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

not new guy said:
Maybe, but are you better off dealing with an assault charge and arguing that you thought you might need to shoot but thought better of it or shooting because you didn't want to deal with the assault charge (which sounds insane when you say it out loud)?

These situations are way too nuanced and situation specific to f*** around with hard and fast rules like you better shoot if you draw. Threads like this are a little scary because I can see a ton of people reading it and thinking it's a good idea to shoot somebody physically threatening them because they might/should win the subsequent court case. But it's not about rights, or success in court, or the possibility of maybe bumping your eggshell skull off the pavement, or other out there hypotheticals. Pulling a gun and using it is a life-changing decision for all involved so you better make damn sure you really have to before you do it.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point.
Obviously you would say this.

For me, being in NH, this is just an observation of the state of the legal system in MA and what amounts to a catch-22 when it comes to using a gun with the result that it's presence stops the need for using it. Personally I'd rather see the threat end and not have to shoot anyone.
 
MAGA99 said:
Fleeing just means you don’t intend to participate in their rigged show trial. Staying would be fine in NH or any sane jurisdiction in a sane state. But in commie mass, you should never interact with the geatapo whether you’re in the right or wrong. Having to shoot someone that needs shooting doesn’t change that calculus.

Unfortunately, the commies are at war with normies whether you want to admit it or not. It’s best to act accordingly.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying I would or wouldn’t leave the scene, but I appreciate that you see through the charade.
 
42! said:
Exactly my point.
Obviously you would say this.

For me, being in NH, this is just an observation of the state of the legal system in MA and what amounts to a catch-22 when it comes to using a gun with the result that it's presence stops the need for using it. Personally I'd rather see the threat end and not have to shoot anyone.
Click to expand...

And let's not forget the possibility of Mr Ponytail/Backstop (or his estate) bringing a civil suit against you after the dust settles.
 
You realize that you're not going to change either of their minds, right. With luck neither will ever have to deal with any of the consequences of a self defense shooting, but if they do they're likely to spend all of their money defending, and much of their life in prison.

pastera said:
Unfortunately it does matter and it's solid case law that running and not reporting can and absolutely will be used against you.
Click to expand...
 
Grendizer138 said:
The protester had his back turned to a crazy guy across the street yelling at him and his group?

Oooo k.
Click to expand...
Why is that so unbelievable.

Based on the video there's a good chance that the stupid chick with the screechy voice was instigating everything or at least adding fuel to the fire with the Pal guy. Something along the lines of "this b!tch won't shut up, I am just going to ignore this whole situation". He did have his back turned to the guy. If something comes out showing otherwise I won't be shocked but the mental gymnastics to try and place blame on the shooter is incredible.

Like @Dench said in another post... wouldn't be the first time a guy had to handle something because a female wouldn't stop running their mouth.
 
Last edited:
M1911 said:
I don’t agree with Ayoob on everything but back when I took LFI-1 and 2 from him he said that in his experience courts rarely view an attack by an unarmed man against another man as rising to the level of deadly force.

There are exceptions, like disparity of force (very large vs small, young vs elderly, male vs female, 2+ vs 1). There are exceptions like the Travon Martin case — mounted and slamming his head against concrete.

But this attack? I’m sorry, I don’t see it as rising to the level of death or grave bodily injury.

I really do hope that the shooter is found not guilty, but I think it will be an uphill fight for him and the legal fight is likely to ruin his life.
Click to expand...
Monday morning Quarterback right there.
 
71montess said:
Monday morning Quarterback right there.
Click to expand...
Yes, the court system will be a Monday morning quarterback. The court system will calmly spend hours, days, or even weeks discussing the decisions that the defendant had to make in seconds. Welcome to the real world.

The reality is that the court system rarely upholds the use of deadly force against a single unarmed attacker. You don’t have to like that but you had better understand it if you want to survive not just the battle on the street but also the battle in the court system afterwards.
 
Junior314 said:
Why is that so unbelievable.

Based on the video there's a good chance that the stupid chick with the screechy voice was instigating everything or at least adding fuel to the fire with the Pal guy. Something along the lines of "this b!tch won't shut up, I am just going to ignore this whole situation". He did have his back turned to the guy. If something comes out showing otherwise I won't be shocked but the mental gymnastics to try and place blame on the shooter is incredible.

Like @Dench said in another post... wouldn't be the first time a guy had to handle something because a female wouldn't stop running their mouth.
Click to expand...
It’s entirely plausible. But if he did have his back turned there is no doubt he is an NES’r:

Posts gun and bravado on social media ✅

No situational awareness at all ✅

Can’t physically handle a “soy boy” ✅
 
M1911 said:
Yes, the court system will be a Monday morning quarterback. The court system will calmly spend hours, days, or even weeks discussing the decisions that the defendant had to make in seconds. Welcome to the real world.

