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



So you admit that the attacker initiated a deadly force attack?
No, i dont agree that being thrown or taken down necessarily requires that. If this guy was frail and elderly id at least get it.

Guns are over used in confrontations in the country. From good guys to bad guys to the police.
 
I feel like you are talking about something else than everyone else. It’s in the first post of the thread. Are you seriously trying to claim the guy who sprinted across the street and tackled the guy wasn’t the aggressor? Because that’s what I saw happen in the video. And I cannot comprehend how you don’t think that person was the aggressor. It doesn’t make sense.
I never said he wasnt an aggressor. I said from the video i dont think he needed to be shot.
 
I tend to agree with most of what you have posted here.

I’m a big dude but I’m pretty out of shape and have some medical issues and older. I could potentially have a heart attack if I got in a fist fight. There is a huge difference in danger between myself and someone else my age who does CrossFit or trains grappling.

This may come down to a defense based on disparity of force. If say Royce Gracie attacked me and I didn’t know who he was, I would be wrong to shoot him. If I knew who he was, I’d be justified in smoking him. That’s how I was trained anyway back in the day. Things are different in the post George Floyd world though.
I have no problem with people defending thier life.

The disagreement here is that i dont think his life was really in any danger.
 
I never said he wasnt an aggressor. I said from the video i dont think he needed to be shot.

You asked for a video that showed he was the one who initiated the encounter. Aggressor. Initiator. Same thing. Did the shooter need to be tackled? It seems to me you are focused on the wrong thing and asking the wrong questions.
 
Who has training? In what?

And if he's injured why is he engaging and escalating with other men out in the wild?

Who escalated anything? There's zero evidence on the video that Hayes said anything during the entire episode. You can hear Gannon shouting that the protesters were sick and supporting genocide and the woman screaming that he was stupid, that's it. How does that equate to a mutual combat scenario between Gannon & Hayes, particularly when Gannon tackled Hayes from behind? Don't two people have to be squared off facing each other for it to be mutual combat?

So the Israel guy was tackled by the Palestinian guy for no obvious reason? If thats the case the Israeli guy could have a good defense.

The Palestinian guy may have had his reasons but there's zero evidence that Hayes had anything to do with the escalation. Gannon walked by the protest and started yammering at them from across the street (unless there's evidence that the protesters singled out the guy walking down the street and started yelling at him first).

Werent both parties screaming at each other across the street with directed personal attacks?

Fighting words is a real thing. Talk shit to a loon and what do you expect?

The only two people talking shit were Gannon and the woman. There's zero evidence that Hayes said anything at all.

Watch the video?

Neither had a duty to retreat. Both parties were activly escalating. They got exactlt what they were looking for.

Where are you getting that both parties were actively escalating. There's zero evidence that Hayes said anything to Gannon and he had his back to Gannon when he was tackled, what actively escalating did you see?

That's what men do when they act formidable but aint.

Dont write checks your ass cant cash.

So the claim is other people were nane calling and talking shit and he attacked an uninvolved bystander? If so that would change my opinion quite a bit

The claim is that there was a group of protesters peacefully protesting when Gannon got upset and started yelling at them from across the street.

Ironically and sadly true.

The bad guy was the only one willing to throw down. Which is why people shouldn't risk this shit for no reason.

The guys a loon. Ignore him. Why engage crazy?

Hayes back was turned when Gannon tackled him, how much more ignoring is he expected to do?

All i cam do is work with what i got in that video. Which isn't much. Presumably a lot was going on prior to the start of that video.

Presumably in your imagination maybe, the video was pretty clear that Gannon was calling the protesters sick and saying they supported genocide, and the woman replied that he was stupid. It's also clear that he tackled Hayes from behind so how do we get a shit talking mutual combat scenario out of that.

As another user pointed out, essentially any physical confrontation should result in a self defense shooting using the logic here.

Thats a road to hell.


Shit talking isnt risk free

Again, please point out the shit talking by the Hayes.

Can you guys post the video that shows this?

It's posted on Page 1 of this thread. You're speculating that Hayes engaged in shit talking that was sufficient to trigger a justifiable mutual combat scenario between the two yet there's zero evidence that Hayes said a word to Gannon. You're dead wrong on this.
 
Who escalated anything? There's zero evidence on the video that Hayes said anything during the entire episode. You can hear Gannon shouting that the protesters were sick and supporting genocide and the woman screaming that he was stupid, that's it. How does that equate to a mutual combat scenario between Gannon & Hayes, particularly when Gannon tackled Hayes from behind? Don't two people have to be squared off facing each other for it to be mutual combat?



