Chief pulls license of Marine

[jkelly]

Keeping in mind that a jury has found this man not guilty could those of you that think that the Chief was justified in taking away his license please explain by what legitimate authority one human being has to disable another human being's natural right?---CATO

I don't know what he was charged with so I do not know what he was found not guilty of. Nor could I address what "legitimate authority" was used when the COP decided the shooter would not get his permit back.

But I would guess, if the posts in this thread are accurate (???), that the rational the COP used was that the shooter in question was in a one person gun fight and wounded two innocent people how ever slightly that might have been.



Respectfully,

jkelly

 

[Cato]

I don't know what he was charged with so I do not know what he was found not guilty of. Nor could I address what "legitimate authority" was used when the COP decided the shooter would not get his permit back.

But I would guess, if the posts in this thread are accurate (???), that the rational the COP used was that the shooter in question was in a one person gun fight and wounded two innocent people how ever slightly that might have been.

Respectfully,

jkelly

JK, he was found not guilty. End of story. I don't want to conduct a new trial on this message board. Once he was found not guilty his rights should be restored. Period.

 

[Len-2A Training]

His rights were restored.

However, in MA we have NO RIGHTS to firearms! It is a privilege left to the whim of the local chief, per MGLs. Thus, the chief finds this person "unsuitable" and it is game, set, match! That is the legal authority which the chief has under MGL.

If you want gun ownership to be a "RIGHT" in MA, you have a hell of a lot of lobbying to do and it will probably take in excess of 50 years (if ever) to accomplish in MA! I'm afraid this is just "reality" in PRM.

 

[Cato]

His rights were restored.

However, in MA we have NO RIGHTS to firearms! It is a privilege left to the whim of the local chief, per MGLs. Thus, the chief finds this person "unsuitable" and it is game, set, match! That is the legal authority which the chief has under MGL.

If you want gun ownership to be a "RIGHT" in MA, you have a hell of a lot of lobbying to do and it will probably take in excess of 50 years (if ever) to accomplish in MA! I'm afraid this is just "reality" in PRM.

LenS I am well aware of the sad state of affairs in MA. I am disappointed that so many gun owners agree with them. That's all.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I belonged to a gun club (past tense) that almost to a person had no problems with our gun laws, including the 1998 disaster. It had a lot to do with why I resigned after 24 years (14 of which I was the Legislative Chairman and BOD member).

I think that a lot of us feel that the Marine used very poor judgment.

Speaking for myself, I believe that he should NOT have lost all his gun rights, but should have been made to attend another gun safety course to understand WHY what he did was poor judgment . . . and then have his LTC restored along with his guns. [This paragraph reflects my feelings only and I am speaking for nobody else here.]

 

[jkelly]

JK, he was found not guilty. End of story. I don't want to conduct a new trial on this message board. Once he was found not guilty his rights should be restored. Period.---CATO

Conduct a new trial? In my post I said:

I don't know what he was charged with so I do not know what he was found not guilty of. Nor could I address what "legitimate authority" was used when the COP decided the shooter would not get his permit back.---jkelly

So where you get “conduct a new trial” is beyond me.

You asked a question, and not knowing the law, I suggested a possible scenario for what the COP might have been thinking when he refused to return the shooters firearms license. Again I don’t know the law in this state but shooting two innocent people can not be viewed by the COP as a good thing.

As far as being found not guilty actually being the end of the story, obviously, many times it’s not.


Respectfully,

jkelly

 

[RKG]

If you think about it, the problem here is that Coitnoir used a military tactic against a civilian group and then tried to fit it within the "self defense" model at trial. He is lucky that the jury "nullified."

1. In a combat situation, the entire group coming at you is a legitimate target. It is permissible to launch deadly force at any member of the group because the acceptable military objective is to reduce the OpFor's combat effectiveness, and killing any member of the group does that. The fact (assuming it to be fact) that only one or two members of the OpFor are actually shooting at you is not material.

2. Under the interpretation of what happened here most favorable to Coitnoir, one or two members of a group posed a death-or-serious-bodily-injury to Coitnoir or members of his family. He did not direct his fire against those one or two -- and, more importantly, he did not direct his fire against the threat (even if the one or two members of the group throwing bottles at his window constituted a death-or-serious-bodily-injury threat, it would be self-defense to shoot at them only if they were about to do it again, not because they had done it once).

3. In a criminal case, the jury has the power (but not the right) to "nullify" the prosecution by voting for "not guilty" even though the evidence and uncontested facts legally equate with "guilty." We call this a "power" because, under the system, there is no judicial review of a "not guilty" verdict even if it comes about as a violation of the rules -- in this case, the jurors' oath to render a decision based solely on the evidence and the facts. The jury is not instructed that they have this power, but sometimes, particularly in the case of a sympathetic defendant (as Coitnoir surely was), they figure it out for themselves.

4. As far as the licensing authority is concerned, the issue is this: we have a guy who used firearms in a way that was legally indefensible and posed a real threat of death or serious injury to persons whose conduct (that is, individual conduct) was no threat to him. That by itself raises the probability that, in a similar situation in the future, he would do it again, and that, by itself, is a more than sufficient reason to deny him a license to own firearms.

5. To be sure, there is a good deal of abuse and arbitrariness by licensing authorities under the current structure of ch. 140, sec. 131. Coitnoir's case, however, isn't one of them.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Jim, keep in mind that the police are NOT obligated to respond to any call for help . . . and that has been upheld in court cases. They are responsible for "general safety" but not for "specific safety" (responding to an individual call).

 

[NHRstein]

sounds like he used some kind of shot....

Just a science question. If he was to use a slug and fire it into the ground do you think it would have broken up or chipped up enough pavement to injure the bystanders???

 

[greycar]

Judge upholds decision to disarm Lawrence Marine veteran

Published: March 01, 2008 07:50 am

By Drake Lucas
Staff writer


LAWRENCE — A Superior Court judge has upheld a decision by the city's police chief to revoke a gun permit for a local Marine veteran who fired into a crowd of early morning partygoers across the street from his home.

SNIP

http://www.eagletribune.com/punews/local_story_061075055.html

 

[Erebus]

My initial/emotional/knee-jerk reaction to the story was to condemn this guy. But the more I think about this the more I think that if the jury acquitted him then he should have his permit back. I don't think I would have done what he did but I wasn't in his shoes that night standing between a drunken mob and my family. I think it's safe to assume that the jury had more facts about this situation when they rendered their verdict than we do and it should be so respected.

While firing into a crowd certainly doesn't sound good the jury ruled the way they did for a reason that we might not have. It wouldn't surprise me if the jury heard something that would drastically change our outlook on this whole incident that the press has conveniently left out of their reports.

 

[WayneWong]

So I take it the police chief, whose department charged the guy with a crime, has lifted the license AFTER he's acquitted. Just hits my bullshit sensor.

 

[jkelly]

So I take it the police chief, whose department charged the guy with a crime, has lifted the license AFTER he's acquitted. ---WayneWong

I think that COP lifted the shooter's license before the trial and the shooter attempted to have his license returned after being acquitted. I believe that the COP didn't want to return a license to someone who shot into (or near) a crowd wounding two people (I think).

The shooter moved and can apply in his new town. Should be no trouble, right?

Respectfully,

jkelly

 

[45 acp]

This sounds to me to be a case of PSD. We don't know what was going through his mind at the time of the attach. He could have been reliving a bad situation. IMHO the revelers are really lucky.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

there is no judicial review of a "not guilty" verdict

Lots of good info on this at www.fija.org, including one case where the jurors were investigated because of a "not guilty" verdict, and one (Laura Kirho) was prosecuted for failing to disclose being active in the anti drug law movement during voir dire - an investigation and prosecution that would not have happened but for the not guilty verdict.

