Police respond to report of shooting at pro-Israeli protest in Newton

M1911 said:
The law only allows the use of deadly force if an innocent person is in imminent danger of death or grave bodily injury, and, if outside the home, the defendant must retreat if it is safe to do so. The key questions in this incident, as in all such self-defense cases are as follows:

1) Was the shooter innocent or did his actions help precipitate the encounter?
2) Was the shooter in danger of death or grave bodily injury?
3) Did the shooter have a viable route to retreat?

I think you are mistaken if you think this was a clear cut case of self defense. It does not appear to me to be clear cut at all:

1) This incident was preceded by an argument, so the state may argue that the defendant helped precipitate the conflict.
2) It is hard to argue that one unarmed man attacking three men rises to the level of danger of death or grave bodily injury.
3) It appears that neither the shooter nor any of the other two made any attempt to retreat.

Again, I have no sympathy for ponytail boy. But I predict that the shooter will be tried and convicted and that conviction will stand up in court.

You know the saying stay away from stupid people, stupid places, and stupid things? A protest like this qualifies as at least two of those. I suggest that you stay away from such protests, no matter where your views lie.
Click to expand...
Well said and you are well versed in the judicious use of lethal force.

Shooter needs to be "innocent" which is one of the 5 elements of legal use of lethal force.

If any of the 5 elements are not there - shooter goes to jail.

Shooter provoked the attack and came there armed for a fight.

He did not avoid the situation when approached by the man running toward him.

Avoidance is another element of self defense.

Shooter going to prison.
 
Reptile said:
Well said and you are well versed in the judicious use of lethal force.

Shooter needs to be "innocent" which is one of the 5 elements of legal use of lethal force.

If any of the 5 elements are not there - shooter goes to jail.

Shooter provoked the attack and came there armed for a fight.

He did not avoid the situation when approached by the man running toward him.

Avoidance is another element of self defense.

Shooter going to prison.
Click to expand...
How do you figure the shooter provoked the attack? He can't have free speech?

How do you know he was looking for a fight? Because he was armed? Nonsense.

His back was towards the running douche bag. How'd he know it was coming.
 
Much keeps getting made of "duty to retreat". Retreat is only possible from a perceived threat. Some watching this video seem to be implying that must be when the attacker started crossing the street, but that's not the case. You need to understand that he has to run across Washington St. there to avoid being hit by cars. And Hayes and the other protesters have been doing this regularly since last October. I daresay many others have probably gotten in their faces about it, and shouting across a busy street may get old so people want to close the distance. There was no indication to them that an attack was imminent until he didn't stop running on their side of the street and transitioned to the tackle, using his momentum as a weapon. The warning was measured in milliseconds. Retreat was simply not possible. In Scott Hayes case, I think there was zero warning because he had his back to the attacker near as I can tell, although the video was not totally clear. But I also think that was why he picked Scott Hayes, because his back was to him, and he went for the easy target.

Sunny said:
If the same unprovoked tackle happened on a Newton Police officer, and that assaulted officer shoots 1 round in defense, what would happen to that cop? Would he be charged with A&B with deadly weapon? If not, why?
Click to expand...

M1911 said:
The Newton cop likely would have used other force before shooting him.
Click to expand...
Having watched too many YouTube videos, I think it is highly likely that the Newton cop would shoot him. When a cop is blindsided, tackled and on the ground, they have no idea what is going on, just like Scott Hayes. Trying to cross-draw a Taser when you have someone on top of you is not possible and they would go for their sidearm.

This is true even in Newton - they are known to shoot people dead who are simply suffering from a mental health condition. No prosecution of the officers.
Findings of Inquest into Fatal Officer-Involved Shooting of Michael Conlon in Newton | middlesexda
 
FalArAk said:
Yes, don't go to a fight if you can't fight.

These Israel protests are known for violence.

Sit it out and let the tards kill each other.

I wouldn't have gone to an Antifa rally without my MP5.
Click to expand...
They've been doing these pro-Israel protests for a year with no violence. What violence are they known for? Please post sources.
 
KH56010 said:
What was the attacker charged with?
Click to expand...
Newton Police applied for a criminal complaint for assault and battery against him. It's not an arrestable offense because the police did not witness it. He's entitled to a hearing before a Clerk Magistrate to determine if there is probable cause.
 
Reptile said:
Well said and you are well versed in the judicious use of lethal force.

Shooter needs to be "innocent" which is one of the 5 elements of legal use of lethal force.

If any of the 5 elements are not there - shooter goes to jail.

Shooter provoked the attack and came there armed for a fight.

He did not avoid the situation when approached by the man running toward him.