The Palestinian guy may have had his reasons but there's zero evidence that Hayes had anything to do with the escalation. Gannon walked by the protest and started yammering at them from across the street (unless there's evidence that the protesters singled out the guy walking down the street and started yelling at him first).



The only two people talking shit were Gannon and the woman. There's zero evidence that Hayes said anything at all.



Where are you getting that both parties were actively escalating. There's zero evidence that Hayes said anything to Gannon and he had his back to Gannon when he was tackled, what actively escalating did you see?





The claim is that there was a group of protesters peacefully protesting when Gannon got upset and started yelling at them from across the street.



Hayes back was turned when Gannon tackled him, how much more ignoring is he expected to do?



Presumably in your imagination maybe, the video was pretty clear that Gannon was calling the protesters sick and saying they supported genocide, and the woman replied that he was stupid. It's also clear that he tackled Hayes from behind so how do we get a shit talking mutual combat scenario out of that.






Again, please point out the shit talking by the Hayes.



It's posted on Page 1 of this thread. You're speculating that Hayes engaged in shit talking that was sufficient to trigger a justifiable mutual combat scenario between the two yet there's zero evidence that Hayes said a word to Gannon. You're dead wrong on this.
Ive already stated that if he was attacked unsolicited it would change my opinion.
 
I never said he wasnt an aggressor. I said from the video i dont think he needed to be shot.

You probably wouldn't have shot him, I probably wouldn't have either. That doesn't mean Hayes didn't have credible fear of imminent death or great bodily harm based on the circumstances.
 
I have no problem with people defending thier life.

The disagreement here is that i dont think his life was really in any danger.

This is where I’m at on this situation. Could it have been life or death? I guess. Freak stuff happens. Was that idiot trying to murder him? Even if he truly was (very unlikely), could he have pulled it off with all those other people around?

And this isn’t a moral question or a rights or legal question, it’s a question of whether the shoot was in the shooter’s best interests, in hindsight and after the dust settles. I really, really doubt it was and I bet if he’s being honest with himself he regrets it now. But he’s also the dumb shit who posts pictures of his gun online and seems eager to use it in exactly this situation.
 
You probably wouldn't have shot him, I probably wouldn't have either. That doesn't mean Hayes didn't have credible fear of imminent death or great bodily harm based on the circumstances.

Which speaks to legal outcomes, but doesn’t answer the question of what was his best decision at the time.
 
Ive already stated that if he was attacked unsolicited it would change my opinion.
They why are you going on about it when there's ZERO evidence that it was anything other than an unsolicited attack. There isn't a single word on video attributable to Hayes and Hayes was attacked from behind. What kind of soliciting did Hayes do that the rest of us don't see in the video? Gannon is calling them sick for supporting genocide, a woman is calling him stupid. Is that soliciting an attack?
 
They why are you going on about it when there's ZERO evidence that it was anything other than an unsolicited attack. There isn't a single word on video attributable to Hayes and Hayes was attacked from behind. What kind of soliciting did Hayes do that the rest of us don't see in the video? Gannon is calling them sick for supporting genocide, a woman is calling him stupid. Is that soliciting an attack?
So it was random? This is known?
 
What is known is what is on the video, which is pretty clear and has been repeated several times. Is it known that Hayes instigated anything? If you have evidence of that please post it.

From what ive seen in the video his life was not in danger in my opinion.

You guys aren't going to be able to change my mind on that.
 
Ive already stated that if he was attacked unsolicited it would change my opinion.

I don’t believe you because there’s quite literally nothing in the video that shows the shooter did anything to “solicit” being attacked. Nothing. He was standing on the opposite side of the street. Chin Diaper and the woman were yelling at each other, engaged in contentious but free speech. In response to the speech Chin Diaper didn’t like, he ran across traffic and tackled the guy.

You must be watching a different video.

I’ll make my point as clear as possible.

Everyone has an unalienable right to self defense. You saying he didn’t “need” to be shot suggests you don’t believe the same. Because whether he “needed” to be shot isn’t relevant to that. What is relevant is whether or not the decision to shoot the attacker was a proportional response to the attack. The two are NOT the same thing at all.

The shooter definitely didn’t need to be tackled by Chin Diaper either. But he was. Chin Diaper was the aggressor. The man tackled had every right to defend himself against said attack.

