.

Cops: Naked, Biting Home Invader Charged

After spending time in the hospital being treated for wounds, alleged home invader Benjamin Prue has been charged.


 at the residence of 66 Point Lookout in Milford, Benjamin Prue was allegedly shot by Mirto in response to the incident, which occurred on July 21st.

Prue has now been charged by court personnel from a hospital where he is being treated for injuries related to the gun shot wound.

Prue was charged with Home Invasion, first degree burglary, second degree criminal attempt to commit assault of a person over 60 years of age, third degree criminal attempt to commit assault of a person over 60 years of age, second degree criminal mischief, second degree threatening and interfering with police. 

Benjamin Prue was held on a $300,000 bond and remanded to the custody of the State of Connecticut Judicial Marshals.

Investigation is continuing.

WJB August 24, 2012 at 10:36 AM
Shouldn't this idiot have been charged with indecent exposure as well? He running around the hood naked!!! And kudos to Mr. Mirto. True dat, mos def. They should make an example of him and pin a medal on him.He da man!!!
Ryan Parry August 24, 2012 at 11:35 AM
im just glad the old man was an owner of a gun and used it accordingly and resulted in the arrest of a REAL criminal
RONALD M GOLDWYN August 24, 2012 at 12:51 PM
Is Mr Mirto being charged with any crime? Will Prue sue Mirto civilly? Don't laugh, it is a possibility, and has been done in the past.
Christina Durham August 24, 2012 at 01:12 PM
I highly doubt that the State would charge Mr. Mirto; he initially retreated to the second floor of his dwelling (twice, if I read the police statement correctly), only to find this psychotic imbecile still ransacking his house and attacking him like a rabid dog. Regarding Mr. Prue suing Mr. Mirto, let's face it, people can sue practically anyone they wish for almost any reason they wish (strange times in which we live), but I highly doubt the court would grant Mr. Prue any type of punitive satisfaction.
max August 25, 2012 at 03:20 PM
Which is why Morton should have aimed for the head.
Christina Durham August 25, 2012 at 04:18 PM
Difficult to say what I would do in the heat of the moment, but from my armchair I would say if you're going to aim and pull the trigger, shoot to kill.
Jlo August 25, 2012 at 08:59 PM
Castle doctrine. You are not required to retreat before using lethal force in your own home. The homeowner is justified in shooting him as long as he owns the gun legally and there aren't any other extenuating circumstances not mentioned in the article.
David Chesler August 26, 2012 at 01:02 AM
I agree with Jlo, but after you're not carried by six, you may be tried by twelve, and if you've got a belt and suspenders, castle doctrine and tried to retreat and didn't kill him or use any more force than necessary, all the better. And much as anyone who has a gun for self defense has to allow for it, taking another's life, even when necessary, is a life-changing experience, not for the better.
RONALD M GOLDWYN August 26, 2012 at 02:15 AM
JLo you are wrong. If there is another defense you MUST take it before using lethal force.
Robert Chambers August 26, 2012 at 01:22 PM
Yes, like charging the rape victim for being sexy looking... If someone breaks into your house and attacks you and bites you they lose all right to complain if you put a hole in them.
Robert Chambers August 26, 2012 at 01:24 PM
That kind of talk will get you locked up for many years. You don't "Shoot to kill" you "shoot to stop the threat" One the threat is gone (either by the perp running off or being injured and unable to continue you can't keep shooting). Now if you eliminate the threat with a couple of shots to center of mass then the two outcomes could occur simultaneously.
Robert Chambers August 26, 2012 at 01:24 PM
No castle doctrine in CT, if you can hide in a bedroom you're supposed to.. lame but true.. your house is not your castle.
SuperDave August 27, 2012 at 12:18 PM
What a second: someone is biting you and the only way to stop them is to shoot? Ridiculous. I am sure the gun nuts will now try to use this as a shining example as to why we all need to be armed to the teeth. "Hey, he stepped on my toe. Thankfully I had a gun and shot him between the eyes....".
Robert Jochim August 27, 2012 at 12:35 PM
What if the attacker is HIV positive? I'd call that a direct threat to my life.
MikeS August 27, 2012 at 01:38 PM
No one is tougher than I am on the gun lobby, but I have to say that the home owner here used justifiable force, particularly given the circumstances relating to his (multiple) attempts to defuse the situation. I think people fail to grasp how difficult a situation like that must be until they find themselves in it. IMO after the outcome of the Chesire home invasion, one can no longer take for granted that a passive response will, in the end, turn out OK. We are forced to assume the worst now.
Christina Durham August 27, 2012 at 05:08 PM
As an unarmed woman who is thinking of arming herself, I'd really like to understand the law in this respect. If someone breaks into my home I think I could reasonably expect they mean me bodily harm. Now, if they're armed and aiming a gun at me, do I have the right to use deadly force after I've attempted to retreat (let's say, for argument's sake, he's cornered me in my bedroom after I've locked myself in there to retreat from the threat). If I aim my weapon at him, do I have to first aim at his extremities to disable him? This is not written in jest, I sincerely want to know what the law is here.
Robert Chambers August 27, 2012 at 05:28 PM
As an unarmed woman: If someone breaks into your house you certainly should be thinking that way (that you're liable to get harmed). If someone is armed and pointing a gun at you - you are being threatened with harm or death and would be totally justified in shooting to eliminate the threat. If they have a knife - same thing If they have a baseball bat - same thing And since you are female and they might be larger than you (disparity of force) if they come towards you after being told "Get the hell out of my house" then the threat is real and you can defend yourself.
Robert Chambers August 27, 2012 at 05:29 PM
Part 2: You do NOT need to aim at the extremities and attempt to disable the attacker and there are a couple of reasons why. During a stressful situation like this you are going to be half as good as your best day on the range. Do you think you can accurately hit someone in the thigh, or shoulder? No, you are being threatened, they have had ample opportunity to break off the attack and are proceeding. You shoot to eliminate the threat effectively. Easiest way to do that is 2 shots to center of mass, right in the chest and a couple to the face if they keep coming. People who are high on drugs even with a hole through the heart can keep coming until the brain suffers oxygen starvation and they fall unconscious. The other reason is that if the threat is there for you to fire and "wing" him so to speak, then it also implies that you weren't "as threatened" and prosecutors might use this to jam you up!
Michael Brown August 27, 2012 at 05:47 PM
HOME INVADER!!! NAKED!!! BITING!!! Is this as common as a family member shooting another family member with a gun?

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »