Sedalia Dave Posted September 13 Share Posted September 13 Pro-Israel veteran arrested in Massachusetts after shooting pro-Palestine assailant that instigated the fight. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474 Posted September 13 Share Posted September 13 (edited) Sounds like something that would happen in Canada. Get attacked, defend yourself only to get arrested and charged. Edited September 13 by Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sedalia Dave Posted September 13 Author Share Posted September 13 You can see video of the incident here. JMNSHO Pretty cut and dried case of self defense. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted September 13 Share Posted September 13 The pro-mohammedean Einsatzgruppen thug should be charged with many of the same things. Assault and battery, violation of his victims civil rights, hate speech. 1 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 Posted September 13 Share Posted September 13 Joe, Joe, Joe.....when will you West coast guys learn? This is Massachusetts. Most semi auto long guns are illegal or banned; every sale of a gun must be reported to the State via a government web site; and self-defense does not exist until a lower court is forced to accept it on appeal from a conviction. No surprises in this story. However local press reports that defendant's supporters have already raised over $100K for his defense; it's fairly certain that there will be a trial and an appeal, and a ton of press coverage. LL 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rye Miles #13621 Posted September 13 Share Posted September 13 1 hour ago, Sedalia Dave said: You can see video of the incident here. JMNSHO Pretty cut and dried case of self defense. It sure does! He was tackled and didn’t know what that guy had on him. On another note that woman screaming is really annoying 🙄 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eyesa Horg Posted September 13 Share Posted September 13 6 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said: On another note that woman screaming is really annoying 🙄 Somebody should've shoved a tennis ball in her annoying mouth. 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kloehr Posted September 13 Share Posted September 13 I predict a future plea bargain for bringing a firearm to a demonstration. That it saved the guy's life would not be of constitutional relevance until appeals levels. But a plea bargain generally prohibits appeals. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rip Snorter Posted September 13 Share Posted September 13 If I had dropped the POS with empty hand Martial Arts skills, in a blue state I would still be screwed. Ex Marine vs. habitual offender, NYC Subway. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kloehr Posted September 13 Share Posted September 13 From: https://apnews.com/article/newton-massachusetts-israel-rally-shooting-70e2fe06dd6fdd88ace2e47fe2b30f81 "Prosecutors also told the court that an application for a criminal complaint has been applied for against the individual who was shot. They said they opted for an application for a criminal complaint instead of an arrest because the alleged assault and battery was not committed in the presence of a police officers." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eyesa Horg Posted September 13 Share Posted September 13 The little worm probably wouldn't of attacked the guy if there was LE on site. The video looked pretty much self defense to me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sedalia Dave Posted September 13 Author Share Posted September 13 2 hours ago, John Kloehr said: I predict a future plea bargain for bringing a firearm to a demonstration. That it saved the guy's life would not be of constitutional relevance until appeals levels. But a plea bargain generally prohibits appeals. Problem with taking a plea bargain is he'll lose his God given right to own firearms. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 5 hours ago, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said: Joe, Joe, Joe.....when will you West coast guys learn? This is Massachusetts. Most semi auto long guns are illegal or banned; every sale of a gun must be reported to the State via a government web site; and self-defense does not exist until a lower court is forced to accept it on appeal from a conviction. No surprises in this story. However local press reports that defendant's supporters have already raised over $100K for his defense; it's fairly certain that there will be a trial and an appeal, and a ton of press coverage. LL In California almost all carry outside the home is illegal. You might be able to beg a CCW, but Emperor Norton....um....Newsom...and his Sacramento Reichtag have declared almost every public space a sensitive area in which carry is banned. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Moses Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 11 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said: Pro-Israel veteran arrested in Massachusetts after shooting pro-Palestine assailant that instigated the fight. Thanks for the news Sedalia. Very sad where the world and the US is getting. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Jack Black Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 (edited) You think using deadly force is justified for this incident? explain why. The gun owner also escalated the altercation he could have kept quiet. He did not . I am no lawyer but he is going to be slapped around and convicted. SAD Edited September 14 by Texas Jack Black 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 44 minutes ago, Texas Jack Black said: You think using deadly force is justified for this incident? explain why. The gun owner also escalated the altercation he could have kept quiet. He did not . I am no lawyer but he is going to be slapped around and convicted. SAD So what if he didn't keep quiet? Words are not violence. He made no threats. He made no attempt to attack the thug. The thug had to sprint across traffic to attack him, and took him to the ground. Reasonable belief of threat to his life. 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackwater 53393 Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 The denial of his First Amendment rights by the guy who attacked him is a crime! The physical assault by the attacker is also a crime! The man defended himself! That is NOT a crime! The right to do so is a Constitutionally guaranteed right set out in the body of the Constitution itself as well as in various Constitutional Amendments!! The man who was attacked was in legal possession of his firearm and only employed it after being physically assaulted!! The only laws he might have violated are those that are passed by local legislators and are, quite probably, unconstitutional!! Finally!! The man who was attacked had every reason to believe that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury! YES, TJB, he had EVERY RIGHT to use deadly force!!! 3 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sedalia Dave Posted September 14 Author Share Posted September 14 The reporters called it a head lock. I call it a choke hold. Well proven that it can be fatal. In most jurisdictions, law enforcement is banned from using it. So heck yes the shooting is justifiable self defense. BTW Massachusetts specifically prohibits law enforcement from using it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Father Kit Cool Gun Garth Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Jack Black Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 1 hour ago, Subdeacon Joe said: So what if he didn't keep quiet? Words are not violence. He made no threats. He made no attempt to attack the thug. The thug had to sprint across traffic to attack him, and took him to the ground. Reasonable belief of threat to his life. It is called de escalation he escalated the altercation. Ask a few lawyers. You cannot provoke an attack then say NOPE NOT MY FAULT 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Joker Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 11 minutes ago, Texas Jack Black said: It is called de escalation he escalated the altercation. Ask a few lawyers. You cannot provoke an attack then say NOPE NOT MY FAULT Exercising first amendment rights. A man across the street yells something, and because he doesn't like my answer he bum rushes me THROUGH traffic and I escalated the conflict? So in this world if a guy breaks into my house and I confront him I'm the one to blame for escalation? 