October 9, 2013

Attorney: Shooting of North Yarmouth man was self-defense

By David Hench dhench@pressherald.com
Staff Writer

(Continued from page 1)

Stan Brown, the owner of a beekeeping business near where Sunday’s shooting took place, says the alleged gunman had been banned from the property.

John Patriquin/2013 file

Stan Brown spoke positively Tuesday about Thurlow-Kimball, saying she is a good, knowledgeable beekeeper who works hard and learned quickly. He said he had issues with her husband, who was not allowed on the property. Brown said Kimball has “problems.”

“There’s something wrong with this. Who brings a gun ... and to shoot a man?” said Brown. “You got a problem, why don’t you call a deputy sheriff? He shot a good man dead.”

Brown said Kimball was not allowed to come to the business or be on the property, and Kelley was telling him to leave when he was shot.

“Leon would do anything you asked,” Brown said fondly. “He was looking out for (the business).”

Lilley said reports that Kimball had been stealing from the business are erroneous.

Neither Kimball nor Kelley had a criminal record, according to the state Bureau of Identification.

According to records maintained by the state Department of Agriculture, Thurlow-Kimball has a permit to collect and process honey at Brown’s Bee Farm and has a license to do so.

Soon after she and her husband arrived at the business Sunday, several members of Brown’s extended family showed up, Lilley said.

Police did not indicate that Kimball or Thurlow-Kimball was hurt, and Stokes said he would not comment on specifics of the investigation.

Lilley said he is representing Kimball to make sure his rights are protected, even though he has not been charged.

An autopsy showed that Kelley died from multiple gunshots to the torso.

Lilley said Maine doesn’t have a so-called stand-your-ground law. “What we have is the classic self-defense law that simply says if you are confronted by a force that puts you in jeopardy for seriously bodily harm or death, you may use force necessary to prevent that,” he said.

“In this particular case, that would probably be what the (Attorney General’s Office) is looking at,” Lilley said.

Stokes said the case will be reviewed under the state’s “physical force in defense of a person” statute.

The state law says a person is justified in using deadly force if he or she feels deadly force is being threatened against them or another person. Deadly force is not justified if the person can “with complete safety ... retreat from the encounter.”

David Hench can be contacted at 791-6327 or at:


Twitter: @Mainehenchman

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors

Further Discussion

Here at PressHerald.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)