I like that one.M1911 said:
![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
This can be an emotional subject. We all need to make an effort to be respectful to the other members in the forum. And no M1911 this wasnt written because of you.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
-
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
This can be an emotional subject. We all need to make an effort to be respectful to the other members in the forum. And no M1911 this wasnt written because of you.
J
Jose
Why are you hung up on this "no means of retreating" excrement?Lugnut said:
Just where the hell do you retreat to when your home is being attacked? The next room? The next floor? The basement? Run out the back door?
Maybe Mass is f***ed up in this regard as well, but I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that here in Ohio I have NO duty to retreat once I am in my home. None. Not even to back off a few feet off my window. The same goes for Florida, California, Kansas, and Washington. All states whose deadly force laws I have first hand knowledge of, having lived in all of them. Hell, more and more states are passing laws saying you have NO duty to retreat from an attack before using deadly force as long as you are in a place where you can lawfully be.
If that had been my house, I probably would have pulled the M1 out and a sackfull of loaded clips and started voting from the rooftops.
Last edited by a moderator:
J
Jose
Also, while some here think that he was not in immediate danger, a jury disagreed.
adweisbe said:
This, if the Marine appeals the revocation, could possibly make for some very good appellate law in MA.
Jose said:
You want to talk about excrement??? That move would just be brilliant. Why don't you take a minute to reread your ridiculous post and think about how it sounds. It's clear you don't know MA laws and probably your own.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,560
- Likes
- 33,627
Definitely - but it's not a given the appellate law would fall down on the side of the gun owners.Cross-X said:
Cross-X said:
Well, what are you waiting for?
Mod Hat On!
Please NO MORE INSULTS, ACCUSATIONS, etc.
Each of us is entitled to our own opinion, but we must RESPECT others, even if we disagree with them.
/Mod Hat off
Some keep preaching that this Marine was "in imminent danger". Well the problem is that if you read MGLs on what constitutes "imminent danger" you will learn that throwing bottles thru a window of the 2nd floor apartment won't fit the definition as long as they could move away from the window (definitely possible in this case). NOBODY stormed the house (actually entered the dwelling) and no Molotov cocktails were being thrown.
The law is clear, the jury cut him a break for whatever reason (which I concur with), but the chief is not under any legal obligation to do the same.
I don't like it, but that is the basic sum of our laws here.
Please NO MORE INSULTS, ACCUSATIONS, etc.
Each of us is entitled to our own opinion, but we must RESPECT others, even if we disagree with them.
/Mod Hat off
Some keep preaching that this Marine was "in imminent danger". Well the problem is that if you read MGLs on what constitutes "imminent danger" you will learn that throwing bottles thru a window of the 2nd floor apartment won't fit the definition as long as they could move away from the window (definitely possible in this case). NOBODY stormed the house (actually entered the dwelling) and no Molotov cocktails were being thrown.
The law is clear, the jury cut him a break for whatever reason (which I concur with), but the chief is not under any legal obligation to do the same.
I don't like it, but that is the basic sum of our laws here.
Lugnut said:
Sorry, but acquitted is acquitted. If the guy is not convicted of a crime, then
legally speaking, the whole thing never happened. It always amuses
me how people fail to understand this. If a jury in MA gave him a free
pass (which is NOT a trivial accomplishment, in a state where anyone with a
gun in his or her hand is typically guilty by default 99 out of 100 times) I'm
going to give him the benefit of the doubt, too.
Of course, Len has a point- In MA, the way the licensing system is, the
chiefs can and do get away with abusing their power. That unfortunately,
is just part of the territory. So this Marine can really only do two things-
fight the sucker, or get the hell out of dodge. Hopefully he explores the
former, but if he takes the latter option and emigrates to a free state, I
can't really say that I'd blame him all that much.
-Mike
Lugnut said:
Sure. No one says a suspension or revocation has to be forever. Either with the passing of time, or time plus maybe an additional MA firearms law course, he may well be able to get his LTC back.
