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

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...
Some people here either need to take a CCW class, or retake it.
 
@not new guy , my response to you was you are 'generally' wrong in your thinking. Death isn't the standard to utilize deadly force, generally speaking.

A lot of people think cops operate under different 'rules' when it comes to deadly force. When I was certified as a USCCA instructor, the standard was the same. The difference is we trained on this at least once a year, the law, the SCOTUS rulings and how they affected us.
 
weekendracer said:
@not new guy , my response to you was you are 'generally' wrong in your thinking. Death isn't the standard to utilize deadly force, generally speaking.

A lot of people think cops operate under different 'rules' when it comes to deadly force. When I was certified as a USCCA instructor, the standard was the same. The difference is we trained on this at least once a year, the law, the SCOTUS rulings and how they affected us.
Click to expand...

I must have said it a hundred times in this thread, but I think the legal standard is the wrong way to think about a situation like this. The guy may win in court (and that remains to be seen), but if he didn’t shoot the guy he’d have finished with a few scrapes and his only trip to court would have been as a plaintiff going after that guy for assault.

I guess I’ll take my like back. [laugh]
 
Junior314 said:
I am curious at what point you all think it would have been ok to shoot him?
Click to expand...
The answer will vary by person because even if the attacker has the intent and opportunity, his ability to cause grave harm would depend on the defender.

Personally I am more likely to shoot my two “friends” who were “helping”.
 
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...
If Hayes and the nut job were standing going toe to toe, I might agree with you. Once Hayes is on the ground, he is at a distinct disadvantage and in my mind all bets are off...
 
Junior314 said:
I am curious at what point you all think it would have been ok to shoot him?
Click to expand...
I am perfectly fine with the shoot as is and if I was on a jury, it would be slam dunk innocent. Like I posted previously, this guy's mistake was he didn't make a very simple statement to the police ... "When he tackled me, he was going for my gun and I was in fear for my life". Under no circumstances is there any ability for a jury to decide that an aggressor going for someone's gun isn't "life threatening". DA must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this wasn't the case, and there is a whole heap of "doubt" in those words.

Also, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight". They didn't even bring a knife? That's on them, isn't it?

1726519958543.png
 
Grendizer138 said:
Or maybe you are just not excited to shoot someone 🤷🏻
Click to expand...
Most rational people aren't excited to shoot someone. Personally, I avoid most places where the likelihood of having to is elevated....(ie; cities at night, or in bars full of drunken fools and in parts of cities that are known for lots of criminal activity. I just don't go there.

But that doesn't diminish my normal situational awareness, nor my willingness to pull the trigger if necessary, should I or friends or family be attacked.
I'm not going to wait until I'm on the ground, potentially having my head stoved in to present a gun and use it if the attack doesn't stop immediately.

Out numbered? The gun is coming out of the holster at the first sign of being surrounded and outnumbered and the first/closest one that continues to approach is going to meet his maker.
The use of force laws where I live don't coddle criminals and there is no duty to retreat.
 
Dench said:
Using that logic the "good guy" introduced leathal force into a fight he was looking for.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where the "He was looking for a fight" thing comes in.
The only person in the video engaging was the woman.
I went to a select board meeting a while back to protest a proposed development.
Should I have expected to get jumped from behind by a violent nutcase and stayed home?
 
Uzi2 said:
Most rational people aren't excited to shoot someone. Personally, I avoid most places where the likelihood of having to is elevated....(ie; cities at night, or in bars full of drunken fools and in parts of cities that are known for lots of criminal activity. I just don't go there.

But that doesn't diminish my normal situational awareness, nor my willingness to pull the trigger if necessary, should I or friends or family be attacked.
I'm not going to wait until I'm on the ground, potentially having my head stoved in to present a gun and use it if the attack doesn't stop immediately.

Out numbered? The gun is coming out of the holster at the first sign of being surrounded and outnumbered and the first/closest one that continues to approach is going to meet his maker.
The use of force laws where I live don't coddle criminals and there is no duty to retreat.
Click to expand...
That’s all reasonable, especially given your age.
 
