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

[VigilantesLiberi]

Words are words.

There is a concept of "fighting words" in the laws I think. Some words are not protected.

 

[PappyM3]

Even in your own house.

That is not true. “Only” in public

 

[M1911]

you still refuse to accept that there is an actual war going on, and this all is coming here as well? it may get a bit difficult to stand aside from this one.

There are always wars going on somewhere in the world. At the moment there are around 50 wars in progress.

 

[not new guy]

That is not true. “Only” in public

I think there may actually be case law out there saying that just being inside your house doesn't necessarily satisfy the duty to retreat. It's been years, but it was something to the effect of if you have an opportunity to retreat further - to some other safe or hidden place inside your house - you have an obligation to take that action first.

Found this in what I think are a set of MA jury instructions:

5. The “castle rule”: retreat not required in dwelling. A person lawfully occupying a house, apartment or other dwelling is not required to retreat from or use other means to avoid combat with an unlawful intruder, if two circumstances exist: First, the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder is about to inflict great bodily injury or death on him (her) or on another person lawfully in the dwelling; and Second, the occupant uses only reasonable means to defend himself (herself) or the other person lawfully in the dwelling. A “dwelling” is a place where a person lives; a place where one is “temporarily or permanently residing and which is in [one’s] exclusive possession.” The term includes all buildings or parts of buildings used as dwellings, including (apartment houses) (tenement houses) (hotels) (boarding houses) (dormitories) (hospitals) (institutions) (sanitoriums) (or) (other buildings where people reside). The term “dwelling” does not extend to common areas such as common hallways in an apartment building. In multiunit housing, the “dwelling” only extends to areas over which the person has a right of exclusive control. The Commonwealth may prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense in a dwelling by proving beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that (the premises were not a dwelling) (or) (the defendant was not a lawful occupant of the premises) (or) (the alleged victim was not an unlawful intruder) (or) (the defendant did not reasonably believe that the alleged victim was about to inflict great bodily injury or death on him (her) or on another person lawfully in the dwelling) (or) (the defendant used clearly excessive force to defend himself (herself) or the other person lawfully in the dwelling); and Second, that the defendant resorted to force without using avenues of escape that were reasonably available and which would not have exposed the defendant to further danger.

I realize there's an "and" in there, but when it was being taught I distinctly remember being shocked that a MA court had poked such a big hole in the castle doctrine. Maybe I'm not remembering it correctly.

 

[Sunny]

There is a concept of "fighting words" in the laws I think. Some words are not protected.

Correct. Even if "verbal assault" applied, I doubt any judge/jury would agree that responding with physical assault is justified.

 

[VigilantesLiberi]

I think there may actually be case law out there saying that just being inside your house doesn't necessarily satisfy the duty to retreat. It's been years, but it was something to the effect of if you have an opportunity to retreat further - to some other safe or hidden place inside your house - you have an obligation to take that action first.

I think the perp has to physically enter your dwelling before you can shoot them. Begs the question, can I shoot him if he points a gun at my house from the outside?

 

[VigilantesLiberi]

Correct. Even if "verbal assault" applied, I doubt any judge/jury would agree that responding with physical assault is justified.

Let's just hope the judge is a Jew.

 

[paul73]

I think the perp has to physically enter your dwelling before you can shoot them. Begs the question, can I shoot him if he points a gun at my house from the outside?

you can shoot him inside or outside.
you will be prosecuted all the same. the DAs that rule the world now will not care. anyone who still refuses to understand that is just ignoring the reality.
it is not about the ideal of what is written in the law, it is about the lawmen who execute the law.

 

[PappyM3]

I think there may actually be case law out there saying that just being inside your house doesn't necessarily satisfy the duty to retreat. It's been years, but it was something to the effect of if you have an opportunity to retreat further - to some other safe or hidden place inside your house - you have an obligation to take that action first.