Avoidance is another element of self defense.

Shooter going to prisont
Click to expand...
This thread is making me question if my sarcasm meter is broken. I can understand the argument as to whether the shooter gets convicted in or not in MA. Because MA is gonna MA. What I don’t understand is an argument as to whether it was justified or not. The shooter was attacked, taken down on concrete. It appears he didnt have a clue how to fight. Seems like clear cut self defense to me.
 
Reptile said:
Well said and you are well versed in the judicious use of lethal force.

Shooter needs to be "innocent" which is one of the 5 elements of legal use of lethal force.

If any of the 5 elements are not there - shooter goes to jail.

Shooter provoked the attack and came there armed for a fight.

He did not avoid the situation when approached by the man running toward him.

Avoidance is another element of self defense.

Shooter going to prison.
Click to expand...
This is appropriate for you
 

Attachments

  • 579.png
    579.png
    108.6 KB · Views: 31
M1911 said:
Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. We don’t know what happened before the video started.
Click to expand...
Stick a fork in it.

He's toast.

This is Massachusetts.

His best bet it to take a plea and avoid a long prison sentence and do what they give him. He'll never legally own a gun again.

Free speech has consequences. You can't go around insulting people and maintaining your innocence.

If I went up to a Black person and called him certain words and was subsequently attacked - and I shot him - I could not claim to be innocent either.
 
193rdsoldier said:
You sound like you would have voted to convict Kyle Rittenhouse………..
Click to expand...
Dude it was only 3 on one... if kyle just kicked the guy with the skateboard in the dick... grabbed it throat punched the pedophile and then broke the board over the 3rd guys head...he wouldnt have had to shoot anyone...have you ever even seen a jackie chan movie
 
ANy explanation regarding the violation of constitutional rights charge? Please tell me that theyre not considering that idiot to be a one man protest and shooting him after being assaulted is a 1A violation or some shit
 
Rob Boudrie said:
It will be interesting to see what the criminal record of the attacker is. Thanks to Commonwealth v. Adjutant, that info should be admissable despite the shooter not knowing it at the time of the attack (although C v. A is untested in cases not involving homicide).

It was a miracle for the defense that there are videos of both the attack, and the post attack behavior of the defender. Imaging how the media would be spinning this absent the videos.

The defender should be moving his assets, re-titling his house, etc. Although there are legal avenues to unwind such transfers in anticipation of civil judgement, doing so it not easy.


You have a limited understanding of what trauma can do, and no knowledge if the attackee has any medical vulnerabilities. I am able bodied, but in my case, a gut punch could easily kill me.
Click to expand...
I appear able bodied as well, but have vastly diminished use of my dominant arm with significant loss of range of motion due to 4 failed rebuilds of my shoulder. According to my surgical team, I should be applying for disability because they have no idea how I am even marginally functional.

What constitutes grave harm to one person might be a literal slap on the back to someone else.

It is what is reasonable to the defending party.
 
Darksideblues42 said:
I appear able bodied as well, but have vastly diminished use of my dominant arm with significant loss of range of motion due to 4 failed rebuilds of my shoulder. According to my surgical team, I should be applying for disability because they have no idea how I am even marginally functional.

What constitutes grave harm to one person might be a literal slap on the back to someone else.

It is what is reasonable to the defending party.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that if you are attacked, any disability should render you vulnerable and need to defend yourself with any means necessary.

YOU are the victim of unprovoked violence

One more time.

FAFO
 
Darksideblues42 said:
I appear able bodied as well, but have vastly diminished use of my dominant arm with significant loss of range of motion due to 4 failed rebuilds of my shoulder. According to my surgical team, I should be applying for disability because they have no idea how I am even marginally functional.

What constitutes grave harm to one person might be a literal slap on the back to someone else.

It is what is reasonable to the defending party.
Click to expand...
And this kids is what happens when you play too much pocket pool

Sorry i had to
 


Write your reply...

Similar threads

Georgia police officer shot, killed while responding to shopping center
Replies
14
Views
338
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Would You Shoot??? Woman Attacked And Robbed Of Her Bag While Police Do Nothing
Replies
8
Views
224
Horatio Alger Jr
Horatio Alger Jr
Shooting reported at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin: Police
3 4 5
Replies
143
Views
5K
HARRYM
HARRYM
Florida Jew opens fire, injures 2 Israeli tourists mistaken for Palestinians
Replies
16
Views
290
Rocky Mosasaurus
Rocky Mosasaurus
Autistic boy, 15, with mental age of 10 killed by police after coming to school with 'weapon'
Replies
8
Views
295
Individualist
Individualist
Back
Top Bottom