Fatal Shooting in Worcester by Westborough LTC holder UPDATE: Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter! 4-7 Year Sentence with 77 Days Credit.

[eboos]

Well....keep your hands off other people and those people won't be threatened. And its not a magic punch its falling down from that punch and striking your head and dying which has happened many times. Don't assault other people. I hope we aren't heading down the assault was mostly peaceful nonsense.

Brah, I am all about live and let live, peace be unto you, hakuna matata, etc. Don't eff with me and things won't go effy. If some scrawny dude throws a punch at me and it feels like I was hit with a shoe box, I would probably tell him to come back after he ate his Wheaties. If I am jumped by some clown who just runs up and slugs me, it would be unlikely that guy will be around to do it a second time. It is all situational. Every punch taken, while may justify some type of response, doesn't always justify a deadly response.

 

[M1911]

LOL, its the furthest thing away from a straw man argument. Can you be physically assaulted and not be in fear of your life?

If you think that every physical assault legally justifies the use of deadly force in response then you are very misguided.

 

[M1911]

Manchester NH.....the most violent city in NH.

So? What does that have to do with this discussion?

 

[HARRYM]

Brah, I am all about live and let live, peace be unto you, hakuna matata, etc. Don't eff with me and things won't go effy. If some scrawny dude throws a punch at me and it feels like I was hit with a shoe box, I would probably tell him to come back after he ate his Wheaties. If I am jumped by some clown who just runs up and slugs me, it would be unlikely that guy will be around to do it a second time. It is all situational. Every punch taken, while may justify some type of response, doesn't always justify a deadly response.

We don't know the assailants next action, he could have pulled a knife perhaps, the shooter made a quick decision no doubt but he felt threatened and defended himself albeit with a firearm.

 

[HARRYM]

So? What does that have to do with this discussion?

context.....

 

[eboos]

Can you be physically assaulted and not be in fear of your life?

My wife hits me. I will assert marital privilege if ever asked to testify.

 

[M1911]

We don't know the assailants next action, he could have pulled a knife perhaps, the shooter made a quick decision no doubt but he felt threatened and defended himself albeit with a firearm.

You can’t use deadly force because the attacker might have an unseen weapon that he hasn’t produced yet. That sort of argument will not succeed in court.

 

[M1911]

context.....

That has nothing to do with with whether deadly force was or was not justified in that situation.

 

[eboos]

We don't know the assailants next action, he could have pulled a knife perhaps, the shooter made a quick decision no doubt but he felt threatened and defended himself albeit with a firearm.

He could have pulled a howitzer. Sounds ridiculous; I mean, what reason would we have to think he had a howitzer and planned to use it?

 

[HARRYM]

Every been outside of a nightclub and get attacked. See I have, very dangerous and legit scary. I have a simple rule, don't put your hands on me, period. Not sure what I would have done because it wasn't me. The shooter felt threatened because he was assaulted and he made a life changing decision certainly. The jury made a decision and I believe a wrong one. We have watched over the last few years many who now feel its OK to assault people and its become almost routine now.

 

[HARRYM]

He could have pulled a howitzer. Sounds ridiculous; I mean, what reason would we have to think he had a howitzer and planned to use it?

Good god who is now using the straw mans argument.

You walk up to somebody in the middle of a fight and punch them you have committed assault and battery and indeed you risk that person using deadly force to defend himself.

And here we have the Worcester shooter who had his window punched out but felt threatened and fired. Is he guilty of 2nd degree murder?

 

[eboos]

Every been outside of a nightclub and get attacked. See I have, very dangerous and legit scary. I have a simple rule, don't put your hands on me, period. Not sure what I would have done because it wasn't me. The shooter felt threatened because he was assaulted and he made a life changing decision certainly. The jury made a decision and I believe a wrong one. We have watched over the last few years many who now feel its OK to assault people and its become almost routine now.

Night club in Santiago, Chile at around 3am. Street kid pulled a knife on me after a girl I was with insulted his mother. I dismiss the kid (honestly a mistake, but all ended well). After I turn away from him and head back inside the club I feel a hand grab my shoulder. I turn and the kid punches me in the face. I lunge towards him but the bouncers drag me back inside.