And, of course, if his chief of police retires or moves on, the new chief may have a different, and more favorable, view of his suitability to carry a firearm.
In a nutshell, this is why I believe gone for now is not necessarily gone forever.
Has anyone here actually seen the house, or a layout of the rooms?
Having the ability to "simply move away from the windows" may NOT have been an option. What if the place had large picture windows, and every room in their apartment was along the front of the building?
Without ALL the facts, NO ONE has the right to pass judgment. The jury had ALL THE FACTS, and they found him INNOCENT!
To move a jury in Masafreakingchusetts to find ANYONE innocent on a weapons charge, says a hell of a lot in my book. I'm gonna go with the jury on this one, and if they found him INNOCENT then so do I, and the chief can go pound sand!
Having the ability to "simply move away from the windows" may NOT have been an option. What if the place had large picture windows, and every room in their apartment was along the front of the building?
Without ALL the facts, NO ONE has the right to pass judgment. The jury had ALL THE FACTS, and they found him INNOCENT!
To move a jury in Masafreakingchusetts to find ANYONE innocent on a weapons charge, says a hell of a lot in my book. I'm gonna go with the jury on this one, and if they found him INNOCENT then so do I, and the chief can go pound sand!
People keep arguing whether or not he was in the right. Then they argue whether the chief was within his duties to pull the license. Those are fun arguments. You'll never agree, even though the law is pretty clear.
However, those arguments arent the point for me. The point is that the chief did it, was allowed to do it, and some people here SUPPORT his decision to do it.
However, those arguments arent the point for me. The point is that the chief did it, was allowed to do it, and some people here SUPPORT his decision to do it.
Dan Cotnoir Defense Fund
Racicot Funeral Home
256 Broadway
Lawrence, MA 01841
http://www.wrko.com/goout.asp?u=http://iamscotto.blogspot.com/
Ka-ching ! I'm in for $50 in this morning's mail. I hope he fights this.
Racicot Funeral Home
256 Broadway
Lawrence, MA 01841
http://www.wrko.com/goout.asp?u=http://iamscotto.blogspot.com/
Ka-ching ! I'm in for $50 in this morning's mail. I hope he fights this.
Very thought provoking thread... for many, many reasons. Here are some points I think we can all agree to (I hope):
No one here was on the Jury (or in that situation) and has all the facts.
He fired a shot near a crowd, said to be warning shot, that had thrown a bottle through the window of his 2nd floor apartment. His shot injured 2 people. He himself was injured.
Police are only reactive and sometimes very slow to respond
Police chiefs have FULL discretion of issuing/revoking a LTC regardless of convictions, acquitals, etc. This SUCKS big time. I agree to this.
Now this is where I've taken some flack.
Under MA law, realizing I DON'T know all the facts of this case (nor does anyone else here)- it appears to me that he made an error of judgement- WHY he was acquited I don't know. It could have been a number of reasons- but that doesn't imply that he really didn't actually do something wrong. In our legal system he was not found guilty. However, again not knowing ALL the facts, and based on what I've read so far I don't think he was justified in his shooting out the window. I don't think at that time he or his family's life was in serious danger of death or serious bodily harm. Of course this is very easy to say when I wasn't the one waiting for 1/2 hour for the cops! On the other hand no one stormed his 2nd floor apartment and so far I've only heard that one bottle in the 1/2 hour was the only thing thown through his window. So yes, I have suspicions of his actions. I stand by that. I'm in doubt of whether it was the right thing to do regardless of MA laws (as pointed out, MANY other states' laws as well). We all know that when ever we shoot a firearm at or near a person(s) we have to assume that someone can be KILLED or INJURED- he did that and I don't think it was justified... again only based on the public information I've read so far.
Wrt the chief revoking his license? Unfortunately a conviction isn't necessary for a chief to revoke a license under MA law- no one can argue this. Maybe we can use this case to help redirect our energies and frustrations and work harder at changing the existing laws than arguing so vehemently against ourselves.
No one here was on the Jury (or in that situation) and has all the facts.