It appears MA is conflicted. They say very explicitly there is no duty to retreat in a dwelling. But then says it may not be self defense if you don’t use avenues of escape that don’t put others in danger.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/xm/9260-defenses-self-defense.pdf

 

[paul73]

Massachusetts own self defense jury instructions are pretty clear about no duty to retreat in a dwelling

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/xm/9260-defenses-self-defense.pdf

you do realize, those those 2 things below can be rendered to any extreme necessary, and any facts and common sense can be safely ignored?
the stretch of what is 'reasonable' to indoctrinated people is infinite.
-------
Second, that the defendant did not do everything reasonable in the circumstances to avoid physical combat before resorting to force;
OR
Third, that the defendant used more force to defend himself (herself)than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances

 

[M1911]

You'd be fun on a rape trial. "oh well she was wearing a skimpy outfit and got drunk at night with some bad guys".

I’m talking about self defense law. You really need to understand it if you carry a gun. I believe that you are uneducated about self defense law in the US. Read this book:

Amazon.com

You don’t have to like or agree with the law, but you had better understand it.

How do you know? There's plenty of video to suggest otherwise. I gave a hypothetical assuming the shooter was a government official. Would the charges still apply?

And I responded, but you ignore it. A cop is unlikely to respond with deadly force against a single, unarmed individual. Normally they would respond with a force continuum, starting with unarmed defense, maybe a baton strike, etc. Police are often given more leeway that private citizens — that’s not right but that is reality, so act accordingly.

Words are words. Assault is assault. If you're saying words justify a physical attack, there would be a lot more DVs happening.

I never said or implied that words justify a physical attack. The reality is that if you are in a deadly force encounter you will be much more likely to prevail in the courtroom if you are blameless, if you did everything possible to avoid and deescalate the fight. If your words and actions helped precipitate the fight, then the judge might rule that the fight was mutual combat and disallow your claim of self defense. You don’t have to like that fact or agree with it, but you had better understand it and act accordingly.

What words were exchanged prior to the fight in this case? I don’t know, but I’m sure that will be investigated by the DA.

 

[Sunny]

Let's just hope the judge is a Jew.

You know, I'm not even sure that makes a difference at this point. I've seen too many Jews throw their own community under the bus in favor of the democrat agenda.

 

[not new guy]

It appears MA is conflicted. They say very explicitly there is no duty to retreat in a dwelling. But then says it may not be self defense if you don’t use avenues of escape that don’t put others in danger.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/xm/9260-defenses-self-defense.pdf

Sorry, I updated my post above to highlight the last paragraph or so of Section 5, talking about avenues of escape. And noting that I may not have remembered the case correctly...

 

[VigilantesLiberi]

1. make sure the perp dies
2. make sure he's inside the house when that happens
3. make sure you were at most 22ft away when you shot him
4. "He was screaming he was going to rape us, he had an aggressive stance and I saw him pointing a gun at me"

 

[M1911]

you can shoot him inside or outside.
you will be prosecuted all the same. the DAs that rule the world now will not care. anyone who still refuses to understand that is just ignoring the reality.
it is not about the ideal of what is written in the law, it is about the lawmen who execute the law.

Not necessarily. There was a case in Arlington some years back where an unarmed drunk man broke into a woman’s home. She confronted him with a gun and told him to leave. He advanced towards her and she shot him in the neck. She was not prosecuted.

Sadly, the perp survived.

 

[10mmdave]

Massachusetts military veteran shoots pro-Palestine agitator

Scott Hayes, 47, has been charged after the individual was left with 'life-threatening injuries' following the altercation in the Boston suburb of Newton on Thursday.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[VigilantesLiberi]

You know, I'm not even sure that makes a difference at this point. I've seen too many Jews throw their own community under the bus in favor of the democrat agenda.

I considered that, but at the same time this would mean giving up their own rights to bear arms. They all have legal guns and got their LTC, it's newton jews, not NH hillbillies. Plus, we all know no one hates muslims more than jews, especially pro-palestinians these days. YOU NEVER KNOW WITH THE JEWS LOL

 

[VigilantesLiberi]

Massachusetts military veteran shoots pro-Palestine agitator

Scott Hayes, 47, has been charged after the individual was left with 'life-threatening injuries' following the altercation in the Boston suburb of Newton on Thursday.

www.dailymail.co.uk

look at all those medical pads they wasted!

 

[NHAtHeart]

The law only allows the use of deadly force if an innocent person is in imminent danger of death or grave bodily injury, and, if outside the home, the defendant must retreat if it is safe to do so. The key questions in this incident, as in all such self-defense cases are as follows:

1) Was the shooter innocent or did his actions help precipitate the encounter?
2) Was the shooter in danger of death or grave bodily injury?
3) Did the shooter have a viable route to retreat?

