Garys
NES Member
-
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/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Does carry in a bag/back pack holster fit in "under direct control"
- Thread starter andy t
- Start date
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
Garys
NES Member
I'd also say yes. By bike, do you mean a motorcycle or a bicycle? In the case of a bicycle, I'd suggest a waist pack as they don't look out of place if you're riding. Might be the same for a M/C, but I don't know.
Gary
This is what the Chief of Police stated to me in Lenox, when I went to renew my license. He said their is not right for self defense and I would be arrested for the shooting. I have heard this repeated by a few NRA instructors. I have taken a course with John Green and he to stated that when you pull the trigger in a SD situation you will be arrested by the police. He did not say their was not a right to self defense but said it would be determined by the police if one acted properly. This is why I don't CCW. If I am wrong then fine, but I still won't carry.
Anyway, I would like to know the reason a holster like the Safepacker is legal for use in Mass. I would assume it would amount to open carry even though the gun is concealed.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,087
- Likes
- 21,282
Sorry but I take exception to the comments by Darius, in spite of IANAL.
Lightbulb's chief essentially stated it like it is in MA. You will be arrested and prosecuted 98% of the time. It is an "affirmative defense" (stress on the word "defense") in MGL to kill in self-defense. So you get tried and have the "opportunity" to prove that you were justified.
In most civilized states, a quick investigation of the facts would lead to a "no bill" (no prosecution) of someone doing the same thing. Thus no huge legal fees, no years in court, fired from job, spending time in jail, etc. to prove your innocence.
So, although MGL "allows it" under very strict circumstances, you truly will PAY AND PAY if you do it here!
Lightbulb's chief essentially stated it like it is in MA. You will be arrested and prosecuted 98% of the time. It is an "affirmative defense" (stress on the word "defense") in MGL to kill in self-defense. So you get tried and have the "opportunity" to prove that you were justified.
In most civilized states, a quick investigation of the facts would lead to a "no bill" (no prosecution) of someone doing the same thing. Thus no huge legal fees, no years in court, fired from job, spending time in jail, etc. to prove your innocence.
So, although MGL "allows it" under very strict circumstances, you truly will PAY AND PAY if you do it here!
Len:
At least one attorney has told me that self defense is NOT an affirmative defense here in MA.
http://www.stripersonline.com/surftalk/showthread.php?t=510319&page=10&highlight=affirmative+defense
I do agree that in MA you may well be arrested and prosecuted.
At least one attorney has told me that self defense is NOT an affirmative defense here in MA.
See this thread here:
http://www.stripersonline.com/surftalk/showthread.php?t=510319&page=10&highlight=affirmative+defense
I do agree that in MA you may well be arrested and prosecuted.
Last edited:
So...if you shoot ..you do to stop the threat....what is the choice here then?
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Sheep????...I think NOT !
12... or ...6
Your decision not to carry a concealed firearm for personal defense is a personal one. If you do not feel you have sufficient training, or lack confidence in the laws of the Commonwealth to do so, it is probably a good decision that you should not carry a firearm for protection.
That said, your police chief is dead wrong. No matter what he, or, for that matter, LenS says is pragmatically all but imposible proposition, there is indeed a right of self-defense in Massachusetts. Many have asserted that right in the aftermath of a self-defense shooting.
No doubt, hiring a qualified criminal defense lawyer is an expensive proposition, but just as one must defend one's self on the street, you really do need the services provided by a great defense lawyer to ensure the criminal justice system reaches the correct result.
The police make the initial determination of whether there is probable cause to arrest, but the final decision whether to prosecute is made by the district attorney, or, in some cases, the attorney general, and the judge or jury has the final say as to whether the defendant is or is not guilty.
Jon Green, the director of Education and Training for GOAL, knows what the law of self-defense is in Massaschusetts, both as to the proper use of lethal, and less than lethal force. Certainly, in the aftermath of a violent encounter, there is always the possiblity that you might be arrested, even if your actions are justifiable and completely legal. An arrest does not mean that your actions were improper.
If you are the victim of a non-deadly force attack, and you are unable to safely retreat or avoid a physical confrontation, you may legally defend yourself with less than lethal force from the moment that your personal safety is endangered, until that attack has been blunted.
Your right to defend yourself with lethal force arises when, under similar circumstances, you are in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily injury such that you cannot safely retreat and the only way you can save yourself is via lethal force. In either event, you cannot be the initial aggressor and then try to claim at trial you were acting legitimate self-defense.
For an example of legally defensible self-defense, you need look no further than the recent incident in Shrewsbury where Mr. Ragsdale had come home early from a vacation, and, after dark, he heard noises on the stairway leading up to his master bedroom. He grabbed a gun, stepped to the top of the stairs, saw two men in dark clothes creeping up the stairs toward him. When he say that they were armed, he opened fire, striking one of the men in the abdomen.
