Road rage incident in Stoughton Lawful Gun owner defends himself

Some people just aren't happy if they don't have something to whine about.

"Police said they don't anticipate charging the driver of the other car." Jesus Christ on a birthday cake... if the "victim" was a cop he'd get 5 promotions and an all-expenses paid family vacation to Tahiti...
 
If there is no wrong doing and no charges are filled, can they?
They can easily play the suitability game if they want to be douchebags about it. If the cops involved don't arrest, charge or rat/whine about the LTC holder to his IA (assuming different town) he's probably not going to have a problem.
 
way, wat more to this than they are saying. i'd bet the farm that dude anh kieu knew all involved. we'll see.
 
Damn. This happened only blocks away from where I grew up. A good amount of my family still live in Stoughton.
 
wow, a guy that used his gun in MA, didn't get arrested and have his life ruined, Goes against a lot of the advice given in this forum
Hopefully he kept his f'n mouth shut to the cops.

They aren't on your side.
You aren't their buddy, guy.
Don't let your mouth talk you into a felony rap.
 
He didn’t get arrested…yet.

They will find something to trip this guy up.

To do less seriously conflicts with the states agenda of bans and confiscation.
Or?

They won’t charge him (because they know they can’t make it stick) and the media will simply let it die. Many people in MA will never hear anything about this.
 
Or?

They won’t charge him (because they know they can’t make it stick) and the media will simply let it die. Many people in MA will never hear anything about this.
And then he quietly loses his LTC and guns because of the lack of perceived suitability.

The powers that be always stack the deck in their own favor.
 
He was treated and released the same night, so was not serious. My thought was maybe flying glass.

It was interesting to hear it play out on the scanner.

Nothing to indicate that these guys knew each other. The driver of the pick up was at the wrong intersection at the wrong time. There are a lot of crashes at Plain and West because it's the intersection of two heavily travelled roads and doesn't have a four way stop.

Hope it was a gut shot. That way, he'll remember for a long time why he shouldn't play "badass" with a pellet gun.
 
A lot of people are projecting based on their damp undies. If there was anything to arrest him for, boh would have been arrested. My guess is the guy from Quincy is "known to the police" and has been arrested before.

wow, a guy that used his gun in MA, didn't get arrested and have his life ruined, Goes against a lot of the advice given in this forum
 
No. Remember, they're treading very lightly to try to avoid MA gun control going to court. And that includes suitability.
Suitability is ripe for a federal challenge now that gun ownership, and the right not to have subjective "need" applied to licensing is the law of the land.

I would speculate the questions presented to the court would be something like:
  • "Can an individual be denied a constitutional right because they have been found not guilty of a crime; had criminal charges dropped or resolved by a mechanism such as deferred adjudication that does not involve a conviction or loss of any other constitutional right"?

  • "Can heresay evidence be used in a judicial proceeding held to determine if an individual is to be stripped of a constitutional right?"

  • "Does an individual facing judicial action to determine if (s)he will be stripped of a constitutional right have access to discovery; identity of witnesses used against him/her; require actual witness testimony rather than written reports, and confront all witnesses against him (including the power to compel witness attendance)"
Those three currently common practices would be hard to justify given that was is being deprive is no longer an "administrative license to which the applicant has not right" but an actual constitutional right.

Much of the MA procedure is based on the now legally obsolete concept that there is no 2A right, so protections applied to constitutional rights exclude those recognized by the 2A. The wheels of change move slowly when those in power do not want them to move.
 
Suitability is ripe for a federal challenge now that gun ownership, and the right not to have subjective "need" applied to licensing is the law of the land.

I would speculate the questions presented to the court would be something like:
  • "Can an individual be denied a constitutional right because they have been found not guilty of a crime; had criminal charges dropped or resolved by a mechanism such as deferred adjudication that does not involve a conviction or loss of any other constitutional right"?

  • "Can heresay evidence be used in a judicial proceeding held to determine if an individual is to be stripped of a constitutional right?"

  • "Does an individual facing judicial action to determine if (s)he will be stripped of a constitutional right have access to discovery; identity of witnesses used against him/her; require actual witness testimony rather than written reports, and confront all witnesses against him (including the power to compel witness attendance)"
Those three currently common practices would be hard to justify given that was is being deprive is no longer an "administrative license to which the applicant has not right" but an actual constitutional right.

Much of the MA procedure is based on the now legally obsolete concept that there is no 2A right, so protections applied to constitutional rights exclude those recognized by the 2A. The wheels of change move slowly when those in power do not want them to move.

This is why "suitability," though it remains on the books, is a yawn to me until they try to apply it post-Bruen. My belief is that the state's career civil servants (as opposed to the elected blowhards) are far too clever to risk letting suitability make its way into court.
 
This is why "suitability," though it remains on the books, is a yawn to me until they try to apply it post-Bruen. My belief is that the state's career civil servants (as opposed to the elected blowhards) are far too clever to risk letting suitability make its way into court.
The decision is made by local police chiefs so there is no single "decider of policy". Some will not only use suitability and defend it in court, but file to the appellate court if needed. Reactions to the rare applicant win can range from immediate issue of the LTC to "this challenge to mah authoritah will not stand".

The current standard (sometimes ignored by licensing authorities who still think the entirety of Moyer is valid post-Bruen) is "dangerousness", however, nothing in that standard changes the MA position that the applicant is not entitled to discovery; may not confront witnesses; police reports are consider fact with no right to cross examine the writer of the report; heresay evidence is admissible; etc. It will probably take a federal court to sort out the due process issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom