Does the court case not mean anything to anyone? Why is it that a jury of probably 6 or 7 liberals agree he was justified but some of you here think he wasnt?
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Chief pulls license of Marine
- Thread starter greycar
- Start date
depicts said:
Of course you can question the decision he made at the time. I do too. However, I wasn't there. Neither were the police, which was part of the problem. That's why we have our judicial system, as imperfect as it may be. They found him innocent of any wrong-doing.
That isn't the issue, though. The issue is the police chief brought charges. A jury of his peers said the charges were false. Unfounded. The police chief didn't like that decision, so he decided to be his own jury. He charged, convicted, and punished this person himself. While doing so he violated the Marine's Constitutional rights. He's allowed to do so because we let him. We continue to elect lawmakers who let him. Then, we have people, like some who post here, who cheer him on as he does it.
derek, I am involved with a PTSD group at the VA. Many of my fellow Vietnam Veterans admit they should not have firearms because they are too volatile to control themselves and their anger and hyper vigilance. I'm glad they are smart enough to realize it.
I have never had that reaction, but lots of PTSD people do.
I think a recent combat vet has a 1 in 3 chance of being diagnosed with PTSD.
It's a lousy thin line we have to walk in Mass, and I don't believe it is right, but it is the law. Remember, anytime you make the choice to be Judged by 12 rather than Carried by 6, you have to face the consequenses of your decision.
I have never had that reaction, but lots of PTSD people do.
I think a recent combat vet has a 1 in 3 chance of being diagnosed with PTSD.
It's a lousy thin line we have to walk in Mass, and I don't believe it is right, but it is the law. Remember, anytime you make the choice to be Judged by 12 rather than Carried by 6, you have to face the consequenses of your decision.
Lugnut said:
I exaggerated. Obviously noone is "cheering".
However, you believe it is the right decision for ONE person to take away a person's Constitutional rights simply because he wants to.
Derek, I think that the jury verdict was actually a "jury nullification" (a feeling that a strict reading of the law is WRONG and that the law should be different for cases such as this) as per MGL what he did wasn't legal (warning shots, "self-defense"). However it looks to me (with VERY LIMITED facts) that the jury "felt for him" with his being surrounded and the terror he must have felt and thus ruled to acquit.
Martlet, as my chief once told my Wife and I . . . the US Constitution does NOT apply in MA! We can only have those "rights" that our state and local gov't specifically allow us to have! Sad but true in actual operation that is how it is in the PRM!
Martlet, as my chief once told my Wife and I . . . the US Constitution does NOT apply in MA! We can only have those "rights" that our state and local gov't specifically allow us to have! Sad but true in actual operation that is how it is in the PRM!
I don't think the Chief should be able to take his license away if he was aquitted (proper term?) by a jury. I do know that I might consider (after more thought and study) voting guilty as a jurist myself because I don't believe firing warning shots is or should be legal as he was using lethal force to stop a threat that I do not consider to be lethal at that point in time. If there were evidence that the croud was armed with something that would have been lethal at that range, or had attempted to actually enter his dwelling, then I think he would have been justified to shoot THEM (still no warning shots). I do believe brandishing in his situation should be legal and would exercise my right to jury nullfication if he had merely brandished. If you shoot you damn well better be shooting at someone and be able to justify it, if not, don't shoot!
In all cases, I think that a jury of his peers, not the chief of police should decide the fate of his RKBA. I believe the charges he was aquitted of were felony charges (assuming here... correct me again) and would have had the same effect had he been convicted. If the jury aquitted him it is not the chief's place to decide.
As far as what I think he shoulda done from a bottom line stay safe and keep your license perspective? Hole up with a shotgun and then raise hell the next morning with the local news, elected representatives, and police and make sure everyone knows about the issue. In MA (probably out of MA too) I would never confront a crowd like that myself, I might ask once politely (not in my fighting tone) that I have children etc. etc. and need to get some sleep. Eventually, if that didn't work, I'd move. Yeah that's right, cut my losses, turn my tail and run. You can't fight a whole town that is as corrupt as Sodom or Gomorrah. Cost benefit analysis, it just isn't worth it when there are so many better places to live, and I don't have a responsibility to fix the pig sty other people created.
