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

[drgrant]

It’s cute that some of you guys are using the “BuT MUh RIghTZ” argument. It’s like you’re not paying attention.

Yes, you have the God-given right to preserve your life; but do you feel confident enough the court will agree you needed to shoot someone and are you willing to risk jail time and possibly bankruptcy?

Maybe the person making that decision just simply doesn't give a f*** anymore and I can't really say that I blame them... given that clown world is pretty much intolerable at this point.

Also it's a mindset thing if the person with the gun thinks that the other guy has a reasonable chance of killing them or turning them into a jibbering vegetable then shooting them would clearly be the least evil of all the choices because if you are dead or rubberlipping it, idea of appearing in court is going to be pretty much moot. If you're dead or disabled theres not going to be a shred of life left to live.

There's also cases where you can clearly be legally in the wrong but tactically or morally correct 150%. People that know this innately would even tell you as they're sitting behind bars that they would f***ing do it all over again in a heartbeat if they were forced into that position.

What is legal and what is RIGHT are two different things.

 

[Devils Paintbrush]

Right!

And that goes x100 for the aggressor.

The aggressor would still be able to write inflammatory things on the internet (without the bullet hole and colostomy bag) if he had just kept walking.

His position went from right to wrong when he ran across the street and tackled the guy.

People don't think there are any consequences for the things they do these days.

Not much of a surprise that his family doesn't agree with his position.

Pro-hamas agitator shot

His online persona is about what you would expect.

To open another can of worms, would this incident have occurred if someone was openly carrying a rifle or rifles in the pro-Israel group that was there. Ignore the open carry argument in Massachusetts for the moment.

 

[Grendizer138]

This is the same type of argument as a girl going out at night in a short skirt and getting raped. I get it, going out dressed like that probably wasn't the smartest decision... but the rape is still 100%, undoubtedly, unquestionably, objectively the rapist's fault.

I hate this line of thinking. Yes, a girl has a “right” to walk down a street at night stop n a short skirt. And if she is raped it is solely the perp’s fault, and the justice system will hopefully work. But that seems like little consolation, since she was still f***in raped!

You can only exercise freedoms, they don’t prevent you from suffering consequences

 

[MAGA99]

It’s cute that some of you guys are using the “BuT MUh RIghTZ” argument. It’s like you’re not paying attention.

Yes, you have the God-given right to preserve your life; but do you feel confident enough the court will agree you needed to shoot someone and are you willing to risk jail time and possibly bankruptcy?

Yes

 

[Uzi2]

It’s cute that some of you guys are using the “BuT MUh RIghTZ” argument. It’s like you’re not paying attention.

Yes, you have the God-given right to preserve your life; but do you feel confident enough the court will agree you needed to shoot someone and are you willing to risk jail time and possibly bankruptcy?

The court should have no say in the matter.

They weren't there to protect you, therefore they have no right to intervene in the outcome that is decided on the spot.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

True, but I still wouldn’t have been there. And I think that was the point he was making. Just because you can be at one of these pro or anti-Israel protests doesn’t make it a good idea to be there.

I’m not saying it is wrong to attend a pro-Israel protest. I’m saying that my personal risk tolerance is such that I won’t do so.

While I agree and generally do the same:

We should not have to sacrifice our first amendment rights because we exercise our second amendment rights anymore than we should have to sacrifice our second amendment rights because we want to exercise our right to vote.

I could provide more examples but we should never have to sacrifice one right to exercise another.

 

[Uzi2]

While I agree and generally do the same:

We should not have to sacrifice our first amendment rights because we exercise our second amendment rights anymore than we should have to sacrifice our second amendment rights because we want to exercise our right to vote.

I could provide more examples but we should never have to sacrifice one right to exercise another.

Ya............THAT'S CALLED STAND YOUR GROUND!!!!

That is a concept, foreign to most people in leftist run, communist, police states.

 

[M1911]

A decent lawyer should be able to beat this and do away with a later prosecution against him, under double jeopardy.

I wouldn’t be so confident in that.

 

[paul73]

Pro-hamas agitator shot

His online persona is about what you would expect.

if defense attorney will be smart they could spin it into a hate crime, of what it actually was.
but, well. let`s see.

global jihad and intifada is spilling into usa right now, and it will not be restrained by 1a boundaries at all.