 

[MaverickNH]

It's been said that there are huge numbers of self-defense uses of firearms yearly that do not entail firing of a gun. Knowing brandishing a firearm when not in immediate threat of fatal or great bodily harm is not legal in most situations, do you suppose all of these self-defense cases would be considered justified by letter of the law?

One could easily suggest that this self-defense statistic implys gunowners use a firearm for self-defense regularly break the law by mere display of a firearm with actual or implied threat of firing.

The same with "warning shots" - when a firearm is discharged without intention of hitting. Maybe not a good idea in general, but this a a "you had to be there" judgement - either way certainly not legal.

My point is that we can chose to be conditioned in behavior by what is right and wrong AND what is legal and illegal. Some actions are wrong and illegal and some are right, or not clearly wrong, and are also illegal. And it depends on if the police get involved, and if there are evidence or witnesses to dispute your side of the story (including the other guy, assuming they are a witness and/or still breathing)

Shooting another driver dead for cutting you off is one extreme - wrong and illegal. This kind of obvious misuse of dealy force is what causes much of the problem for gunowners.

As mentioned in the recent Art of Concealed Carry class, someone who breaks into your house, shouting incoherently, and backing you up the staircase with a knife held low by their side, cannot legally be shot (in MA) as you still have room to retreat and they have not vocally threatened you with deadly force or raised a deadly weapon with intent of use. This last hypothetical situation raised some discussion for sure. What would you do with your familiy at the top of those stairs? What would you do alone? What would you do in the presence of numerous witnesses? What if you've had a few beers when the door cracks open - do you give up any right of self-defense as you've been drinking?

I would say a MAJOR part of the utility of firearms in the More Guns - Less Crime arguement falls in the gray zone - likley to be strictly illegal, but no arrest and/or conviction.

 

[jcr]

Do I have this correct? The newspaper that I saw didn't feel a need to write precisely and mentioned "permits".

If the CLEO revoked it, it must have been an LTC. So the guy can still have/get an FID which allows the shotgun which he used in a way that resulted in a denial to use a handgun.

This must be because handguns are so much more dangerous than shotguns.

But it does bring up again the question as to whether it makes sense to have both the FID and LTC. When FID cost $2. for life, easy. Is it worth $100. to not have long guns taken, or go thru the hassle of habing them stored at a friend/relative home.

 

[pbearperry]

That guy may have been a terrific Marine,but he literally jumped the gun by shooting a shotgun out of the window into a crowd of unruly people.However if the crowd then kicked his door in,he would have been justified.If he was not a decorated Marine,I would guess he would have been found guilty and in prison now.He should thank his lucky stars.Anyone who feels he was justified doing what he did worrys me,as you are not smart enough to own firearms and carry them in public.

 

[Scrivener]

As mentioned in the recent Art of Concealed Carry class, someone who breaks into your house, shouting incoherently, and backing you up the staircase with a knife held low by their side, cannot legally be shot (in MA) as you still have room to retreat and they have not vocally threatened you with deadly force or raised a deadly weapon with intent of use. This last hypothetical situation raised some discussion for sure.

Probably because what you were apparently taught is completely WRONG. Period.

Here's the law:

G.L.c. 278, § 8A. Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense.

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

G.L.c. 231, § 85U. Death or injury to unlawful dwelling occupants; liability of lawful occupants.

Section 85U. No person who is a lawful occupant of a dwelling shall be liable in an action for damages for death or injuries to an unlawful occupant of said dwelling resulting from the acts of said lawful occupant; provided, however, that said lawful occupant was in the dwelling at the time of the occurrence and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said lawful dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said lawful occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall not be a duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

 

[M1911]

As mentioned in the recent Art of Concealed Carry class, someone who breaks into your house, shouting incoherently, and backing you up the staircase with a knife held low by their side, cannot legally be shot (in MA) as you still have room to retreat and they have not vocally threatened you with deadly force or raised a deadly weapon with intent of use. This last hypothetical situation raised some discussion for sure.