Uzi2 said:
Most rational people aren't excited to shoot someone. Personally, I avoid most places where the likelihood of having to is elevated....(ie; cities at night, or in bars full of drunken fools and in parts of cities that are known for lots of criminal activity. I just don't go there.

But that doesn't diminish my normal situational awareness, nor my willingness to pull the trigger if necessary, should I or friends or family be attacked.
I'm not going to wait until I'm on the ground, potentially having my head stoved in to present a gun and use it if the attack doesn't stop immediately.

Out numbered? The gun is coming out of the holster at the first sign of being surrounded and outnumbered and the first/closest one that continues to approach is going to meet his maker.
The use of force laws where I live don't coddle criminals and there is no duty to retreat.
Click to expand...
This state has people so brainwashed it’s disgusting. If someone’s taking you down isn’t cause for self defense I don’t know what is. There is literally no point in carrying a firearm in mass if people think this guy shouldn’t have defended himself. Not everyone is great with the hands. I know many friends that have never got into a fight. For people who didn’t fight a lot as a kid growing up, that can be a lot for them.
Just give more rights away mass citizens.
 
not new guy said:
Not all physical attacks are life threatening.
Click to expand...
But deadly force draws the line not at certain death but at significant risk of serious injuries.
not new guy said:
Was he actually getting his head bounced off the pavement or is this more 'coulda happened' stuff?
Click to expand...
What part of once the deadly force line is crossed the encounter is a deadly force one until the attack stops.
The tackle from the rear highly likely to legally be seen as deadly force rising to certain if the vet has any documented frailty (service related injury)
So all of the victim blaming BS of should have been able to grapple his way out of it.
Proportional is binary - once the attack goes deadly, the defender can go to whatever deadly force he has in his possession that minimizes risk of further injuries
 
Dench said:
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.
Click to expand...
You have training and experience.
You don't think you could kill someone if you had the upper hand on the ground ?
Be honest.
Pros have died in the ring.
 
not new guy said:
I must have said it a hundred times in this thread, but I think the legal standard is the wrong way to think about a situation like this. The guy may win in court (and that remains to be seen), but if he didn’t shoot the guy he’d have finished with a few scrapes and his only trip to court would have been as a plaintiff going after that guy for assault.

I guess I’ll take my like back. [laugh]
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with your premise, but 'legally', crazy dude ran up and took him down.

I gave a like for the like :P.
 
pastera said:
But deadly force draws the line not at certain death but at significant risk of serious injuries.

What part of once the deadly force line is crossed the encounter is a deadly force one until the attack stops.
The tackle from the rear highly likely to legally be seen as deadly force rising to certain if the vet has any documented frailty (service related injury)
So all of the victim blaming BS of should have been able to grapple his way out of it.
Proportional is binary - once the attack goes deadly, the defender can go to whatever deadly force he has in his possession that minimizes risk of further injuries
Click to expand...

I guess the question is whether the jury will see the attack like a lot of you guys in here are seeing it.

weekendracer said:
I don't disagree with your premise, but 'legally', crazy dude ran up and took him down.
Click to expand...

We agree on that. I expect the shooter isn’t out of the legal woods yet in this one though, unfortunately. It will be interesting to see how things end up for him once the dust settles.
 
Sparky1911 said:
This state has people so brainwashed it’s disgusting. If someone’s taking you down isn’t cause for self defense I don’t know what is. There is literally no point in carrying a firearm in mass if people think this guy shouldn’t have defended himself.
Click to expand...

The law requires some degree of proportionality in defending one’s self. A shove doesn’t mean you can shoot them. Does a punch? Does a tackle? All sorts of other details come into play. The concrete. The shit everyone was saying. The two other adult men on the shooter’s side who jumped right in. The shooter’s social media posts about his gun. It’s not always clear cut.
 
