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

[pdm]

This reminds me of like that stupid broad in the McDonald's video where the dude was beating the ghetto chicks with the friolator rod I kind of wish he had taken that rod and gave the shrieking lady a couple of slaps too just to make her shut the f*** up....

It's endemic in the hoodrat PoliceActivity videos I love so much.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This has made the national news on multiple sites, includein GoFundMe Website Lifts Ban On Rittenhouse Fundraisers After Acquittal

Gofundme has a history of banning fundraisers for defendants that it does not like (for example, Rittenhouse - GoFundMe Website Lifts Ban On Rittenhouse Fundraisers After Acquittal). Hopefully, the defendant is able to get the money transferred from gofundme in chunks as it accumulates so the platform does not decide he is guilty and ban him from collecting the money.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

And that's why they do it - the one sided propensity to initiate violence makes their side look highly supported by the public because no one wants to be attacked or persecuted for self defense.

Just look at what religions cannot be criticized or disrespected in the media, and what religion successfully dictates editorial policies by using credible threats of violence.

 

[rogersmithiii]

Not clear who got hit, I'm assuming it was the guy who charged across the street to attack (now to be know as the perp).
In that case it's a clean shoot.

And listen to the perp, 200K Palestinians killed, even Hamas isn't pushing that high a number. guy is delusional.

Guy with the gun needs more practice.

They instantly arrested the shooter. God forbid someone should defend themselves.

This is why I avoid protests, marches, rallies, parades and the rest.

 

[drgrant]

Remember the case of the Westborough LTC holder. He was in his car and still got manslaughter in Worcester.

We still don't really have the true narrative on what happened during that case. The DA office was playing adept games of "hide the weenie" or similar when that whole thing was going down and there's obvious some other context to it that they didn't want to reveal to the public. The reasons for not coming out with facts may be legitimate or it might be a ram job on the defender.

 

[rogersmithiii]

Police respond to report of shooting at pro-Israeli protest in Newton - Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News

Here’s the video

View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C_1r9HsqtzS/?igsh=dmNod2UzOXJiNTA4

So does the smell of soy come off of you if you tangle with one of these man bun dudes?

 

[M1911]

But Hayes would’ve been arrested if he used a knife as a defense, too.

Which is why a less lethal option like OC spray is a good option to have in some circumstances.

 

[rogersmithiii]

They will financially break him for daring to defend himself

It would have been much cheaper if the pro Israeli people stayed home that day.

 

[MAGA99]

From a Monday morning QB perspective though, I'd say the vet did everything right, he fired 1 shot to mitigate the threat, called off any additional attackers, rendered aid once the threat was neutralized and got the guy help as quickly as he could. Shit, even the po-po don't handle situations that well, they'll shoot a guy 12 times, then let him bleed out on the ground for 20mins waiting for EMS to get there.

He should have used the cops’ MO!

 

[M1911]

Of course, he didn't know that... and the attacked could have been pulling a knife to cut his throat or stab him in the heart, but I guess you have to be killed before you are allowed to fight back.

You can’t use deadly force because you speculate that at some time in the future you might be in danger of death or grave bodily injury. You have to be in danger of death or grave bodily injury right now.

 

[jkelly1229]

They instantly arrested the shooter. God forbid someone should defend themselves.

This is why I avoid protests, marches, rallies, parades and the rest.

Weird I thought your employer kinda made you guys go...incognito of course

 

[pastera]

Which is why a less lethal option like OC spray is a good option to have in some circumstances.

You don't go for less lethal against lethal unless you want to die or have a barrier that gives you time to switch.

 

[M1911]

I realize this is a different state but isn't this something like the Trayvon kid in Florida? Same situation with the attacker on top of the victim while on a solid surface.

In the Trayvon Martin assault, Martin had allegedly mounted Zimmerman and bashed the back of his head into the concrete sidewalk several times. Zimmerman had cuts and bruising on the back of his head consistent with his statement.

I watched this video and I certainly didn’t see ponytail mount the defender and bash his head into the sidewalk. I saw the two of them wrestling and rolling around, mostly on their sides, with neither having a significant advantage. The video isn’t great so maybe I just missed it, but it doesn’t appear to me that this attack is similar to the account of the Trayvon Martin incident.

 

[pastera]

You can’t use deadly force because you speculate that at some time in the future you might be in danger of death or grave bodily injury. You have to be in danger of death or grave bodily injury right now.

The guy was on top of him actively striking him - nothing to speculate, a punch to the head forcing your head into the concrete is objectively deadly force. And the situation presented objective reasonableness that a head strike was imminent.
You don't have to wait until after deadly force is used to respond - that force need only be imminent.

 

[M1911]

You don't go for less lethal against lethal unless you want to die or have a barrier that gives you time to switch.

If you immediately go for deadly force when faced with an attack that hasn’t risen to danger of death or grave bodily injury, then you are likely to be in a world of legal hurt.

 

[M1911]

The guy was on top of him actively striking him - nothing to speculate, a punch to the head forcing your head into the concrete is objectively deadly force. And the situation presented objective reasonableness that a head strike was imminent.
You don't have to wait until after deadly force is used to respond - that force need only be imminent.

That’s not what I saw in the video. What I saw in the video was mostly the two of them on their sides.

 

[jkelly1229]

You can’t use deadly force because you speculate that at some time in the future you might be in danger of death or grave bodily injury. You have to be in danger of death or grave bodily injury right now.

To be in danger you need

A notarized note from your assailant stating he wants to kill you

Must be actively trying to kill you with a weapon.. but the weapon must be a cool one... battleaxe...broadsword... if its something lame like a hammer... the defendant is in trouble

He must have killed at least one other person while you watched...

He can't be a person of color

He must be a he

The defendant must have tried at least 3 fight moves from the matrix

the defendant can't be white..a productive member of society...or a gun owner.

Follow these easy steps and you too may be able to defend yourself in mass

 

[pastera]

If you immediately go for deadly force when faced with an attack that hasn’t risen to danger of death or grave bodily injury, then you are likely to be in a world of legal hurt.

Agree
But the vet was actively being attacked in a manner that could immediately become deadly.

 

[M1911]

They instantly arrested the shooter. God forbid someone should defend themselves.

You can defend yourself. But only in certain circumstances can you use deadly force to defend yourself. Those circumstances are more limited than many here think.

This is why I avoid protests, marches, rallies, parades and the rest.

Absolutely.

 

[M1911]

Agree
But the vet was actively being attacked

Yes, he was being attacked

in a manner that could immediately become deadly.

That is not clear to me.

Again, I despise pro-Hamas supporters and I despise men who attack the elderly in a seemingly unprovoked attack. It just isn’t clear to me that deadly force was legally justified in this case.

 

[pastera]

That’s not what I saw in the video. What I saw in the video was mostly the two of them on their sides.

Fat guy had at least side mount.
Vet went down like a sack with essentially no avoidance movements or bracing stance - instinctively we all either avoid or brace so it looked like the vet was unable to move fast enough even though he had some amount of warning.

I think the vet would have been better off giving soy pig a spicy treat as soon as he started running - which would be objectively lawful (the running was a clear assault).

But the vet wasn't required to use a means of defense that reduces harm to the perpetrator. He was required to use proportional force. And the gunshot from the bottom very likely is proportional if the vet has any level of physical disabilities.

 

[eboos]

For what its worth: it is not showing up on Mass courts yet.

 

[mav]

I'll just leave this right here...

 

[pastera]

Yes, he was being attacked

That is not clear to me.

Again, I despise pro-Hamas supporters and I despise men who attack the elderly in a seemingly unprovoked attack. It just isn’t clear to me that deadly force was legally justified in this case.

I guess you've never been jumped in a street fight - those situations easily leave people with lasting injuries or death. Especially older individuals.

At 55 if I'm tackled like that I'm going to be in serious hurt for an extended time if not permanently screwed from existing back and neck damage.
And I (think) look like I'm in a lot better condition than that vet.

 

[eboos]

Good question. We need @eboos to dig in.

Chapter 265, Section 37. No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with, or oppress or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth or by the constitution or laws of the United States. Any person convicted of violating this provision shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year or both; and if bodily injury results, shall be punished by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.

Moneys from the collection of a punishment by fine under this section shall be delivered forthwith to the treasurer of the commonwealth and deposited in the Genocide Education Trust Fund established in section 2MMMMM of chapter 29.

Congratulations City of Newton! This is absolutely the most retarded application of the law that I have ever seen. I am dying to hear the explanation of how a man who charged across the street and attacked another was a right or privilege secured to him by the constitution.

I will further commend the fine people of Newton by charging someone with a law that up to this point I had never even heard of.

 

[eboos]

What kind of unhinged motherf***er charges at people peacefully protesting?

Democrats

 

[william_munny]

I will further commend the fine people of Newton by charging someone with a law that up to this point I had never even heard of.

This is the thing that gets me. Toss that in quotes and do a Google search and you will literally only find stories about this incident. I feel like it's there because they're just trying to pad the arrest as much as possible, further illustrating how BS this situation is.

 

[eboos]

This is the thing that gets me. Toss that in quotes and do a Google search and you will literally only find stories about this incident. I feel like it's there because they're just trying to pad the arrest as much as possible, further illustrating how BS this situation is.

Yeah, a case citer book that I have has pretty much zero notes under this statute apart from "with injury" kicks final jurisdiction to superior court.

 

[eboos]

Charged as AB/DW. 2412CR000364 There is final jurisdiction in District Court (no Attempted Murder, Assault to Murder, or whatever that stupid crap that was in the news was).
Statement of facts not available yet.

My guess is this will not survive a motion.

 

[Garys]

In some, maybe many, places this would be no billed by a Grand Jury. MA and Middlesex County are NOT those places.

I fell bad for the shooter as it most likely was self defense. Even if he's acquitted, it's important to remember in places like MA the process is the punishment.