I think you are mistaken if you think this was a clear cut case of self defense. It does not appear to me to be clear cut at all:

1) This incident was preceded by an argument, so the state may argue that the defendant helped precipitate the conflict.
2) It is hard to argue that one unarmed man attacking three men rises to the level of danger of death or grave bodily injury.
3) It appears that neither the shooter nor any of the other two made any attempt to retreat.

Again, I have no sympathy for ponytail boy. But I predict that the shooter will be tried and convicted and that conviction will stand up in court.

You know the saying stay away from stupid people, stupid places, and stupid things? A protest like this qualifies as at least two of those. I suggest that you stay away from such protests, no matter where your views lie.

1. There was no evidence in the video that the shooter escalated, other people were yelling but I didn't see any proof the shooter escalated.
2. Yes, being tackled to the ground and slammed into the concrete with a large man on top of you could easily cause death or grave injury, there are dozens of example cases of this that would justify it.
3. The shooter didn't fire until he was on the ground pinned unable to retreat, he didn't shoot the guy as he crossed the street, he shot him when he was on top punching him, there was no route to retreat when you're pinned to the ground.

Yes, there were 3 guys there, however, would you trust your life hoping your buddies will protect you before the crazy guy stabs you or cuts your throat?

 

[freddieMA]

The law only allows the use of deadly force if an innocent person is in imminent danger of death or grave bodily injury, and, if outside the home, the defendant must retreat if it is safe to do so. The key questions in this incident, as in all such self-defense cases are as follows:

1) Was the shooter innocent or did his actions help precipitate the encounter?
2) Was the shooter in danger of death or grave bodily injury?
3) Did the shooter have a viable route to retreat?

I think you are mistaken if you think this was a clear cut case of self defense. It does not appear to me to be clear cut at all:

1) This incident was preceded by an argument, so the state may argue that the defendant helped precipitate the conflict.
2) It is hard to argue that one unarmed man attacking three men rises to the level of danger of death or grave bodily injury.
3) It appears that neither the shooter nor any of the other two made any attempt to retreat.

Again, I have no sympathy for ponytail boy. But I predict that the shooter will be tried and convicted and that conviction will stand up in court.

You know the saying stay away from stupid people, stupid places, and stupid things? A protest like this qualifies as at least two of those. I suggest that you stay away from such protests, no matter where your views lie.

"the incident was preceded by an argument"

that's protected 1A behavior on both sides, correct?

mere words are not an assault

 

[paul73]

would you trust your life hoping your buddies will protect you before the crazy guy stabs you or cuts your throat?

a palestinian charging you is not doing it in order to hug you. people here are just as ignorant as they ever were, and still think this war is not about them or their life.

it will take a bit more time to understand of how to react. just wait for a bit more of your own kids to get stabbed and murdered by those who's 'constitutional rights' your precious DAs are now protecting so carefully. but, whatever. time usually sorts most things out, one way or another. may be it will be a sharia law here soon, who knows. such things are difficult to predict.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Here is the actual text of MGL C. 278 S. 8A

General Law - Part IV, Title II, Chapter 278, Section 8A

malegislature.gov

"Section 8A: Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling."

 

[paul73]

There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling."

it is a direct opposite of the practical meaning of the jury instruction below.

"Second, that the defendant did not do everything reasonable in the circumstances to avoid physical combat before resorting to force;"

'everything reasonable .. to avoid combat' literally means to run away from your own house.

 

[M1911]

"the incident was preceded by an argument"

that's protected 1A behavior on both sides, correct?

mere words are not an assault

Consider two scenarios:

A) You are in a bar, a guy bumps into you, spilling your drink. You turn around and yell at him “watch where you are going you f***ing a**h***!” He yells back. The screaming match continues. He pushes you, you push him, and eventually you pull a gun and shoot him.

B) You are in a bar, a guy bumps into you, spilling your drink. You turn around and say “excuse me”. He yells at you. You raise your hands defensively and calmly say “hey man, I don’t want any trouble, let me buy you a beer.” He throws a punch and eventually you shoot him.

The defendant in scenario B is in a stronger position than the defendant in scenario A because his words and actions didn’t help to precipitate the fight.

