Chief pulls license of Marine

[Cross-X]

I suppose another good question is, if this Marine continues to live in that same town, how long will he have to do without his LTC? If he applies 6 months from now, will his chief relent? How about a year?

I sure hope he has a good lawyer advising him how to proceed. I think he'll likely get his LTC back, even if he doesn't move his family out of town.

 

[Admin]

For his actions as a Marine, yes. For his actions that evening, not in my book.

Knowing his judgement as a Marine in the past, I would trust his judgement now.

We only heard the details our liberal gun hating media presented to us.

 

[dwarven1]

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.

Depicts, thank you for your service.

Now... the Marine in question WAS judged by 12, and acquitted. The COP doesn't like that, so he's punishing the Marine in the only way he can.

 

[Lugnut]

I think he'll likely get his LTC back, even if he doesn't move his family out of town.

Can you share your reasoning on this?

 

[FunYun]

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...

+1

He was prosecuted under MGL and found NOT GUILTY. So if MGL's say hes innocent, then what law is the Cheif basing his decision?

Not only is this a great example of how lowly our government thinks of us, but also of how screwed up our government is that they can't even agree on enforcment of laws. Or even decisions handed down by Judges!

 

[M1911]

So if MGL's say hes innocent, then what law is the Cheif basing his decision?

Are you not aware that LTCs are issued at the discretion of the chief and can be revoked by the chief at any time? Most probably, the chief revoked it on the basis of "suitability."

I think he'll likely get his LTC back, even if he doesn't move his family out of town.

I'll bet you a six pack that doesn't happen.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The chief does NOT have to abide by a court/judge's decision! He has 100% discretion to issue or not, to revoke or not.

Also keep in mind that what the Marine did is explicitly NOT legal in MA. The jury nullified, feeling that under the circumstances he had no other choice than to "do something", thus acquitting him of any criminal action. That still doesn't make what he did legal in the eyes of MGLs . . . the laws suck and we know it, but they still are the laws we are supposed to obey.

I'm certain that the chief decided to revoke as soon as he read the reports from the scene. No matter how the criminal case was going to come out, he was doomed.

I also do NOT see him getting the LTC back from that chief ever.

I know of two other cases that were a lot less "controversial" and in both cases, the chief that revoked refused to re-issue. But after said chiefs retired, the aggrieved parties stood a good chance of getting their LTC back. One of these cases involved someone I know personally and the chief is a friend and told me this. The other case involved the pizza pickup across from Dedham PD. He was allegedly going to get a restricted (collector, target) license once the new chief took over. Haven't heard that it did or didn't happen however.

 

[Coyote33]

More fundamental than that is the flaw in the state system which allows extra judicial punishment....

I think that is the point of this post.


And look here if you want to find out more about where cities and towns look for advice:

municipal decisions

 

[Admin]

I'm certain that the chief decided to revoke as soon as he read the reports from the scene. No matter how the criminal case was going to come out, he was doomed.

+1 I'm sure his mind was already made up regardless of the outcome.

 

[rclarkston]

What ever happened to due process?

It's stories such as this one that give me such a warm and fuzzy feeling about the Commonwealth of Mass .

So ask yourself, who kills more people in a given calendar year, doctors, or licensed gun owners?

Yet the doctor is guaranteed due process before his license, the posession of which is not a constitutional right, is yanked, and a licensed gun owner, exercising his/her constitutionally protected right to own a firearm, can have that licensed revoked with no such guarantee of due process.

I can't help but think that anti-gun politicians rely on the fact that most gun owners lack the financial means to pursue constitutional challenges to their handy work. Far too many wealty gun owners, ie. politicians, celebrities, and liberals, believe they should be the only citizens to own guns anyway, so screw the hard-working masses.

As Larry Elder's documentary pointed out; Rosie O'Donnel feels that no one outside of the state should be able to legally own guns, no one except her private security guards that is.

If I should ever become lucky enough to win the lottery, I would like to make a pledge to put some of that money to good use .

 

[Admin]

Yet the doctor is guaranteed due process before his license, the posession of which is not a constitutional right, is yanked, and a licensed gun owner, exercising his/her constitutionally protected right to own a firearm, can have that licensed revoked with no such guarantee of due process.

Very good point.

 

[Ham Slam]

For his actions as a Marine, yes. For his actions that evening, not in my book.

This guy is a hero in every sense. For serving his country as a Marine, and for having the guts to protect his family.


http://www.wrko.com/goout.asp?u=http://iamscotto.blogspot.com/

info reguarding the event for the 12th of August

 

[M1911]

and for having the guts to protect his family

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I believe his actions were unnecessary and illegal, and that he's darn lucky he's not in jail.

 

[Admin]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I believe his actions were unnecessary and illegal, and that he's darn lucky he's not in jail.

I think we are going to have to leave it at that M1911, Lugnut, and depicts.

 

[matt1956]

I have to say that this is a perfect example of why MA sucks... I can say I'd be damned if Im going to "retreat" from my own home... especially when I have my wife and 2 children to protect.

I know what the MGL says and I understand the fact is that in the eyes of the MGL he was wrong, but IMO I can't see he had many options... other then calling the police and lying to them by saying that some one was shooting at his house or something...

 

[M1911]

I can say I'd be damned if Im going to "retreat" from my own home... especially when I have my wife and 2 children to protect.

No need for him to retreat from his home, and I certainly never suggested that. I do suggest that he could have moved further away from the windows and covered the door. If you think that MA law requires you to "retreat" from your home, then I strongly suggest that you get yourself educated about MA law, because you clearly have some misconceptions.

IMO I can't see he had many options... other then calling the police and lying to them by saying that some one was shooting at his house or something...