If someone breaks into your house, they are shouting, approaching you, and are displaying a deadly weapon, that sure sounds to me that you are under immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. Therefore, it would seem to me that you are justified at that point of using deadly force.

To consider it from a different viewpoint, consider ability, opportunity, and jeopardy. They have a knife in their hand, so they have the ability to kill you. They are within a small number of feet of you, so they have opportunity. Their behavior -- breaking into your house, holding a knife, shouting at you, and approaching you -- is putting your life in jeopardy.

Perhaps you misunderstood what the instructor was saying, or perhaps the instructor was imprecise in his or her explanation. But I do not understand how someone you could argue that deadly force would not be justified in that situation.

 

[Lugnut]

Oh boy... this thread brings back pleasant memories. I think I'll refrain from reengaging.... I think I need to slowly sip on some good liberal Kool-Aid.

 

[kevin9]

As mentioned in the recent Art of Concealed Carry class, someone who breaks into your house, shouting incoherently, and backing you up the staircase with a knife held low by their side, cannot legally be shot (in MA) as you still have room to retreat and they have not vocally threatened you with deadly force or raised a deadly weapon with intent of use.

Can you say what class this was, and who taught? At some point I, or someone else here, might take such a class and would want to make sure that what is taught is correct.

 

[MaverickNH]

http://www.thegoalfoundation.org/coursedescriptions.htm#concealed carry

I'll caveat that and say my take-away was it was a question of LAW, but maybe it was a question on ETHICS. I don't think I was reading it wrong, as it struck me like a slap in the face. Maybe others who have taken the course can interject...

So is this equivalent to a Castle Doctrine standard in MA? You can shoot anyone who crosses a door or window frame without permission? No... You have to "believe" the intent was to cause death or great bodily harm. Is someone as so described in my prior post, without a doubt, demonstrating said intent, with an open/shut self-defense out? I'd say yes, but I'm really sure heard other that night.

 

[Scrivener]

I'll caveat that and say my take-away was it was a question of LAW, but maybe it was a question on ETHICS. I don't think I was reading it wrong, as it struck me like a slap in the face. Maybe others who have taken the course can interject.......I'm really sure heard other that night.

And I'm really sure the above statutes say otherwise.

I suspect you misconstrued what was taught.

 

[MaverickNH]

And I'm really sure the above statutes say otherwise.

I suspect you misconstrued what was taught.

Let's just wait for others who were there to chime in, eh? I'm not motivated to "misconstrue" what was taught, although I may have taken away a different message that others.

As I said, there was a lot of ETHICS/MORALS vs LAW mentioned, with less black & white than grey. What is LAW and what is a what a jury of 12 might return are not equal.

The questrion I didn't ask of our instructor, out of deference to the trade, is - when can you get me off and when will you suggest I take a plea bargain. That's the real practical definition of "what is legal" and what is not, eh?

 

[Mikey]

Let's just wait for others who were there to chime in, eh? I'm not motivated to "misconstrue" what was taught, although I may have taken away a different message that others.

I was in the class and I understood it the same way as you Maverick.

 

[mark056]

I don't think you can blame the Chief for this one. I'd say Cotnoir was lucky he was acquitted- he shot a 12 guage shotgun out his window and hit two kids.... while he was drinking. Maybe some of those kids needed some disipline but come on... shooting at them? Even I have a problem with that.

I'm with Lugnut on this one. Gun powder and alcohol don't mix. I'm glad that he was acquitted, though. If the revelers outside attempted to storm his house, then maybe I would view the situation a little differently. Granted, he was injured by the bottle himself, but this injury is in and of itself seems rather a stretch for the use of discharging a firearm, and as has previously been pointed out, warning shots are prohibited in Massachusetts.