Now if you want to argue the proportionality of the use of force that is one thing but sense you cannot even stipulate to the fact the shooter was attacked and Chin Diaper was the one who initiated the assault, it would probably be futile.

You guys aren't going to be able to change my mind on that.

Ahh, see there it is. I am indeed engaged in an exercise in futility.
 
No, i dont agree that being thrown or taken down necessarily requires that. If this guy was frail and elderly id at least get it.
Agree
However is that type of hit significantly more likely to cause lasting or permanent injury than a punch to the face?
The overwhelming majority of punches cause nothing more than very temporary pain, swelling and maybe minor bleeding. That's why they are considered simple battery.
Even a push into a wall causing facial scrapes would likely be considered simple battery

The hit that guy took has a statistically significant risk of great bodily harm as defined in common law.


Guns are over used in confrontations in the country. From good guys to bad guys to the police.
Agree - in teaching children violence is never an option even in self defense we have created a society that has little ability to understand when too far is too far. And one where restraint is learned at an early age when real harm in a fight is not at all likely, once one loses their cool, there is no control.

It could be that the vet actually did goad the guy into the fight and was therefore not an innocent actor - but the video doesn't show that.
And the published video is objective evidence of an unprovoked attack.
If wailing Wanda cut out a pre attack provocation then that will come out in the trial.
 
Assuming this goes to trial, the jury will have to decide that.

I think in many states the jury would determine that it was self defense and shooting was justified. I also think that it's highly likely that in MA the jury will find him guilty.



From what ive seen in the video his life was not in danger in my opinion.

You guys aren't going to be able to change my mind on that.
 
The guys being charged 🤐I guess the only possibility of defending yourself with a gun in Massachusetts is if somebody is shooting at you. And still this might not be certain. I wonder if he used an edged weapon would he be charged.
 
I have no problem with people defending thier life.

The disagreement here is that i dont think his life was really in any danger.
Life is more than the clinical definition of alive.
An attack can forever reduce you life without extinguishing it.
You have the right to your full life and enjoyment of it.
So while there is a continuum of offenses that can be made against one's life, common law has set standards at which you can legally protect it and what level of force can be used at each standard.
 
Agree
However is that type of hit significantly more likely to cause lasting or permanent injury than a punch to the face?
The overwhelming majority of punches cause nothing more than very temporary pain, swelling and maybe minor bleeding. That's why they are considered simple battery.
Even a push into a wall causing facial scrapes would likely be considered simple battery

The hit that guy took has a statistically significant risk of great bodily harm as defined in common law.



Agree - in teaching children violence is never an option even in self defense we have created a society that has little ability to understand when too far is too far. And one where restraint is learned at an early age when real harm in a fight is not at all likely, once one loses their cool, there is no control.

It could be that the vet actually did goad the guy into the fight and was therefore not an innocent actor - but the video doesn't show that.
And the published video is objective evidence of an unprovoked attack.
If wailing Wanda cut out a pre attack provocation then that will come out in the trial.
Falls are very difficult to catagorize in terms of predictable outcomes. Some falls can and will kill. And then identical looking falls result in bruising. Its all hard to say.

While i dont think his life was in danger i also think he had plenty of help. If this guy was the worlds lamest 47 year old and got jumped solo id 100% get that he feared fir his life. We've probably all been there. Getting attacked out of the blue solo is horrifying.

I hope he gets off. I dont want him in jail for it. I just dont think it was necessary. I wish him the best in court.
 
From what ive seen in the video his life was not in danger in my opinion.

You guys aren't going to be able to change my mind on that.
That's very different from saying it was mutual combat or that Hayes instigated and that the attack was somehow justified. It was not mutual combat and there's zero evidence that Hayes said a word much less instigated anything.

Watching the video form the comfort of our couches, with the benefit of regular combat training, being in better physical condition than Hayes, sure you and I can decide that in that situation our lives probably would not have been in danger but that's not the standard here.
 
I never said he wasnt an aggressor. I said from the video i dont think he needed to be shot.
But you weren't the vet on the ground, dazed but a surprise attack that was ongoing.
The review is not from an armchair length but from the perspective of the victim under the conditions of the attack and the knowledge of the situation at that time.

Given the actions of the vet immediately after, the benefit of doubt goes to him for immediately rendering aid.
That shows he was in control and acting at least somewhat rationally.
 
Good to see the FPC stepping forward here. The guy should be OK in the end under existing law, even in MA, but it’s not that hard to see a court finding him guilty because gun. That would be a bad precedent.
I wonder if he had USCCA and what they’d do in this case
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top Bottom