It turned out the men were Shrewsbury police officers who were responding to a neighbor's 911 report of a burglar in Mr. Ragsdale's home. The officers did not identify themselves before making entry into the home.
Yes, Mr. Ragsdale was arrested, but the rest of the story is this: the grand jury refused to indict him, and, and the District Attorney for the county elected to drop the case rather than seek a prosecution in district court on lesser charges. He lost his LTC, but I'm sure his lawyers will work with him to get it back.
If there were no right of self-defense in Massachusetts, his case would not have ended as it did.
Your police chief and a slew of misinformed NRA instructors may tell you otherwise, but their senseless repetition of misleading misinformation should never be used as the sole guiding light for anyone's decision whether to arm themselves with protection sufficient to defend themselves against an imminent, unavoidable lethal attack.
Darius Arbabi
www.massgunlaw.com
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,087
- Likes
- 21,282
Darius, we actually agree.
But once you are arrested, that scarlet letter (in MA) haunts you for life.
Not everyone can afford lawyers fees like Mr Ragsdale can and once someone loses their house to pay to keep/get out of jail, they have "LOST" big time even if they are never convicted.
That is the fine line of disagreement between us, nothing more and nothing less.
--------
I once attended a LE seminar at Dean College for LEOs. A Brockton lawyer had two of his clients (both POs that were forced to kill on the job) address us. One was let to hang out to dry by his PD, lost his house and all his savings defending himself (civil suit), his Wife left him, etc. It took him four years but he "WON" in court. That sort of a legal "victory" is not desirable by most of us (even if it's better than being killed).
But once you are arrested, that scarlet letter (in MA) haunts you for life.
Not everyone can afford lawyers fees like Mr Ragsdale can and once someone loses their house to pay to keep/get out of jail, they have "LOST" big time even if they are never convicted.
That is the fine line of disagreement between us, nothing more and nothing less.
--------
I once attended a LE seminar at Dean College for LEOs. A Brockton lawyer had two of his clients (both POs that were forced to kill on the job) address us. One was let to hang out to dry by his PD, lost his house and all his savings defending himself (civil suit), his Wife left him, etc. It took him four years but he "WON" in court. That sort of a legal "victory" is not desirable by most of us (even if it's better than being killed).
LenS,
OK, I can live with that bit of line-drawing.
I have to wonder why anyone who believes that one involved in even a righteous self-defense shooting still risks losing it all would ever want to carry a gun in the first place.
If one feels like that, there is little need for an unrestricted Class A LTC. Heresy, I know, but that's the truth.
D.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,087
- Likes
- 21,282
Darius, only in the gravest case would I risk all to pull my gun. Unlike some of the "keyboard commando" stuff I read here and elsewhere, I'm not hot to trot to pull a gun on someone when I walk up on something going down that doesn't involve me/mine.
I've been there twice (and armed both times) and just kept my head about me. Technology has changed and now I'd dial 911 in those cases (something that didn't exist nor did cell phones when it happened), but that's it.
The first case is "classic" and worth mentioning in this thread:
- I'm walking up Summer St, Downtown Boston at ~5PM. There are probably 100 people standing on the corner behind Filene's waiting for the various buses that stop there. A man is beating the hell out of a woman and everyone around sees it but ignores it. [At this point, MAYBE interceding would be legal . . . but stay tuned!] The woman then breaks away and instead of fleeing, she then goes and takes a swing at the guy and they are back at it again! [At this point any right to a "self defense" claim for her AND ANYONE WHO HELPS HER goes right out the window!]
- That is how tenuous it is to get involved when you don't know the players or the full circumstances.
I've been there twice (and armed both times) and just kept my head about me. Technology has changed and now I'd dial 911 in those cases (something that didn't exist nor did cell phones when it happened), but that's it.
The first case is "classic" and worth mentioning in this thread:
- I'm walking up Summer St, Downtown Boston at ~5PM. There are probably 100 people standing on the corner behind Filene's waiting for the various buses that stop there. A man is beating the hell out of a woman and everyone around sees it but ignores it. [At this point, MAYBE interceding would be legal . . . but stay tuned!] The woman then breaks away and instead of fleeing, she then goes and takes a swing at the guy and they are back at it again! [At this point any right to a "self defense" claim for her AND ANYONE WHO HELPS HER goes right out the window!]
- That is how tenuous it is to get involved when you don't know the players or the full circumstances.
You can walk my streets any day you want... Like you i feel there is a Social Obligation to help the people in need. If it is a women with a flat....Help a elderly man with a door...or GOD FOR BID a person getting VIOlently abused...