He fired a shot near a crowd, said to be warning shot, that had thrown a bottle through the window of his 2nd floor apartment. His shot injured 2 people. He himself was injured.
Police are only reactive and sometimes very slow to respond
Police chiefs have FULL discretion of issuing/revoking a LTC regardless of convictions, acquitals, etc. This SUCKS big time. I agree to this.
Now this is where I've taken some flack.
Under MA law, realizing I DON'T know all the facts of this case (nor does anyone else here)- it appears to me that he made an error of judgement- WHY he was acquited I don't know. It could have been a number of reasons- but that doesn't imply that he really didn't actually do something wrong. In our legal system he was not found guilty. However, again not knowing ALL the facts, and based on what I've read so far I don't think he was justified in his shooting out the window. I don't think at that time he or his family's life was in serious danger of death or serious bodily harm. Of course this is very easy to say when I wasn't the one waiting for 1/2 hour for the cops! On the other hand no one stormed his 2nd floor apartment and so far I've only heard that one bottle in the 1/2 hour was the only thing thown through his window. So yes, I have suspicions of his actions. I stand by that. I'm in doubt of whether it was the right thing to do regardless of MA laws (as pointed out, MANY other states' laws as well). We all know that when ever we shoot a firearm at or near a person(s) we have to assume that someone can be KILLED or INJURED- he did that and I don't think it was justified... again only based on the public information I've read so far.
Wrt the chief revoking his license? Unfortunately a conviction isn't necessary for a chief to revoke a license under MA law- no one can argue this. Maybe we can use this case to help redirect our energies and frustrations and work harder at changing the existing laws than arguing so vehemently against ourselves.
Last edited:
While we agree on the known information, we must also agree that it is limited, and those of you who are forming opinions about whether or not you feel his course of action was correct are doing so only based on suppositions.
That's why I'm trying to keep my feelings about this discussion on the known facts, and what I feel is wrong with the laws as they are written. I don't think a police chief should have the power to arbitrarily yank a license. I think most agree on that. Given the outcome of the jury, I don't think the chief should have suspended this Marine's license. That we disagree on.
To say you don't believe he was in immediate danger and his actions were unwarranted, though, is to guess. Unless, of course, you have facts I don't have.
Had the crowd moved from one location to another at the house? Were numerous objects thrown at the window? Were objects thrown at the 1st floor windows? How close to the house was the mob? What was being yelled back and forth? Were they threatening to come kick his ass? Threatening to burn his house down?
We just don't have all the facts. It's hard for me to believe that a mob quietly walked up to his house and lobbed a few bottles through his window then stood there for a half hour. We have to guess to fill in the blanks.
That's why I'm trying to keep my feelings about this discussion on the known facts, and what I feel is wrong with the laws as they are written. I don't think a police chief should have the power to arbitrarily yank a license. I think most agree on that. Given the outcome of the jury, I don't think the chief should have suspended this Marine's license. That we disagree on.
To say you don't believe he was in immediate danger and his actions were unwarranted, though, is to guess. Unless, of course, you have facts I don't have.
Had the crowd moved from one location to another at the house? Were numerous objects thrown at the window? Were objects thrown at the 1st floor windows? How close to the house was the mob? What was being yelled back and forth? Were they threatening to come kick his ass? Threatening to burn his house down?
We just don't have all the facts. It's hard for me to believe that a mob quietly walked up to his house and lobbed a few bottles through his window then stood there for a half hour. We have to guess to fill in the blanks.
J
Jose
It honestly does not matter to me if my chosen course of action would meet your approval.Lugnut said:
You're probably right.Lugnut said:
You are definitely wrong.Lugnut said:
Lugnut said:
How can you dismiss all contrary viewpoints because the poster was not on the jury and therefore does not know all the facts? Then in the next paragraph you convict him based on the facts as you know them.
I think most folks are upset and expressing displeasure because it seems unfair to punish someone who has been found guilty of no crime.
Would you be upset if your chief suspended your LTC becuase of something you posted here? Technically he could do it. He could also do it because of the color of your skin, ethnic background, sexual orientation, maybe you have a bigger house then he does, etc. Doesn't make it right and you along with most of us would be upset about it.