The reality is that the court system rarely upholds the use of deadly force against a single unarmed attacker. You don’t have to like that but you had better understand it if you want to survive not just the battle on the street but also the battle in the court system afterwards.
Click to expand...
Anyone who watched the State try to convict Rittenhouse despite mountains of evidence he acted in self defense should understand this.
 
alx said:
… I can only hope (for your own sake) that you reach to the same conclusion in the couple seconds after getting body- slammed and grappling on the ground with somebody half your age…
Click to expand...
Caleb Gannon is 31. Scott Hayes is 47. That age difference is unlikely to support a disparity of force claim.
 
Junior314 said:
Why is that so unbelievable.

Based on the video there's a good chance that the stupid chick with the screechy voice was instigating everything or at least adding fuel to the fire with the Pal guy. Something along the lines of "this b!tch won't shut up, I am just going to ignore this whole situation". He did have his back turned to the guy. If something comes out showing otherwise I won't be shocked but the mental gymnastics to try and place blame on the shooter is incredible.

Like @Dench said in another post... wouldn't be the first time a guy had to handle something because a female wouldn't stop running their mouth.
Click to expand...

I did get the feeling she might have been instigating, but I don't understand why the guy would tackle someone else for it.
 
Drix said:
I did get the feeling she might have been instigating, but I don't understand why the guy would tackle someone else for it.
Click to expand...
Because he isn't mentally well?

This guy ran through traffic to assault someone over words. Not like we are dealing with a stable individual.
 
Drix said:
I did get the feeling she might have been instigating
Click to expand...

From the video. Barely. If even.

Drix said:
I don't understand why the guy would tackle someone else for it.
Click to expand...

There wasn't legit justification. The justification was 'palestine', 'genocide', and feelings.
 
Last edited:
M1911 said:
Yes, the court system will be a Monday morning quarterback. The court system will calmly spend hours, days, or even weeks discussing the decisions that the defendant had to make in seconds. Welcome to the real world.

The reality is that the court system rarely upholds the use of deadly force against a single unarmed attacker. You don’t have to like that but you had better understand it if you want to survive not just the battle on the street but also the battle in the court system afterwards.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: You can't survive the second, if you don't survive the first. "Tried by 12 or Carried by 6 " I'll take the first option every time.
 
M1911 said:
Caleb Gannon is 31. Scott Hayes is 47. That age difference is unlikely to support a disparity of force claim.
Click to expand...
You just got jumped from behind. You are rolling on the ground with a guy that is obviously faster and younger than you. You don’t know if he has a knife or for all I care- wants to bite off your fingers or your ears or gauge your eyes out.

Even been in a fight with a guy that wants you dead? Fear is a bitch. And a mind killer.
 
Uzi2 said:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: You can't survive the second, if you don't survive the first. "Tried by 12 or Carried by 6 " I'll take the first option every time.
Click to expand...
Yes. But was he really in danger of death or grave bodily injury? I'm sorry, but I simply don't see it. I understand that many of you disagree with me on this, but I think the court system is more likely to agree with me than with you.

The fact that it might have escalated into such a danger moments later doesn't legally justify the use of deadly force now. And, yes, fights can turn deadly in an instant. The fact that some people have died by being tackled or that some people have died after receiving a single punch does not mean that the court system consequently views all unarmed assaults as danger of death or grave bodily injury.

Men get into unarmed fights thousands of times each day. Very few such fights result in death or grave bodily injury. Which is why the courts rarely uphold the use of deadly force in such incidents.

Are there exceptions? Yes. What are the typical disparity of force justifications and do they apply in this incident?
  1. One against many. Doesn't apply, this was one-on-one (or possibly one attacker against several defenders).
  2. Young against old. The attacker was 31, the defender was 47. That age disparity is unlikely to support such a claim. If Hayes was 66, that might be viewed differently.
  3. Healthy against disabled. We don't know if Hayes has some disability. He certainly doesn't look to be in good shape, but in general it appears to be two able-bodied men involved in this situation.
  4. Female against male. Doesn't apply in this situation.
In my partially educated opinion, Hayes' attorney is going to have a difficult time winning a self defense claim. I'm not saying he can't win, but it looks like an uphill fight to me. I'm betting that Hayes takes a plea deal involving jail time.

You don't have to like this. You don't have to agree with this. But you sure as hell had better understand it. So many people here on NES think you can legally use deadly force in situations where you can not legally do so.

My sympathies are with Hayes, not with the aggressor. But I'm talking about how I believe our court system will rule, not how I want it to rule. In the Jesse Stone movie Night Passage, one of the characters asks police chief Jesse Stone:

"You said stuff was just legal or illegal. Well, what about it being right or wrong?"