In all cases, I think that a jury of his peers, not the chief of police should decide the fate of his RKBA. I believe the charges he was aquitted of were felony charges (assuming here... correct me again) and would have had the same effect had he been convicted. If the jury aquitted him it is not the chief's place to decide.
As far as what I think he shoulda done from a bottom line stay safe and keep your license perspective? Hole up with a shotgun and then raise hell the next morning with the local news, elected representatives, and police and make sure everyone knows about the issue. In MA (probably out of MA too) I would never confront a crowd like that myself, I might ask once politely (not in my fighting tone) that I have children etc. etc. and need to get some sleep. Eventually, if that didn't work, I'd move. Yeah that's right, cut my losses, turn my tail and run. You can't fight a whole town that is as corrupt as Sodom or Gomorrah. Cost benefit analysis, it just isn't worth it when there are so many better places to live, and I don't have a responsibility to fix the pig sty other people created.
Last edited:
Martlet said:
That must also be an exaggeration as you certainly don't understand my point of view clearly.
I'll just leave it at this- most states in this fine country of ours allow the use of lethal force to protect our lives. I support this 100%. In this case I don't think he nor his family were in immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death with no means of retreating, so he wasn't justified in shooting. I nor you have all that facts in this particular case so I choose to move on. We can argue about this and whether the chief should have done what he did till the sun goes down but I'd rather move on for now.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Lugnut said:That must also be an exaggeration as you certainly don't understand my point of view clearly.
I'll just leave it at this- most states in this fine country of ours allow the use of lethal force to protect our lives. I support this 100%. In this case I don't think he nor his family were in immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death with no means of retreating, so he wasn't justified in shooting. I nor you have all that facts in this particular case so I choose to move on. We can argue about this and whether the chief should have done what he did till the sun goes down but I'd rather move on for now.
Fine. Move on. The issue isn't whether you or I think he did the correct thing. The issue is that he was found by our judicial system to have done NOTHING WRONG. The police didn't like that decision so punished him on their own. Did they revoke his license after the incident? No. They just didn't like the decision so they punished him themselves.
You think they made the correct decision. I think it's horrifying that people think that is OK.
Lugnut said:
This is where the:
comes in to play. What if the bottle came through and sliced his neck and he bled to death? It was total chance that it hit his hand and not his neck. For all we know it was labeled for his head and he used his hand to block it. It wasn't exactly kids messing with the guy. They were throwing glass bottles and rocks as hard as they could with the intent to seriously injur him.
LenS said:
That's my take and also what I would have done were I on the jury. Flinging bottles through an upper story window doesn't meet what I understand to be the standard required in Mass for use of deadly force. Perhaps there are reasons why he have felt it unwise to retreat from the window: the Marine may have felt he had to keep the mob under observation for fear of being burnt out. Given such a rationale I would give him the benefit of the doubt. In a criminal case the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.
I thought that brandishing was against the law. Or isn't this brandishing?
Also, the news story said "permit." Was it a FID or LTC?
JT
derek said:
But lugnut says:
Lugnut said:
He thinks you should cower in your basement until the police arrive, and pray that they don't burn your house down or storm your door.
I'm just amazed that people think this way.
As I said before, I wasn't there. However, given the facts that I was given: He was under continued attack. He was injured. He repeatedly called the police. He took non-lethal action in a situation that was becoming increasingly hostile and threatening.
DR said:
Does the whole deep cut on his hand not sink in to anyone? If I try to stab you in the neck with a broken bottle and because I'm a moron I cut your hand, does the assault not count?
Martlet said:
You know... your personal attacts are insulting and I've tried to stay cool on this. Read the MA laws, talk to a lawyer and try to understand the way the system really works. You can live in your fantasy world but this is reality. The fact is the marine LOST his right to bear arms now, and doesn't have the ability to protect his family with a firearm legally again. If he wasn't a marine I can assure you charges likely wouldn't have been dropped. You can say what ever the hell you choose about me... but I'll tell you what- I'll do what I can to protect my family with my firearms when it's the last resort and I'll live another day to tell about it WITH my LTC. In MA unfortunately we have to retreat if it's an option. Call me a coward if that makes you feel better about it.
Lugnut said:
I'm not personally attacking anyone. I'm citing YOUR words as an example of an attitude that I not only not agree with, but pisses me off. I don't need to read MA laws. I understand that what the police chief did was perfectly within his scope of powers. THAT'S WHAT I'M POINTING OUT. Those powers are ridiculous, and it's amazing to me that not only do people continue to elect representatives that hand out those powers, but some people, yourself included, seem to agree with them. If that bothers you, then perhaps you should rethink your position.
You can't ASSURE me the jury would have reached a different decision if he wasn't a Marine. You may have that opinion, but you certainly can't assure me of it. I could ASSURE you the jury would have acquitted him if he was Jack the Ripper. We'll never know.
In my opinion, the fact that he is a Marine only makes my case stronger. That Marine has more weapons training and familiarity than that police chief could ever dream of having. Unless, of course, he has prior service as well.
Martlet said:
Martlet,
It's NOT a matter if any of us "think" this way . . . that is the way MGLs are written!
Yes, it is ridiculous when besieged by a mob, but the law doesn't allow you to use "self defense" until ALL other options are used up. Could he have left the window? Could he retreat to another room (cower in the cellar in safety)? Were they in his home (then he could justifiably use lethal force, especially if others are sleeping in other rooms)? If the perps are >21 ft from you, you are "toast" in MA if you use any weapon to defend yourself . . . you have to articulate that you are within that "lethal strike zone" to a jury/judge to win this one on pure legal grounds.
Using a gun in MA IS LETHAL FORCE, no matter what you shoot at (the ground, the sky, etc.)! Again this is per MGL.
You should read MGL on the matter of self-defense and use of weapons, it will make you sick, but then you'll better understand where some people are coming from.
Also in 99% of towns, the chiefs don't want you to defend yourself or others, as it points out that they (chief/PD) are unable to protect anyone/everyone and puts their jobs into question. It is real hard to find a sympathetic chief in this environment and I dare say that probably 75%+ would revoke a LTC in the circumstances as told to us. It's not right, but that is how the "system" works here in PRM.
Last edited:
LenS said:
The first three posts after mine were people agreeing with the C.O.P.
And regardless of what the POS MGL's say, he was not found guilty of any wrong doing...
Last edited:
First, juries make mistakes all the time. Second, the jury did not find him innocent -- the jury found him not guilty. There's a big difference.
In MA (and in most states), you can only use deadly force if you, or another innocent, are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. Was he in danger? Yes. Was he in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury? Based on what little I've learned about the case, it does not appear to me that the situation reached that high bar. I think he is very, very lucky that he was acquited.
I strongly suspect that they suspended his license after the incident.
That's self defense law, not just in this state but in most states. I strongly suggest that you read Andrew Branca's book, the Law of Self Defense. Right or wrong, across our nation the law places very strict limits on when you can use deadly force. Note that in most states you can use deadly force to stop an arson of an occupied dwelling. I have not read anything that suggested the mob was considering arson.
Last edited:
All he has to do is move a few miles north to New Hampshire.
Speculation, speculation, and more speculation.
Not guilty
That chief has no right to take anything away.
There is a function on August 12 to help with the cost of his lawyer. I will try to get more details.
This guy is a hero.
Not guilty
That chief has no right to take anything away.
There is a function on August 12 to help with the cost of his lawyer. I will try to get more details.
This guy is a hero.
Under MA law, the chief had every right to do so. We may or may not agree with the chief's actions, but the chief acted within the law.
For his actions as a Marine, yes. For his actions that evening, not in my book.