I could have gutted him like a fish and would have been legally justified in doing so (diplomatic passport helps). Yes, it was a mistake for me to dismiss the kid as being a non-threat after he pulled a knife on me and when he grabbed my shoulder it could have been the knife going into my face instead of his fist. In the moment I made a judgment call that I am glad was the right one in hindsight. With the same facts playing out today in real time with only the information that I knew at the time, things probably would have ended differently.

 

[M1911]

Every been outside of a nightclub and get attacked. See I have, very dangerous and legit scary. I have a simple rule, don't put your hands on me, period. Not sure what I would have done because it wasn't me. The shooter felt threatened because he was assaulted and he made a life changing decision certainly.

There is a difference between feeling threatened and being in danger of death or grave bodily injury. You can't legally use deadly force in response to any and every threat. If you do, you will wind up in jail.

The jury made a decision and I believe a wrong one.

You are talking about what you think is right and wrong. I'm not. I'm talking about what I think is legal versus illegal. The jury's decision was the correct one given our current laws.

We have watched over the last few years many who now feel its OK to assault people and its become almost routine now.

Again, you are making a ethical argument. I'm not arguing ethics. I'm talking about what the law is. The law isn't what you want it to be.

 

[HARRYM]

Night club in Santiago, Chile at around 3am. Street kid pulled a knife on me after a girl I was with insulted his mother. I dismiss the kid (honestly a mistake, but all ended well). After I turn away from him and head back inside the club I feel a hand grab my shoulder. I turn and the kid punches me in the face. I lunge towards him but the bouncers drag me back inside.

I could have gutted him like a fish and would have been legally justified in doing so (diplomatic passport helps). Yes, it was a mistake for me to dismiss the kid as being a non-threat after he pulled a knife on me and when he grabbed my shoulder it could have been the knife going into my face instead of his fist. In the moment I made a judgment call that I am glad was the right one in hindsight. With the same facts playing out today in real time with only the information that I knew at the time, things probably would have ended differently.

That was your choice, and you made it. It could have ended in such a way that we would not being having this discussion right now. Each individual must make that split second decision as to the threat level they face. Assault and battery is a crime and the shooter viewed him as a threat. It is a shame but don't commit assault and battery in a highly charged situation.

 

[M1911]

You walk up to somebody in the middle of a fight and punch them you have committed assault and battery

Yes, that is assault and battery and the defendant is legally justified in using force to defend themselves. They are unlikely to be justified in using deadly force.

and indeed you risk that person using deadly force to defend himself.

You are fixated on responding to any attack with deadly force. If you actually do that in real life, you will wind up in prison.

And here we have the Worcester shooter who had his window punched out but felt threatened and fired. Is he guilty of 2nd degree murder?

You can't respond to every threat with deadly force. Look at the video. The shooter was much, much bigger than the puncher. Was he threatened? Yes. Did that threat rise to the level of death or grave bodily injury? No. And as a result, he was indeed guilty of 2nd degree murder.

 

[HARRYM]

There is a difference between feeling threatened and being in danger of death or grave bodily injury. You can't legally use deadly force in response to any and every threat. If you do, you will wind up in jail.

You are talking about what you think is right and wrong. I'm not. I'm talking about what I think is legal versus illegal. The jury's decision was the correct one given our current laws.

Again, you are making a ethical argument. I'm not arguing ethics. I'm talking about what the law is. The law isn't what you want it to be.

No, I believe you have the right to defend yourself while being assaulted.

 

[HARRYM]

Yes, that is assault and battery and the defendant is legally justified in using force to defend themselves. They are unlikely to be justified in using deadly force.

You are fixated on responding to any attack with deadly force. If you actually do that in real life, you will wind up in prison.

You can't respond to every threat with deadly force. Look at the video. The shooter was much, much bigger than the puncher. Was he threatened? Yes. Did that threat rise to the level of death or grave bodily injury? No. And as a result, he was indeed guilty of 2nd degree murder.

We need to stop with the size issue, its red herring bullshit. Assault is assault regardless of size, race, gender and what have you.

 

[M1911]

No, I believe you have the right to defend yourself while being assaulted.

