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

[M1911]

Today its OK to punch and assault people,

Another strawman argument from you.

It's never ok to punch or assault people. But that doesn't mean you can respond with deadly force to anyone who punches or assaults you. You can respond to an assault with force, but only sometimes can you respond with deadly force.

You seem to believe that the only possible response is deadly force. That simply isn't true.

 

[Mesatchornug]

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

Not at all. The facts in the two cases are different.

Here, I'll play along: someone is presenting such awful logic I'm afraid I'll stroke out of I hear another argument from him. If that happens, I could fall and hit my head on the pavement. Does this ongoing assault justify my defensive use of a firearm?

 

[pastera]

The NH guy was convicted yesterday for 2nd degree. So, the deceased walks up to him and punches him in the face. Many have fallen backwards striking their heads on the ground and dying. The jury says no self defense, murder. Well, when would it have been self defense? 2 punches? 4? knock him to the ground then put the boots to him?

You get assaulted you have the right of self defense, full stop.

I hope he appeals.

A punch is not generally considered deadly force therefore using a deadly force response is not legal
Also, Mass is the only state that requires avoidance (duty to retreat) for non-deadly force attacks so if he had an avenue of retreat from the NON-DEADLY use of force and he didn't take it, he would be guilty for using even non-deadly force (punching back or even a push).

 

[pastera]

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.

Stipulation about what MIGHT occur is not an objectively reasonable fear of imminent harm unless the guy had told you he was going to stab you and you knew prior to the incident the person had a knife on them.

 

[eboos]

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

I don't think he is based on the information that I have heard (all public info, no Pelosing here). By punching out the guy's window it gave him a justified belief that he intended on gaining entry into the vehicle and continuing his assault on the shooter. This is far different then getting punched by some clown after back and forth shit talking outside of a bar. The totality of the circumstances in the NH case (information that I don't know and have no interest in looking into) are probably even less favorable to the shooter, but our argument was so far restricted to the punch and the counter punch.

 

[eboos]

Not at all. The facts in the two cases are different.

Here, I'll play along: someone is presenting such awful logic I'm afraid I'll stroke out of I hear another argument from him. If that happens, I could fall and hit my head on the pavement. Does this ongoing assault justify my defensive use of a firearm?

Savage man!

 

[HARRYM]

Not at all. The facts in the two cases are different.

Here, I'll play along: someone is presenting such awful logic I'm afraid I'll stroke out of I hear another argument from him. If that happens, I could fall and hit my head on the pavement. Does this ongoing assault justify my defensive use of a firearm?

No, it just makes you a wuss.

 

[HARRYM]

Stipulation about what MIGHT occur is not an objectively reasonable fear of imminent harm unless the guy had told you he was going to stab you and you knew prior to the incident the person had a knife on them.

That is incorrect.

 

[HARRYM]

Well, if some of you are on the jury he gets convicted. If I'm on the jury he doesn't. If we both are we have a hung jury. That's how juries can go.

 

[eboos]

That is incorrect.

Then I hope for your sake and for the sake of some grouchy old man who would have perceived some slight from you that your both never meet.

 

[HARRYM]

Then I hope for your sake and for the sake of some grouchy old man who would have perceived some slight from you that your both never meet.

It's not rocket science, don't assault me and I won't assault you. Perfect.

 

[Mesatchornug]

No, it just makes you a wuss.

Sounds like I'm in fine company.

 

[pastera]

That is incorrect.

What about it is incorrect?
please be specific other than my hypothetical of the prior knowledge of a dangerous (deadly) weapon in play.

 

[HARRYM]

Sounds like I'm in fine company.

kinda weak sauce there....shame to, you started well....

 

[HARRYM]

What about it is incorrect?
please be specific other than my hypothetical of the prior knowledge of a dangerous (deadly) weapon in play.

A punch can be deadly force. The shooter ended the assault after one punch so we will never know what other method of assault the victim had in mind. The shooter doesn't have to wait to be repeatedly assaulted.

 

[pastera]

It's not rocket science, don't assault me and I won't assault you. Perfect.

It's not rocket science - It's legal jeopardy.
There is a distinct legal difference between simply and aggravated assault
Furthermore, there is a distinct difference in how one can legally defend oneself in those two scenarios

 

[HARRYM]

Sounds like I'm in fine company.

I mean seriously....you lay out a smarmy response and I return it. I give what I get. You may not agree with me as is your right but I insulted no one in defending my positions.

 

[eboos]

A punch can be deadly force. The shooter ended the assault after one punch so we will never know what other method of assault the victim had in mind. The shooter doesn't have to wait to be repeatedly assaulted.

I am not giving you shit or anything, but did you see the video? The guy better have had other methods of assault in mind because his first method was grossly ineffective.

 

[HARRYM]

It's not rocket science - It's legal jeopardy.
There is a distinct legal difference between simply and aggravated assault
Furthermore, there is a distinct difference in how one can legally defend oneself in those two scenarios

I just can't agree.

 

[HARRYM]

I am not giving you shit or anything, but did you see the video? The guy better have had other methods of assault in mind because his first method was grossly ineffective.

I watched the video, multiple times. Stop walking up to people and punching them. I refuse to look at it any other way.

 

[pastera]

A punch can be deadly force. The shooter ended the assault after one punch so we will never know what other method of assault the victim had in mind. The shooter doesn't have to wait to be repeatedly assaulted.

Shooter could have driven away
Shooter could have responded with proportional force.

Shooter didn't do either and is now subject to the full consequences of not knowing use of force law.

 

[HARRYM]

I am not giving you shit or anything, but did you see the video? The guy better have had other methods of assault in mind because his first method was grossly ineffective.

Call me nuts but I am completely lost as to reading your belief that the NH is guilty yet the Worcester shooting is different. I'm sorry but I can't get my head around that.

 

[Mesatchornug]

I mean seriously....you lay out a smarmy response and I return it. I give what I get. You may not agree with me as is your right but I insulted no one in defending my positions.

I'm in fine company.

 

[pastera]

I just can't agree.

You can't agree that there are two legal levels of assault with commensurate levels of legal self-defense force allowed?
Seriously?

Can you shoot an angry toddler that kicks your shin?

 

[HARRYM]

Shooter could have driven away
Shooter could have responded with proportional force.

Shooter didn't do either and is now subject to the full consequences of not knowing use of force law.

Not for you to decide what the shooter felt at that moment.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Call me nuts but I am completely lost as to reading your belief that the NH is guilty yet the Worcester shooting is different. I'm sorry but I can't get my head around that.

The facts of the two cases are wildly different.

In the former, there was an ineffective b-slap; in the other, the assailant broke a window with his bare hand.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

I watched the video, multiple times. Stop walking up to people and punching them. I refuse to look at it any other way.

then hopefully you never find yourself in a situation where you get punched because it sounds like you'll end up in jail.

 

[eboos]

Shooter could have driven away
Shooter could have responded with proportional force.

Shooter didn't do either and is now subject to the full consequences of not knowing use of force law.

Shooter could have mocked him into oblivion.

 

[HARRYM]

You can't agree that there are two legal levels of assault with commensurate levels of legal self-defense force allowed?
Seriously?

Can you shoot an angry toddler that kicks your shin?

I thought we were done with the straw man stuff.

 

[Mesatchornug]

I thought we were done with the straw man stuff.

You're the one claiming that any physical assault merits a shooting response.