RAYNHAM, Mass. (WLNE) — The Bristol County District Attorney’s Office said Raynham police officers were justified in shooting and killing a man who approached them with a gun on April 30, 2024. On Jan. 2, 2025, the Bristol County DA’s Office said “there is no basis to conclude that the responding police officers committed a crime. The fatal shooting of Stephen Maclean was justified.” According to the report, four officers responded to Stephen Maclean’s apartment on King Phillip Street with a warrant after neighbors reported him acting erratically outside. At the complex, officers attempted to convince Maclean to open the door and get out of his apartment, in which he did not comply. Eventually, Maclean opened the door and pointed his gun at the officer in front of him. Officers then shot Maclean, and administered medical aid until paramedics arrived. MacLean was taken to Morton Hospital, where he was later pronounced dead. During the investigation, photo evidence was taken of the scene, body cameras were reviewed, and witnesses were interviewed. Additionally, investigators reviewed Maclean’s previous probation history and previous interactions with the Raynham Police Department and Massachusetts Trial Court. The Bristol County DA’s Office said Maclean had been arrested the day before for allegedly intimidating a witness in Taunton District Court, and probation officials requested he be detained as he was on probation at the time of the arrest. In its conclusion, the Bristol County DA’s Office said: The Raynham Police officers who fired their taser and/or firearms at Stephen Maclean on April 30, 2024 had a reasonable fear for their own safety and the safety of their fellow officers. The officers had probable cause to arrest Mr. Maclean for intimidation of a witness. Taking Mr. Maclean into custody was not only lawful, but necessary for the safety of the neighbor/witness who Mr. Maclean had intimidated on consecutive days and for the general public based on Mr. Maclean’s volatility and extreme intoxication. The Raynham police officers first attempted to talk Mr. Maclean out of his apartment. Mr. Maclean did not comply. As demonstrated by the body worn camera videos, the officers were not aggressive or hostile. The officers devised a plan to contain Mr. Maclean in his apartment while they awaited a warrant. No officer was banging on the door or attempting to forcibly enter the apartment. At the time that Mr. Maclean opened his door with a loaded firearm behind his back, none of the Raynham officers had their firearms displayed and the officer with the taser was holding it at a low and ready position. When Mr. Maclean pointed his firearm at the officer standing in front of him, the space separating Mr. Maclean’s outstretched arm to that officer was less than five feet. The hallway was clear and open with no obvious places to take cover or retreat from Mr. Maclean’s threat of deadly force. The threat of deadly force presented by Mr. Maclean was immediately apparent and imminent. As a result, mitigation or de–escalation tactics were not possible. The officers properly responded to Mr. Maclean’s use of deadly force in a manner consistent with the Raynham Police Department’s Use of Force Policy and the laws regarding self–defense and the defense of others. Further, the officers used only the amount of force necessary to neutralize the threat that Mr. Maclean presented. Once it was clear that Mr. Maclean had dropped his firearm, the police ceased firing their weapons, secured Mr. Maclean’s firearm and immediately began rendering first aid while calling for an ambulance. While audio on the officer’s body worn cameras was properly muted just prior to the shooting for a legitimate police reason, the video from those cameras recorded the entire event from arrival to post shooting. The video confirms the officer’s statements that it was Mr. Maclean’s unprovoked and violent actions that required the Raynham officers to respond with deadly force.   Categories: Massachusetts, News