I think it is important to recognize that he was in effect a beneficiary of jury nullification and he was found not guilty which is not the same as being innocent. I have no real problem with him brandishing the shotgun, but I do have a problem with the warning shot which injured two people. In some ways this case is reminiscent of the Victoria Snellgrove incident where an she was killed by the Boston Police Department using a non-lethal pepper spray round while dispersing a mob of people celebrating the Red Sox victory.

There are some issues regarding the use of a firearm involved here. I don't think anyone who teaches the art of self-defense would condone the actions in this case. The fact that the guy had a distinguished record as a United States Marine adds an emotional dynamic to this and I would expect any other Marine to come to his defense, it is what makes the USMC a great organization and arguably the best of all of our armed services, but in the cold light of day and as odious as it seems, regretfully I would have to agree with the Chief.

Mark L.

 

[mark056]

But it does bring up again the question as to whether it makes sense to have both the FID and LTC. When FID cost $2. for life, easy. Is it worth $100. to not have long guns taken, or go thru the hassle of habing them stored at a friend/relative home.

Perhaps I lack the intelliectual clarity to properly understand your post, but FID's have not been issued for life since 1998 in Massachusetts.

Mark L.

 

[M1911]

You can shoot anyone who crosses a door or window frame without permission? No... You have to "believe" the intent was to cause death or great bodily harm.

Agreed. You must have a reasonable belief that you (or another innocent) are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. If someone breaks into your house and is headed out the door with your TV on his shoulder, here in MA you can not shoot him as he leaves. We can argue about whether or not the law should be changed, but the law itself is settled in this respect -- in MA you can not use deadly force to protect property. In MA, you can only use deadly force to protect someone from death or grave bodily injury.

Is someone as so described in my prior post, without a doubt, demonstrating said intent, with an open/shut self-defense out? I'd say yes, but I'm really sure heard other that night.

In self defense, it is my impression that there is little that is open and shut or black and white.

However, if someone has broken into your home, has a knife in their hand, is shouting, and advancing upon you, the fact that they are shouting gibberish does not reduce the threat. The fact that his knife is at his side instead of pointing does not seem to me to be of major consequence. Disturbed persons can be just as dangerous as rational people (perhaps more so). Anyone who has done the Tueller drill knows just how much of a threat someone can be if they have a knife and are within 21 feet of you.

If it was the drunk neighbor who got the wrong house, didn't have a knife in his hand, and was belligerent but not armed, that would be a different matter entirely.

But if someone has broken into your home, is armed with a knife, is shouting unintelligibly, advancing on you, is not obeying your orders to stop and drop the knife, that sure sounds like an immediate threat to me.

I would be very interested to hear the arguments that were made to suggest that deadly force would not be justified in this type of incident. I would be intrigued to hear the instructor's thoughts on this matter.

IANAL, but I have serious questions about the advice you were apparently given.

 

[jcr]

When FID cost $2. for life, easy. Is it worth $100.

Perhaps I lack the intelliectual clarity to properly understand your post, but FID's have not been issued for life since 1998 in Massachusetts.

I was unclear. I included "for life" as as snide aside -- obliquely criticizing the MA gov for not even attempting to tell the many people who thouht that they were "covered" by still having their FID. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" and all, but to turn people into malum prohibitum felons without billboard and TV & radio PSAs warning them first is despicable.

To have been more clear, I should have typed "$100 per 6years" to maintain parallel construction.

To the important point: No doubt the police took the marine's shotgun "for evidence." When the CLEO revoked his LTC, I'd bet that they confiscated any handguns they (still) had. If he didn't also have an FID, they probably took his other shotguns and rifles.

This at a time that an angry crowd was probably angrier -- and may have returned.

While he was under arrest for the felony assault charge, they probably took everything anyway. Before he was acquitted he may not have had a prayer of getting anything back, even with an FID. But with one, he certainly have tried to get back he long guns as soon as he was acquitted. Without one, I doubt the chief would have isssued an FID until the maximum wait legally allowed after the acquittal.

Perhaps the lesson to be learned is to make sure that one's spouse also has an FID or LTC for the family's safety.