 

[M1911]

Yes, there were 3 guys there, however, would you trust your life hoping your buddies will protect you before the crazy guy stabs you or cuts your throat?

There was no evidence that the perp had a knife. You can’t shoot someone because they might have a knife and might stab you. The deadly threat must be immediate not speculative.

 

[M1911]

In evaluating this situation you need to clearly differentiate between right and wrong versus legal and illegal. Some of you are mixing up the two. I’m not making arguments about right or wrong or about what I think the law should be. I’m trying to explain what I believe to law to be, not what I want the law to be.

In most states, there are very few situations where you can legally use deadly force. In most situations against an unarmed attacker it will be hard to legally justify responding with deadly force. Note that I said “most” not “all”.

 

[Sunny]

A) You are in a bar, a guy bumps into you, spilling your drink. You turn around and yell at him “watch where you are going you f***ing a**h***!” He yells back. The screaming match continues. He pushes you, you push him, and eventually you pull a gun and shoot him.

There's your precipitation. It could've been a screaming match until kingdom come, but once the battery was introduced, it's a different ballgame.

And when you say "eventually you pull a gun..", you're leaving a lot out. After the pushing, was there an element of inescapable grave danger brought upon him, or did he just decide to pop him because he smudged his puma? This is what Hayes' defense will rely on.

 

[pupchow]

re: defense in home

Wow, I missed this one.

No Charges For Man, 73, Who Fought Intruder In Western Mass Home Who Later Died

A 73-year-old will not face charges after he got into an altercation with a man at his home in Berkshire County in February, authorities announced on Tuesday, June 27. The unnamed man told investigators he saw a stranger walking up hi…

dailyvoice.com

The unnamed man told investigators he saw a stranger walking up his driveway and break into his Adams home while he was parked down the street, the Berkshire County District Attorney said in a news release.

The man grabbed a small souvenir bat and went into the home and found Mark Bednarz attempting to drill into his gun safe, the prosecutor said.

“Despite being armed with the small bat, the homeowner decided not to hit Mr. Bednarz,” the Berkshire District Attorney’s office said. “However, the presence of the homeowner in the room startled Mr. Bednarz, prompting Mr. Bednarz to threaten the homeowner with the power drill he was using.”

A fight broke out between the two, with the men using the bat, power drill, and soup can as weapons until the 73-year-old restrained Bednarz.


=========================

THIS is the one I was looking for:

Wilbraham condo owner faces no charges after shooting and killing neighbor

Police said the shooting death of David P. Gatti appears to be in self defense.

www.masslive.com

Police Chief Stratton said Gatti did not have a weapon and never laid his hands on the condo owner. The owner described him as yelling and gesturing in such a way that he felt threatened.

The resident told police he retreated into the condo and armed himself, and when Gatti reportedly followed him, he opened fire, police said.

Stratton said the initial investigation so far indicates the "control, possession and use of the firearm was defensive in nature and consistent with Massachusetts General Laws."

Hampden County District Attorney William M. Bennett said his office will review the circumstances but it appears the shooting is justified within state law.

"We do not plan to bring charges at this time," Bennett said. The focus of the investigation will be the application of state laws regarding self defense, in particular Chapter 278, Section 8A: "Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense," he said.

The law allows a resident to use deadly force against an intruder providing two criteria are met: The resident has to be inside his own dwelling, and the resident has to have "a reasonable belief" that the intruder is "about to inflict great bodily injury or death."

Bennett said there is no question the first criterion applies; the shooting took place inside the man's home. The question is whether the resident had legitimate reason to be afraid of injury or death.

 

[M1911]

There's your precipitation. It could've been a screaming match until kingdom come, but once the battery was introduced, it's a different ballgame.

If you get into a deadly force encounter, everything you did and everything you said prior to the use of deadly force will be reviewed. If your actions helped precipitate the violent encounter the judge may rule that it was mutual combat not self defense. You need to be seen as the innocent party, not as one of two belligerents who got into a fight and then pulled a gun.

 

[LuvDog]

Just because ponytail didn't have a knife that doesn't mean the vet wasn't in fear for his life and could have been killed. A couple of head bashes against the concrete or a knee to the neck could have killed him.

How was he supposed to retreat when he was pinned to the ground.

Anyway you look at is he was the victim of A&B.