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...
In Ma. you'd be f*cked if the guy ran across the street with an ax over he head screaming "I'm going to kill you".
Look at how they messed up that kid for shooting the maniac in the act of stabbing that doctor.
Even though he wasn't criminally charged they went out of their way to put him through the wringer and mess up his life.
He saved someone's life no question .
He paid the Ma. price.
You can't win here , but you can live if you chose to do so.
 
Garys said:
"If I knew I was going to need a gun to go there, I wouldn't go there."
Click to expand...
I don't think you could say that. I was about to go somewhere 3 minutes from my house in a low crime rural area. I went back into my house grab my gun and then went on my way. I was thinking I don't need a gun but I couldn't go without taking it.
 
not new guy said:
The law requires some degree of proportionality in defending one’s self. A shove doesn’t mean you can shoot them. Does a punch? Does a tackle? All sorts of other details come into play. The concrete. The shit everyone was saying. The two other adult men on the shooter’s side who jumped right in. The shooter’s social media posts about his gun. It’s not always clear cut.
Click to expand...
I've never seen a 'proportionality' clause. Either the action can 'reasonably' do the damage or not.

It's not mentioned in any of the SCOTUS rulings I'm aware of. That thinking dates back to when the Use of Force was on a ladder type system, you could 'legally' be one step above your assailant and be OK. That's simply not the case any longer. It was still kinda being taught 20 years ago, we had to unlearn some aspects of it as my career progressed.
 
not new guy said:
The law requires some degree of proportionality in defending one’s self. A shove doesn’t mean you can shoot them. Does a punch? Does a tackle? All sorts of other details come into play. The concrete. The shit everyone was saying. The two other adult men on the shooter’s side who jumped right in. The shooter’s social media posts about his gun. It’s not always clear cut.
Click to expand...
You’re 100% right. There are a lot of things at play and nothing in life is clear cut.
Except in this situation the incident is on video from multiple angles.
A man runs and violently tackles another man who is half turned. The man wasn’t even confronting the attacker. It was the woman. He took his anger out on the poor random unsuspecting guy.
Then tries to choke him.
I get we all have diff opinions but this seems pretty clear cut.
On top of that, the guy happens to be carrying. What if the perp knocked him out and got his gun. Would not have been hard seeing he sucker tackles him. He was way off guard and had no clue. The pistol could have popped out on the tackle alone if not proper holster.
I don’t understand how you even play the devils advocate on this one. There’s always gotta be one or two here. 🤣
 
Sparky1911 said:
You’re 100% right. There are a lot of things at play and nothing in life is clear cut.
Except in this situation the incident is on video from multiple angles.
A man runs and violently tackles another man who is half turned. The man wasn’t even confronting the attacker. It was the woman. He took his anger out on the poor random unsuspecting guy.
Then tries to choke him.
I get we all have diff opinions but this seems pretty clear cut.
On top of that, the guy happens to be carrying. What if the perp knocked him out and got his gun. Would not have been hard seeing he sucker tackles him. He was way off guard and had no clue. The pistol could have popped out on the tackle alone if not proper holster.
I don’t understand how you even play the devils advocate on this one. There’s always gotta be one or two here. 🤣
Click to expand...

So why did they arrest the guy, dumbass? Why’d they charge him?
 
not new guy said:
The law requires some degree of proportionality in defending one’s self. A shove doesn’t mean you can shoot them. Does a punch? Does a tackle? All sorts of other details come into play. The concrete. The shit everyone was saying. The two other adult men on the shooter’s side who jumped right in. The shooter’s social media posts about his gun. It’s not always clear cut.
Click to expand...

Cite the law.
Never heard of such a thing.
 

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
Shooting reported at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin: Police
3 4 5
Replies
143
Views
4K
HARRYM
HARRYM
Overheard at the airport
4 5 6
Replies
154
Views
3K
dcmdon
dcmdon
.223 Words of Advice?
3 4 5
Replies
126
Views
2K
dcmdon
dcmdon
Back
Top Bottom