What i all ways think of about a "beating" situation..is YES you may help the wrong person out..but Who said you need to stand by and watch...BREAK it up.... At that point you are not much different the a PO...He doesn't know who is who either...So what i'm trying to say is STEP TF Up..and break it up..and let the PD figure who's who!!!
P.s. I may be the one on the bottom..and armed and all..could use the HELP!
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
There is no easy answer. There can't be, because it is all situationally dependent.
A couple famous incidents come to mind. One happened between the world wars, in New York City. A man was on his way to an evening celebration when he saw two men forcing a woman into the back of a truck. He stopped them at gunpoint. The two men, who had been helping their sister up into the back of the truck, were rather upset at General George S. Patton.
In another incident in that same fine city (as reported by Ayoob), a truck driver saw a scruffily dressed man attacking a well-dressed woman in an alley. He stopped his truck and held the man at gunpoint. The undercover officer, who had been arresting a prostitute, was also rather upset. The truck driver went to prison for illegally carrying a gun...
IANAL. It is my understanding that you can use deadly force to protect a third party if they could use deadly force to protect themselves. The problem becomes, of course, how do you know which person is the innocent and which is the aggressor? Furthermore, how do you know that you will prevail? If I die trying to protect a third party, is that person going to provide for my wife's retirement? Are they going to care for my aging parents?
As for "breaking up a fight", I'm middle-aged software developer of modest stature. I am not in shape. I am not skilled at empty-hand techniques. If I get overwhelmed by one of the combatants, they may well get my gun (yes, I've been trained in handgun retention, but I won't be able to apply those techniques if I'm unconscious). Now I've turned a bad situation into something much worse.
I think many police officers here will attest that domestic violence situations are terribly unpredictable and when intervening in such situations you can easily find yourself being attacked by both combatants.
In most of the areas that I find myself these days, police response is very quick to such incidents. There's something to be said for calling 911 immediately and being a good witness.
No, I'm not saying that you should never intervene. In the unlikely event that I saw a situation like Virginia Tech occur, would I try to stop the shooter? Probably. If I saw a couple guys in a fist-fight, would I try to stop them? Probably not -- I'd call the police instead.
Intervening is fraught with terrible risks and should not be done lightly.
Only when you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and this would absolutely stand up in court, who is the victim and who is the attacker, should you consider intervening.
And considering that it sometimes takes trained LEOs a bit of investigation to determine this, you should be very cautious about trying this at home (in the streets).
Best thing is to call 911 immediately, then try to be a good witness. Maybe try to de-escalate the situation (the cops are coming! the cops are coming!).
Most NESer's would probably feel like trying to do something to help instead of walking away. But the more experienced among us would probably urge caution before trying to jump in and make a decision who is the "bad guy" and who is the "good guy".
You're never going to know anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. The guy who pulls up in a cruiser wearing a police uniform and pulls his gun on some other person might be exactly what he appears to be, an officer making an arrest. He might also have just killed an officer, stolen his car and uniform and is now using them as cover for a kidnapping. Welcome to the real world; try to get used to it. All you can do is evaluate each situation as best you can, try to allow for the possibility that you might be mistaken, then do the right thing. No guarantee that your reward won't be a kick in the ass or a prison cell, but at least you'll find it easier to shave when you can look at yourself in the mirror. That's more than you were promised in life.
Ken
Ken
it almost seems like if this were to happen in any other state than MASS. There would not be so many problems as far as being prosicuted. Maybe I am wrong. But pulling a gun in MASS from what i am told is a bad idea inless your in your room cornered.
kevin9
NES Member
Interesting juxtaposition between this point and the "Passerby shoots cop-killer" thread. Would you have done what Mr. Floyd did? Did that qualify as "beyond a shadow of a doubt"?
Considering that you have an LEO on the ground with a man with a gun close by that probably does go beyond the shadow of a doubt.
kevin9
NES Member
That would be my assessment too, but the possibility of something like Ken's scenario above (stolen uniform etc. used by kidnapper) might give one cause for pause.
unless its someone in my family or someone I know really well being wronged I will make the 911 call and be the best witness possible.
I'm not an LEO and I haven't been trained to evaluate those situations. When the cop gets on scene hae/she has no idea who the good guy is or who the bad guy is.
I have two little girls and I'm not missing out on thier lives for anyone I don't know.
I'm not an LEO and I haven't been trained to evaluate those situations. When the cop gets on scene hae/she has no idea who the good guy is or who the bad guy is.
I have two little girls and I'm not missing out on thier lives for anyone I don't know.
When taking my mandated safety course before applying for my LTC the instructor warned not to meddle in affairs when carrying of people you don't know. The reason is that the police and DA will take a dim light of you playing hero, and most likely have your LTC revoked. Remember there is no Stand Your Ground law in Mass, so it is important to stress that when in public one must retreat, unless there is no way to retreat.
