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

M1911 said:
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.
Click to expand...

alx said:
Your mind clarity and logic is not compatible with the heat of a surprise hostile wrestle match. That is all I am saying.
Click to expand...

you both are 100% correct.. however it's going to be all on Hayes' lawyer to make that case to a jury (if it goes to trial). That lawyer has to do a fantastic job turning the Pale-supporter into a crazed lunatic, while arguing that Hayes was attacked from behind, without knowing if the attacker was armed or not.. all while within his rights peacefully demonstrating.. Lawyer has to minimize the use of the gun, and maximize the unprovoked attack and situational response..

IANAL, JMHO.. etc.

it's going to be an uphill battle in MA, but
 
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...
You don’t think getting tackled to the ground. Head into pavement is sufficient for self protection. Very interesting. Well that’s a problem in this country. Starting right here in our own gun community. If one of our own is talking like this imagine what the rest think. I guess carrying a gun in mass is now out of the question. I wonder what you think would qualify. Only if they have a knife or gun?? I’m kinda blown away right now
 
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...
Literally no one is saying it wasn’t justified. Some are suggesting there were better options that wouldn’t mire the shooter in court battles with a non-zero chance of being convicted.

Personally I think everyone in the video is pathetic.
 
Sparky1911 said:
You don’t think getting tackled to the ground. Head into pavement is sufficient for self protection. Very interesting. Well that’s a problem in this country. Starting right here in our own gun community. If one of our own is talking like this imagine what the rest think. I guess carrying a gun in mass is now out of the question. I wonder what you think would qualify. Only if they have a knife or gun?? I’m kinda blown away right now
Click to expand...

Was he actually getting his head bounced off the pavement or is this more 'coulda happened' stuff?
 
vicorjh said:
Danger ..... of grave bodily harm. Danger is the prediction of a future outcome.

There is no time for checklists when seconds could matter. That is the calculus and is what will be measured.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but you are wrong about this.

It is about threats of danger AT THAT TIME. Not threats that MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT MATERIALIZE. You can't shoot someone because he MIGHT produce a knife. You can shoot someone if he DOES produce a knife in a threatening manner.
 
Last edited:
Sparky1911 said:
You don’t think getting tackled to the ground. Head into pavement is sufficient for self protection. Very interesting. Well that’s a problem in this country. Starting right here in our own gun community. If one of our own is talking like this imagine what the rest think. I guess carrying a gun in mass is now out of the question. I wonder what you think would qualify. Only if they have a knife or gun?? I’m kinda blown away right now
Click to expand...
Again, you are talking about right and wrong. I'm talking about legal and illegal.

Unarmed men get in fights thousands of times each day. Yes, they get punched. Yes, they get tackled to the ground. It is very rare that those fights result in death or grave bodily injury. It is also very rare that the courts uphold the use of deadly force to defend against a one-on-one, unarmed attack. This is the reality of our legal system.

You saw the video. This wasn't the Trayvon Martin attack where it is alleged that Trayvon Martin mounted Zimmerman and bashed his head into the sidewalk repeatedly, which was supported by bruising and abrasions on the back of Zimmerman's head. Hayes wasn't mounted in this attack. His head wasn't smashed into the sidewalk. They were both on their sides wrestling with neither having a clear advantage.

As I've said previously, my sympathies lie with Hayes. But the reality is that the courts rarely uphold the use of deadly force against an unarmed attack and I don't see any of the typical disparity of force arguments working in this situation. I'm talking about my understanding of the law and how I think the courts may rule, not how I would want them to rule.

You folks need to separate what you want to happen from what is likely to happen.
 
Last edited:
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...
This isn't just an MA thing. I've examined a whole bunch of cases all over where the person that produced the gun would have been better off just shooting the bad guy. 🤣

The issue you speak of got to a point where several more normal states had to add another rack of laws to legally protect people "brandishing" under some circumstances.

NH added this stuff to its own SYG law package eventually because of what happened to Ward Bird. (A guy who went to prison for brandishing)
 
This is already a highy atypical case since it has reached the national news; does not have a racial aspect to it that demands a prosecution to avoid riots; and is not against a financially unarmed defendant. Something will probably be done to make this go away - my guess is an unpleasant plea bargain that avoids any risk of time in stir.

It has some parallels to the case of the NYC subway hero who is beng prosecuted at Bragg's direction.
 
M1911 said:
You can't shoot someone because he MIGHT produce a knife.
Click to expand...

Said no such thing. What is being said is leaving out the danger of portion from the phrase, danger of grave bodily harm produces a very different meaning. Danger of grave bodily harm. It is predictive not certain. That is what will be measured.
 
Last edited:
M1911 said:
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.
Click to expand...
There's no need to go into a long verbose diatribe about it.

I stated a very simple FACT : You cannot survive a court battle (if there is one) if you do not survive the attack on the street. Period, end of story.
 
M1911 said:
Again, you are talking about right and wrong. I'm talking about legal and illegal.

Unarmed men get in fights thousands of times each day. Yes, they punched. Yes, they get tackled to the ground. It is very rare that those fights result in death or grave bodily injury. It is also very rare that the courts uphold the use of deadly force to defend against a one-on-one, unarmed attack. This is the reality of our legal system.

You saw the video. This wasn't the Trayvon Martin attack where it is alleged that Trayvon Martin mounted Zimmerman and bashed his head into the sidewalk repeatedly, which was supported by bruising and abrasions on the back of Zimmerman's head. Hayes wasn't mounted in this attack. His head wasn't smashed into the sidewalk. They were both on their sides wrestling with neither having a clear advantage.

As I've said previously, my sympathies lie with Hayes. But the reality is that the courts rarely uphold the use of deadly force against an unarmed attack and I don't see any of the typical disparity of force arguments working in this situation. I'm talking about my understanding of the law and how I think the courts may rule, not how I would want them to rule.

You folks need to separate what you want to happen from what is likely to happen.
Click to expand...
You blind? He was tackled. His head hit the concrete and the guy was trying to put him in a headlock. Could have choked him out and took his gun.
I get LEGAL AND ILLEGAL.
If you can’t defend yourself in that situation then there’s no point in carrying a firearm in this state bottom line. Massachusetts has you dodo birds thinking exactly how they want you too. Sad state we live in. Lotta easily brainwashed individuals
 
Grendizer138 said:
Literally no one is saying it wasn’t justified. Some are suggesting there were better options that wouldn’t mire the shooter in court battles with a non-zero chance of being convicted.

Personally I think everyone in the video is pathetic.
Click to expand...
I agree. Watching people in those types of situations is disturbing. I'm sure some of them are decent folks, but I'm thinking they are absolutely useless in stressful/physical scenarios.
 
Sparky1911 said:
You blind? He was tackled. His head hit the concrete and the guy was trying to put him in a headlock. Could have choked him out and took his gun.
I get LEGAL AND ILLEGAL.
If you can’t defend yourself in that situation then there’s no point in carrying a firearm in this state bottom line. Massachusetts has you dodo birds thinking exactly how they want you too. Sad state we live in. Lotta easily brainwashed individuals
Click to expand...
Did you miss the part where everyone decided words hurt more than physical attacks?
 
Sparky1911 said:
You blind? He was tackled. His head hit the concrete and the guy was trying to put him in a headlock. Could have choked him out and took his gun.
I get LEGAL AND ILLEGAL.
If you can’t defend yourself in that situation then there’s no point in carrying a firearm in this state bottom line. Massachusetts has you dodo birds thinking exactly how they want you too. Sad state we live in. Lotta easily brainwashed individuals
Click to expand...

I don't carry my gun to deal with fist fights. But yeah, maybe I'm a brainwashed dodo bird.

Edit - I just watched the video again. The guy was trying to put him in a headlock but he wasn't remotely close to pulling it off, and the other two dudes were right in the mix pretty quickly. Did you watch that and think that the shooter's life was in danger? At what point in the video exactly?
 
not new guy said:
You're the genius who said you can't survive the court battle if you don't survive the attack in the street. Where exactly in this situation was the shooter at risk of not surviving the attack?
Click to expand...
I wasn't relating it to this specific incident......it is a general statement of fact.
 
not new guy said:
I don't carry my gun to deal with fist fights. But yeah, maybe I'm a brainwashed dodo bird.

Edit - I just watched the video again. The guy was trying to put him in a headlock but he wasn't remotely close to pulling it off, and the other two dudes were right in the mix pretty quickly. Did you watch that and think that the shooter's life was in danger? At what point in the video exactly?
Click to expand...
The minute he was tackled to the ground. A head injury alone could kill you. Pretty simple. Not to mention the guy wasn’t even facing fully forward. 40 outta 50 states this guy wouldn’t be charged. FAFO.
 

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