 

[Dench]

Ya............THAT'S CALLED STAND YOUR GROUND!!!!

That is a concept, foreign to most people in leftist run, communist, police states.

I suspect this guy would have trouble with this shooting even in FL. He'd probably get iff here, but it would be costly.

What was that fight? 1 vs 3? 1 vs 4? Its going to be difficult to convince a jury that the guy who had over whelming direct assistance was about to die or be maimed.

 

[MAGA99]

I suspect this guy would have trouble with this shooting even in FL. He'd probably get iff here, but it would be costly.

What was that fight? 1 vs 3? 1 vs 4? Its going to be difficult to convince a jury that the guy who had over whelming direct assistance was about to die or be maimed.

Did you see the quality of his backup??

It was 1 on 1

 

[headednorth]

if defense attorney will be smart they could spin it into a hate crime, of what it actually was.

good luck with turning a middle aged White guy/veteran into a hate crime victim

 

[kalash]

I suspect this guy would have trouble with this shooting even in FL. He'd probably get iff here, but it would be costly.

I'd wager a bet that in Florida he could've shot the guy without even waiting to be tackled. If someone verbally threatens you and then charges at you from across the street, most stand your ground states won't care if you shoot em.

 

[vicorjh]

Did you see the quality of his backup??

The backups were, in essence, rape whistles.

 

[Junior314]

Sometimes I wonder why NES carries at all.

 

[IPSC_DRL]

Yes, Prancer SHOULD be charged with a hate crime. Of course this is MA, so.....

 

[TheRoland]

I’m not saying it is wrong to attend a pro-Israel protest. I’m saying that my personal risk tolerance is such that I won’t do so.

This wasn’t a big crazy rally. It’s a handful of people carrying small signs near a Whole Foods, who are trying to be polite enough to not annoy the sort of people who go shopping at Whole Foods. The smallest State House protest GOAL has ever held was is like 10x as large and 100x as rowdy (except for this incident).

If you’re not interested in this particular geopolitical issue, that’s fine, but until this incident these “protests” didn’t even warrant a single cop nearby.

Not trying to convince you of anything, just clarifying what we’re talking about here.

 

[Dench]

Did you see the quality of his backup??

It was 1 on 1

Everyone in that fight seemed pretty much completely useless.

 

[Dench]

I'd wager a bet that in Florida he could've shot the guy without even waiting to be tackled. If someone verbally threatens you and then charges at you from across the street, most stand your ground states won't care if you shoot em.

Thats up to a DA and then a jury.

This case reminds me a little of that viral bar fight video where a drunk guy was acting like a moron towards another patron.

The drunk guy was significantly smaller and weaker. The other guy was a professional fighter. The fighter KOd him cold. Did the guy deserve it? Sure. But was the fighters legal defense stating he felt he was in immediate danger true? Zero chance.

Sadly people do abuse "self defense" situations.

People are to quick to go to deadly force, the police especially.

 

[drgrant]

Did you see the quality of his backup??

It was 1 on 1

I think they might have had a moral dilemma about trying to silence the squeaky histrionic lady instead of the moonbat, it may have been a difficult choice for them

 

[Glass Half Empty]

On post as a Armed Security Officer hands off escorting a person out of building. From 4 ft away he turned around and said he was going to kill me while advancing towards me. A hard straight right was delivered to the eye..situation over. ( He had threatended to kill me a year before in another venue) and had him arrested. Cops came , I had 3 eyewitnesses and video backing my story. No charges filed. When the cop asked me why I did it i said I am not rolling around in the middle of the street fighting over my gun today...thank you
..

 

[pdm]

Looks like a Shield Plus with a red dot, or is it a Sig?

Loading…

www.smith-wesson.com

I was going to say it looked like a P365, or possibly a G43X with one of those slip on grip things. But admittedly, the resolution at that level of zoom is like potato.

 

[Garys]

I think it was the histrionic lady that set the moon bat off. Maybe shooting her would have been a viable strategy.

I think they might have had a moral dilemma about trying to silence the squeaky historyonic lady instead of the moon bat it may have been a difficult dilemma for them

 

[Knob Creek]

Guys, unpopular opinion, but every able-bodied man should be able to handle a guy like that charging at them.

It could be disbelief that some basement boy was going to jump ugly on him.

 

[42!]

