were prevented from legally owning a firearm for protection due to liberals' gun control laws

since you said this man should not have been on the street... where does he belong to? a padded room at mental ward for rest of his life?

 

[KarissaMann05]

#3 post - Yeah, that's why I am for guns on safety reasons. I used to be anti-gun until almost half year ago. I'm so glad that they are okay and alive well for real!

 

[jillio]

while you go ahead and criticize about failed system, it doesn't solve the immediate problem when your life's on the line. This is not about success. This is about 2 lives being spared from a dangerous intruder with a piece of sharp glass.

Granted - this is a tragedy that a man died but I don't think this news is any worse than the headline of 2 couples being brutally stabbed to death by a mentally-ill man.... all because they were prevented from legally owning a firearm for protection due to liberals' gun control laws
since you said this man should not have been on the street... where does he belong to? a padded room at mental ward for rest of his life?

Got a link to that story that states the couple did not have a gun as a result of gun control?

And yes, someone who is a danger to themselves and others as a result of mental illness needs to be on a locked ward in a mental hospital.

 

[Jiro]

Got a link to that story that states the couple did not have a gun as a result of gun control?

plenty. google's your friend. check old locked threads as well.

And yes, someone who is a danger to themselves and others as a result of mental illness needs to be on a locked ward in a mental hospital.

so this applies to basically hundred of thousands of people..... I guess we better round them up and send them to crazy camp!

 

[jillio]

plenty. google's your friend. check old locked threads as well.


so this applies to basically hundred of thousands of people..... I guess we better round them up and send them to crazy camp!

Hey, you used a specific story as an example. It is incumbent upon you to provide the source for that.

No, it doesn't apply to literally hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people at all. And the term "crazy" is extremely offensive and judgemental.

 

[Bottesini]

And yes, someone who is a danger to themselves and others as a result of mental illness needs to be on a locked ward in a mental hospital.

Those laws got changed during Reagan so there are now a lot of severely mentally ill people who are uncontrolled and homeless and sometimes violent.

 

[Bottesini]

When I was a kid, a friend of my father shot and killed his wife's ex-husband who broke into their house with the intention of killing them.

They were lucky they had a gun.

 

[jillio]

Those laws got changed during Reagan so there are now a lot of severely mentally ill people who are uncontrolled and homeless and sometimes violent.

Nope. The laws actually changed under the deinstitutionalization of the Kennedy administration. But the Baker Act is still in effect.

 

[Jiro]

Hey, you used a specific story as an example. It is incumbent upon you to provide the source for that.

really? but in other threads - you have told ADers to go find it for themselves. Double standard, si?

No, it doesn't apply to literally hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people at all. And the term "crazy" is extremely offensive and judgemental.

trying to rouse up emotional appeal? :roll:

So what's your answer for us innocent people in our own home when it comes to intruder armed with a dangerous object?

 

[jillio]

really? but in other threads - you have told ADers to go find it for themselves. Double standard, si?

Actually, no. I did not refer to a specific incident. You did.

trying to rouse up emotional appeal? :roll:

No, trying to point out your inherent distain for those who suffer from mental disorders and your propensity to be offensive in your language.

So what's your answer for us innocent people in our own home when it comes to intruder armed with a dangerous object?

How many times have you been attacked by a schizophrenic in your home Jiro? If you are going to include yourself in that "us" statement, you will have had to have been attacked by a schizophrenic in your home.

 

[Jiro]

How many times have you been attacked by a schizophrenic in your home Jiro? If you are going to include yourself in that "us" statement, you will have had to have been attacked by a schizophrenic in your home.

we don't expect to get attacked and killed in our home but it CAN happen. Look at their house. It's some nice, quiet ritzy neighborhood. Fortunately - they were armed. They get to have a second chance in their life.

Beside - the mental status of the intruder is not an issue. It's still an intruder, regardless of his background. You have only one chance when you're in life and death situation. Perhaps I'm the wrong person to ask so you might want to ask people who live in high-crime rate neighborhood.... such as DC.

 

[SoS]

Jillio, I was one of them that u told me to find it for myself, but at the same time, you are asking other to find it for you. Yes, it is called double standard. Sorry for being blunt here. You need to wake up and smell the roses that not everybody is going to bend over for you. I see you do this over and over in the past two weeks. It get OLD! PERIOD!

 

[jillio]

we don't expect to get attacked and killed in our home but it CAN happen. Look at their house. It's some nice, quiet ritzy neighborhood. Fortunately - they were armed. They get to have a second chance in their life.

Beside - the mental status of the intruder is not an issue. It's still an intruder, regardless of his background. You have only one chance when you're in life and death situation. Perhaps I'm the wrong person to ask so you might want to ask people who live in high-crime rate neighborhood.... such as DC.

Howmany times have you been in that situation, Jiro?

 

[Bottesini]

Nope. The laws actually changed under the deinstitutionalization of the Kennedy administration. But the Baker Act is still in effect.

Reagan's administration was when the state mental hospitals dumped a lot of patients out on the street, with the goal of not being such a welfare state.

The law Carter signed for was then not implemented due to Reagan.