It seems that laws are respected more than rights.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
greycar said:
Geez, you'd think if there were any attorneys who were committed to RKBA! on here, they'd call the attorney listed here and offer some advice or to help defend this guy. This could be THE case to crack things open for RKBA!.
senorFrog said:
I think you misunderstood my quote- I was referring to the chief's ability, whether we like it or not, within MA law, to revoke a LTC without any need for a conviction. This is a known fact and this is what EVERYONE of us agrees is not just.
senorFrog said:
See my comments above.... no one on this forum agrees with this blatant abuse of power, if you take the time to read some of my other threads on this forum (not just this one) you will see a consistent theme.
That being said, convictions or nonconvictions aside and based solely on the information I've read, I've taken an unpopular position. Sorry if that offends or puzzles people.
Derek-
BTW- I truly wish Contoir the best going forward. I'm sure it's been a very, very difficult time for him and his family. It would be good to get his perspective on the real facts... not just what was written in the articles.
Adam_MA said:
Yes I have!
There were pictures either on the TV news or newspaper article when this happened.
- First floor is a funeral parlor.
- Second floor is where the Marine lives.
- Second floor side where the incident occurred has 2 or 3 standard double-hung windows . . . with lots of non-windowed wall space between them! This indicates to me that he could have easily "moved out of the line of fire".
We're stretching here with statements like maybe the whole side of the house was windowed (it wasn't the red-light district in Amsterdam, most folks don't live in their windows and prefer some privacy with actual walls.
Lugnut said:
Having talked to numerous legislators and testified at gun hearings for >20 years, my educated opinion is that you don't want to make this Marine your "poster child" to get chief's discretion removed from MGLs. I can tell you with 100% certainty that those that get to vote on these things will look at this 180deg out of phase of most of you who think that the Marine did the only thing he could and best thing to control the situation. This would backfire in a New York second on us if we pushed this incident as an example of chief's abuse!
Don't misunderstand, if I were his chief, I would have called him in and had a FTF intelligent discussion about MGLs and self-defense, required that he take a course on MA gun laws wrt self-defense and gave him back his LTC. But I'm not chief and never will be one, so that's not worth a whole lot!
Lugnut said:
He was on WRKO after the aquittal. Said he just wants to get out of that area. Went on to say the riots are a nightly occurance. Police just look the other way. Apparently there is a latino club nearby which is very popular with the undocumented community (including minors) around 2:30 AM.
Jose - Espero que no te he offendido. Pero no me gusta el estado de la immigracion ahora. Es afuera de control.
Martlet said:
Sorry Martlet, I don't think we will agree on this subject.
I think the local police chiefs have too much discretion to do what they want wrt issuing/revoking LTC. It's easy for me to see that anyone could be "found" unsuitable by any given chief in many different ways. We've seen this in the fact that some cities/towns won't issue or will issue restricted license at thier whim. I live in town where my chief wants a doctor note and 2 references. I don't think individual town/cities should be able to just do what they want. There has to be a better, more consistent way of issuing LTC. On this I suspect we would agree.
Further more, in that particular quote, I was referring to the what I've said over an over again- Contoir appeared to have used his firearm in a fashion that I don't think was appropriate and hence I don't think the chief was out of line exercising his ability to revoke Contoir's license.
I guess there is a big gap between what I see as a chief's "blatant abuse of power" and what/why he did what he did in this case. Contoir was acquited- that doesn't mean he didn't do what was reported! Laws aside- I don't think it was wise to shoot into/near that crowd... sorry i just don't.
I like LenS's idea:
"Don't misunderstand, if I were his chief, I would have called him in and had a FTF intelligent discussion about MGLs and self-defense, required that he take a course on MA gun laws wrt self-defense and gave him back his LTC. "
Lugnut said:
So if you agree with it, it's not a blatant abuse of power. If the mob was storming his house, killed his wife, then the chief yanked his permit, would that still not be an abuse of power?