I think some are loosing sight of the fact that assault is based on the reasonable belief of the attacked person, not the actual intent of the attacker. This is simply because the attacked can't know what the attacker is thinking, only observer what he sees, hears, feels, and reach a conclusion based on that.

So first, who is the attacker? Words are not an attack, certainly not when spoken from a distance. So when one of them ran across the street, and did look to want a friendly conversation, that person became the attacker.

There is a question of whether the attacked had his back turned. If this is the case, then he only knew that someone had tackled him to the ground and was trying to choke him. It's reasonable that he intended great bodily harm or death. And already being on the ground eliminates the option of retreat. At that point, use of force necessary to stop and prevent further attack is justified. And that's what he did. He even administered first aid when the threat seems to have ended.

On the other hand, if he saw him coming, could he have retreated. A 47 year old Vet could have an issue that would limit this option, or there could have been others in the way, or maybe he was trying to retreat and simply didn't have time. Regardless, we don't know this. But also, since the situation is based on his own interpretation, and just like he can't know the thoughts of the attacker, we can't know his thoughts, so at the least he felt he did all he could to avoid the situation. And then used that force necessary to stop and prevent further attack.

Either way, it's a good shoot.

And his rendering aid once the threat ended is a good sign that he wasn't being malicious in his application of force.

 

[straightshooterjake]

What was that fight? 1 vs 3? 1 vs 4? Its going to be difficult to convince a jury that the guy who had over whelming direct assistance was about to die or be maimed.

Did you see the quality of his backup??

It was 1 on 1

The backups were, in essence, rape whistles.

The video is such an important part of this story. From a description, it would sound like the odds were 3 or 4 to one in favor of the protesters and the shooter. But we have seen the video, and it really was pretty much one on one, or even worse than that, where a young guy blindsided a much older guy, flattened him on pavement, and got on top of him.

I would not have believed that the backup help was as useless as they were if I had not seen the tape. At least the woman taking the video managed to hold her phone pretty steady, even if she did shriek while doing it. The decent video is probably the shooter's best hope to come out of this OK.

 

[Dench]

The video is such an important part of this story. From a description, it would sound like the odds were 3 or 4 to one in favor of the protesters and the shooter. But we have seen the video, and it really was pretty much one on one, or even worse than that, where a young guy blindsided a much older guy, flattened him on pavement, and got on top of him.

I would not have believed that the backup help was as useless as they were if I had not seen the tape. At least the woman taking the video managed to hold her phone pretty steady, even if she did shriek while doing it. The decent video is probably the shooter's best hope to come out of this OK.

Devils advocate is going to ask in court: when was he in immediate danger of death?

People on NES not from FL seem to know a whole lot anout FLs stand your ground law. You just cant shoot someone solely based off battery. There needs to be more in many cases. Its an extremely subjective law.

 

[Devils Paintbrush]

Did you see the quality of his backup??

It was 1 on 1

I think my harsh language would have better than those 2 guys trying to step on the guy's neck.

 

[kalash]

Devils advocate is going to ask in court: when was he in immediate danger of death?

To @42! 's point above, it's not about the objective risk - it's about the subjective perception of the victim. Someone tackles you from behind, gets on top of your back, and starts hitting - I'd say it's entirely reasonable to fear for your life without having to interview the attacker to inquire about his intent.

 

[Sunny]

I think some are loosing sight of the fact that assault is based on the reasonable belief of the attacked person, not the actual intent of the attacker. This is simply because the attacked can't know what the attacker is thinking, only observer what he sees, hears, feels, and reach a conclusion based on that.

So first, who is the attacker? Words are not an attack, certainly not when spoken from a distance. So when one of them ran across the street, and did look to want a friendly conversation, that person became the attacker.

There is a question of whether the attacked had his back turned. If this is the case, then he only knew that someone had tackled him to the ground and was trying to choke him. It's reasonable that he intended great bodily harm or death. And already being on the ground eliminates the option of retreat. At that point, use of force necessary to stop and prevent further attack is justified.

Totally nailed it

And his rendering aid once the threat ended is a good sign that he wasn't being malicious in his application of force.

YUGE! This is why I want to know WHO exactly charged Hayes with A&B? Very quick to press charges instead of investigating (which would've taken into account the rendering of first aid). I really hope Hayes' lawyers are saddling up.