Once again, with feeling: YES YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF WHEN YOU ARE BEING ASSUALTED. BUT THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION.

But just because you are justified in defending yourself doesn't mean you are justified in using DEADLY FORCE to defend yourself.

You can't legally respond to every attack with deadly force.

 

[eboos]

That was your choice, and you made it. It could have ended in such a way that we would not being having this discussion right now. Each individual must make that split second decision as to the threat level they face. Assault and battery is a crime and the shooter viewed him as a threat. It is a shame but don't commit assault and battery in a highly charged situation.

But the difference here is I had a knife pulled on me. If it was just some little dipshit punching me, the event doesn't even register on my threat meter. Why did I lunge at him then? Pride maybe.

 

[M1911]

We need to stop with the size issue, its red herring bullshit.

No, it's not. If you are going to make a disparity of force argument, then size is a part of the argument. You may not like that but that is part of the legal argument and will be judged in a court of law. Disparity of Force

Assault is assault regardless of size, race, gender and what have you.

Yes. But that's not the question.

You can't use deadly force in response to every assault. You can only use deadly force in response to an immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury.

 

[HARRYM]

Right to Self-Defense - Cambridge Criminal Defense Lawyer

Massachusetts Self-Defense Lawyer. Do I Have a Right to Defend Myself? With the public and media focus on the 2nd degree murder charge brought against George Zimmerman many individuals are concerned with their rights when confronted

www.relentlessdefense.com

The shooter felt his safety an life was in danger. I wasn't there so who is anyone to say how the shooter felt at that split second.

 

[HARRYM]

No, it's not. If you are going to make a disparity of force argument, then size is a part of the argument. You may not like that but that is part of the legal argument and will be judged in a court of law. Disparity of Force

Yes. But that's not the question.

You can't use deadly force in response to every assault. You can only use deadly force in response to an immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury.

It is classic red herring bullshit

 

[HARRYM]

But the difference here is I had a knife pulled on me. If it was just some little dipshit punching me, the event doesn't even register on my threat meter. Why did I lunge at him then? Pride maybe.

Exactly, every situation is different. The shooter felt he ha the right to shoot.

 

[HARRYM]

No, it's not. If you are going to make a disparity of force argument, then size is a part of the argument. You may not like that but that is part of the legal argument and will be judged in a court of law. Disparity of Force

Yes. But that's not the question.

You can't use deadly force in response to every assault. You can only use deadly force in response to an immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury.

Who are you to decide the shooter didn't feel the threat to his safety and life at that split second.

 

[M1911]

Right to Self-Defense - Cambridge Criminal Defense Lawyer

Massachusetts Self-Defense Lawyer. Do I Have a Right to Defend Myself? With the public and media focus on the 2nd degree murder charge brought against George Zimmerman many individuals are concerned with their rights when confronted

www.relentlessdefense.com

The shooter felt his safety an life was in danger. I wasn't there so who is anyone to say how the shooter felt at that split second.

The shooter's fear must be objectively reasonable and it is the jury's duty to decide whether that fear was reasonable. That is, would a reasonable man, in the same situation, knowing what the shooter knew at that time, believe himself to be in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. Given that the attacker was 1/2 his size, no, the shooter's fear was not reasonable.

 

[M1911]

It is classic red herring bullshit

Sorry, but that's how the law works. You don't have to like it but you do need to understand it. Don't believe me. Believe a lawyer: What is Disparity of Force?

 

[HARRYM]

Then I'm sorry, if we use the same yard stick the Worcester shooter is guilty then.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

LOL, its the furthest thing away from a straw man argument. Can you be physically assaulted and not be in fear of your life?

yes, if youre not a bitch.

 

[HARRYM]

Today its OK to punch and assault people, tomorrow its not, but next Wednesday it might be but Tuesday would be a better day.....

 

[M1911]

Who are you to decide the shooter didn't feel the threat to his safety and life at that split second.

The issue isn't just whether he felt he was in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. The issue is whether the jury believes that fear was reasonable. In this case, the jury felt his fear was not reasonable and I agree with it. The shooter was far bigger and stronger than his assailant.

There is a lot of case law about the reasonable man doctrine. The "reasonable person" • Why it matters