Jesse Stone replies:

"I'm not in the right and wrong business. I'm in the legal and illegal business."

You folks are mixing up right and wrong with the legal and illegal. I'm talking legal and illegal, not right and wrong.
 
Last edited:
alx said:
You just got jumped from behind. You are rolling on the ground with a guy that is obviously faster and younger than you. You don’t know if he has a knife or for all I care- wants to bite off your fingers or your ears or gauge your eyes out.
Click to expand...
You are making up what-ifs that didn't happen. The law doesn't allow you to shoot someone because they might pull out a knife. If they do pull out a knife, then yes that it is danger of death or grave bodily injury. Yes, if they do pull out a knife mid fight you may not be able to react in time to defend yourself. Yes, that is truly horrible. But, no, the legal system doesn't allow you to use deadly force for threats that might happen in the future.
 
M1911 said:
You are making up what-ifs that didn't happen. The law doesn't allow you to shoot someone because they might pull out a knife. If they do pull out a knife, then yes that it is danger of death or grave bodily injury. Yes, if they do pull out a knife mid fight you may not be able to react in time to defend yourself. Yes, that is truly horrible. But, no, the legal system doesn't allow you to use deadly force for threats that might happen in the future.
Click to expand...
Your mind clarity and logic is not compatible with the heat of a surprise hostile wrestle match. That is all I am saying.
 
42! said:
I always thought this was an odd result of the laws in ma, it practically encourages you to shoot if you draw even if the situation changes. Since you can only use a gun if there is imminent threat, you obviously have to be in this state when you draw. If the situation changes and you don't shoot, then you obviously weren't in imminent threat, so drawing is now assault.

Thini about it, guy comes at you with a knife, at say 10' you draw. He sees the gun, drops the knife, and puts up his hands, and you don't shoot. Your story is you drew and he stopped his attack. But his story is he was never going to attack you, was just walking toward you and was going to stop. In MA they will charge you for assult. You'd be better off if you shot him and thus stopped the attack.

It's a twisted system that make shooting necessary to prove imminent treat.
Click to expand...
Guy is approaching you with a knife in a manner that you understand to be threatening.
Pulling your gun IS use not just firing it.
If the threat stops before you fire, you are required to not shoot.
So in your hypothetical, you would be fine holding him in your sights until he backs a safe distance from the knife or you retreat.
But you need to be able to articulate that you were not the initial deadly force aggressor so a knife sitting in the middle of the road is great evidence


the threat.
M1911 said:
Caleb Gannon is 31. Scott Hayes is 47. That age difference is unlikely to support a disparity of force claim.
Click to expand...
Bullshit
16 years makes a massive difference

Bet MMA.tips - Age analysis of UFC fighters

www.betmma.tips
Drop a 16 year difference in and the stats go 76:24 to the younger fighter.
 
M1911 said:
You are making up what-ifs that didn't happen. The law doesn't allow you to shoot someone because they might pull out a knife. If they do pull out a knife, then yes that it is danger of death or grave bodily injury. Yes, if they do pull out a knife mid fight you may not be able to react in time to defend yourself. Yes, that is truly horrible. But, no, the legal system doesn't allow you to use deadly force for threats that might happen in the future.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. The law allows you to act based on what you reasonably believe, not what happes, or what the intent of the attacker is, but what you, as the attacked, reasonably believe. So if you think he has a knife, even if you don't see it, and in the end he does not have one, you are still allowed to defend yourself.

Now what constitutes "reasonable", that's up to a jury to decide.
 
Bonesinium said:
The same people arguing he wasn’t justified in shooting would be saying he was dumb for not shooting when he had the chance if he didn’t shoot and psycho chin diaper split his skull open or got his gun from him.
Click to expand...

There are at least 3 different sides to the "good shoot" question:
  • Was it a good shoot legally?
  • Was it a good shoot morally?
  • Was it a good shoot from a practical perspective?
I think a bunch of us are talking past each other, and in some cases conflating these. To me the most important of the 3 questions to focus on is the last one, as it takes the other 2 into account. Whether or not it was legally a good shoot is nice for MMQB conversation purposes and may influence how you answer Q3, but at the end of the day I think it is, or should be, just a variable that needs to have your own subjective weighting assigned to it. The same goes for Q2.
 

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
Which gun to shoot for complete gun n00b?
2
Replies
56
Views
745
Cuz
Cuz
Chicopee woman’s son shot several times, fired back at shooter, police say
Replies
12
Views
480
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
Overheard at the airport
4 5 6
Replies
154
Views
3K
dcmdon
dcmdon
Shooting reported at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin: Police
3 4 5
Replies
143
Views
4K
HARRYM
HARRYM
.223 Words of Advice?
3 4 5
Replies
126
Views
2K
dcmdon
dcmdon
Back
Top Bottom