Move away from the windows. Cover the front door with the shotgun. Call the police back and tell them people are throwing things through his windows and he is in danger.

I have to say that this is a perfect example of why MA sucks

The law of self defense in MA is very similar to that in most states. You can only use deadly force if you, or another innocent, is in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. Outside your home, you must retreat if it is safe to do so.

Unfortunately it is out of print, but if you can find a copy of Andrew Branca's book it may enlighten you:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0966511913/103-1189470-4862238?v=glance&n=283155

The reality is that there are very, very few situations where you can use deadly force. And "warning" shots are almost always a bad idea.

Note that a few states do not require you to retreat when outside your home. Also, one state (TX) allows you to use deadly force to protect property under certain circumstances, but most do not.

 

[senorFrog]

One other thing I've come ot understand in law, certainly in MA.... Acquitted does not equal Innocent whether we like it or not.

I disagree. You are innocent until proven guilty. He was not proven guilty. Therefore he IS INNOCENT.

 

[Martlet]

Martlet,

It's NOT a matter if any of us "think" this way . . . that is the way MGLs are written!

It IS a matter if any of you think that way. Continue reading the posts past the one you quoted. You'll see where I addressed your very point.

I strongly suspect that they suspended his license after the incident.
.

You do? The article states they just now asked him to surrender his firearms. Are you allowed to keep firearms with a suspended license?

 

[JellyFish]

He did the exact right thing. There are some on this board who have their heads firmly planted in their anuses.

The loss of his license is yet another reminder of why the power to issue them needs to be removed from the local police chiefs.

Are you nuts? Has the liberal kool-aid finally penetrated your skin?

A man is in his home at 2:30 am. There is a crowd outside his house throwing things through his window, damaging his property and injuring him. He fires a shot not into the chest of one of the attackers, but instead into the ground. He was found innocent of any wrong-doing, yet he should lose his Constitutional right to own a firearm?

 

[M1911]

You do? The article states they just now asked him to surrender his firearms. Are you allowed to keep firearms with a suspended license?

That surprises me greatly. The SOP is to suspend the license and confiscate the firearms ASAP (i.e., during or after the arrest).

 

[JellyFish]

Wow, you expect the police-chief-ass-kissers among us to actually remember that he was innocent? LOL

You're expecting a lot my friend.

I disagree. You are innocent until proven guilty. He was not proven guilty. Therefore he IS INNOCENT.

 

[M1911]

There are some on this board who have their heads firmly planted in their anuses.

Can't we disagree without getting disagreeable?

 

[JellyFish]

Far too many of these "chiefs" are petty tyrants. It's way past time to end their reign of terror and put in a state-wide licensing system. The system as it stands now is absurd.

The chief does NOT have to abide by a court/judge's decision! He has 100% discretion to issue or not, to revoke or not.

Also keep in mind that what the Marine did is explicitly NOT legal in MA. The jury nullified, feeling that under the circumstances he had no other choice than to "do something", thus acquitting him of any criminal action. That still doesn't make what he did legal in the eyes of MGLs . . . the laws suck and we know it, but they still are the laws we are supposed to obey.

I'm certain that the chief decided to revoke as soon as he read the reports from the scene. No matter how the criminal case was going to come out, he was doomed.

I also do NOT see him getting the LTC back from that chief ever.

I know of two other cases that were a lot less "controversial" and in both cases, the chief that revoked refused to re-issue. But after said chiefs retired, the aggrieved parties stood a good chance of getting their LTC back. One of these cases involved someone I know personally and the chief is a friend and told me this. The other case involved the pizza pickup across from Dedham PD. He was allegedly going to get a restricted (collector, target) license once the new chief took over. Haven't heard that it did or didn't happen however.

 

[M1911]

He did the exact right thing.

I've been to LFI 1 and 2, Sigarms Academy Concealed Carry course, read Ayoobs books, read Andrew Branca's books. Not one recommended firing warning shots. Indeed, they all strongly recommended against them.

 

[JellyFish]

I named no one in particular. If somebody chooses to believe the comment related to them, well that's out of my hands.

I'm merely stating the truth as I see it.

Can't we disagree without getting disagreeable?

 

[M1911]

Far too many of these "chiefs" are petty tyrants. It's way past time to end their reign of terror and put in a state-wide licensing system. The system as it stands now is absurd.

I think we all agree on that. My main point of disagreement is about the legality and wisdom of his actions.

 

[JellyFish]

Were any of them EVER in a similar situation? Were THEIR wife and kids in potential danger from a freaking mob? Did the cops take a half hour or whatever to arrive?

Then perhaps they should shut their mouths and not presume to pass judgement on this man who faced a real-life situation that involved imminent danger to his wife and children.

I've been to LFI 1 and 2, Sigarms Academy Concealed Carry course, read Ayoobs books, read Andrew Branca's books. Not one recommended firing warning shots. Indeed, they all strongly recommended against them.

 

[M1911]

I named no one in particular. If somebody chooses to believe the comment related to them, well that's out of my hands.

I'm merely stating the truth as I see it.

No you're not. Saying this:

There are some on this board who have their heads firmly planted in their anuses.

is deliberately meant to be insulting. You owe the board an apology.

 

[JellyFish]

What an utterly absurd thing to say!

HE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!

He was not proven guilty so he remains innocent of all charges. Why can't you wrap your mind around that????

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.

 

[JellyFish]

I owe the board nothing except more of my common sense and clear-headed thinking.

You, on the other hand, might do well to write a letter of apology to this marine and another letter to his local police chief demanding that the marine's license be reinstated. That would probably be about the best thing you could do to redeem yourself for some of the strange opinions against the marine you've been expressing.

Now go and do the right thing.

No you're not. Saying this: is deliberately meant to be insulting. You owe the board an apology.