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackwater 53393 Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 He was part of a peaceful, (NO, REALLY!!) demonstration that had the approval of local authorities. The attacker was free to say anything he wanted to, but had ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to cross a busy thoroughfare and put his hands on the man!! At the point where he placed the man in the chokehold, (and even before) HE was the offender and abrogated any right to legal protection for his actions! 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlands Bob #61228 Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 The police's first reaction is to lock up the person who pulled the trigger until the investigation is completed. I would seriously consider collecting up my pistol and leaving after making sure someone called for an ambulance. Go visit a friend in another state and contact an attorney to handle any police inquires. It would take a good deal of judicial review before issuing a warrant and extradition paperwork to get arrested. The attorney can also negotiate bond and a specific time to turn myself in if necessary. I think I'll just sit somewhere besides jail while they do the investigation. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 1 hour ago, Texas Jack Black said: It is called de escalation he escalated the altercation. Ask a few lawyers. You cannot provoke an attack then say NOPE NOT MY FAULT Nope. The thug is the only one who escalated anything. HE could have kept his support of the mohammedean Einsatzgruppen to himself. HE could have not charged across the street with intention to harm someone. HE could have chosen to not tackle the victim. You are arguing that if you say anything that someone else doesn't like they have the right to physically attack you and you have no right to defend yourself in any way. 3 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Jack Black Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 1 hour ago, Blackwater 53393 said: He was part of a peaceful, (NO, REALLY!!) demonstration that had the approval of local authorities. The attacker was free to say anything he wanted to, but had ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to cross a busy thoroughfare and put his hands on the man!! At the point where he placed the man in the chokehold, (and even before) HE was the offender and abrogated any right to legal protection for his actions! Not in all states 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Jack Black Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 32 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said: Nope. The thug is the only one who escalated anything. HE could have kept his support of the mohammedean Einsatzgruppen to himself. HE could have not charged across the street with intention to harm someone. HE could have chosen to not tackle the victim. You are arguing that if you say anything that someone else doesn't like they have the right to physically attack you and you have no right to defend yourself in any way. I am saying in some states you are required to try and de escalate. Sad to say but the shooter continued to provoke the attacker. Let a lawyer chime in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Jack Black Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 35 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said: Nope. The thug is the only one who escalated anything. HE could have kept his support of the mohammedean Einsatzgruppen to himself. HE could have not charged across the street with intention to harm someone. HE could have chosen to not tackle the victim. You are arguing that if you say anything that someone else doesn't like they have the right to physically attack you and you have no right to defend yourself in any way. You live in Cal. and know what would happen. Best Wishes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Jack Black Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 36 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said: Nope. The thug is the only one who escalated anything. HE could have kept his support of the mohammedean Einsatzgruppen to himself. HE could have not charged across the street with intention to harm someone. HE could have chosen to not tackle the victim. You are arguing that if you say anything that someone else doesn't like they have the right to physically attack you and you have no right to defend yourself in any way. The thug only ran across the street after the shooter escalated . Both could have stopped they chose to escalate and both will be prosecuted. This is a slam dunk case. Let us watch how this turns out. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eyesa Horg Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 7 minutes ago, Texas Jack Black said: I am saying in some states you are required to try and de escalate. Sad to say but the shooter continued to provoke the attacker. Let a lawyer chime in Just curious how one de escalates after being tackled and put in a choke hold. I say the victim did de escalate, he shot the thug in self defense. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Jack Black Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 (edited) Called verbal escalation. Shooter knows he has a weapon and did not show restraint. I end this as we all really know that as gun owners and if we carry we need not to provoke or cause a situation that could cause a situation that deadly force could be used. Best Wishes Edited September 14 by Texas Jack Black Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 WOW! Three responses within two minutes! Musta hit a nerve. And again arguing that one may not respond in any way when attacked. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 5 hours ago, Texas Jack Black said: You think using deadly force is justified for this incident? explain why. The gun owner also escalated the altercation he could have kept quiet. He did not . I am no lawyer but he is going to be slapped around and convicted. SAD The man who got shot initiated the situation. The protesters do not appear to be engaging in any violence whatsoever, but the attacker chose to attack the victim by crossing a busy street and assaulting the victim by physically tackling him and knocking him down and continuing to fight....in front of many witnesses and on at least one video.... even after he (the the attacker) was shot. HOW IN HELL CAN ANYONE SAY IT WAS NOT SELF DEFENSE! Such an argument is stupid beyond imagination! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackwater 53393 Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 58 minutes ago, Texas Jack Black said: The thug only ran across the street after the shooter escalated . Both could have stopped they chose to escalate and both will be prosecuted. This is a slam dunk case. Let us watch how this turns out. The thug had every right to cross the street. He was blatantly STUPID to do so, BUT he had no right to put his hands on the protester, NO MATTER WHAT HE SAID! ONLY the guy who crossed the street did anything wrong! He put his hands on the protester with the intention of doing harm!!! As I said in a previous post, the man who was attacked has/had a Constitutional Right to defend himself and, (not counting any local statutes that we know are NOT CONSTITUTIONAL) when in fear of serious bodily injury or possible death, was absolutely within his rights to use deadly force!! If he’d broken the guys arm, leg, or even his neck with his bare hands in defense of his person, he’d have been no more or less within his rights to do so. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Jack Black Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 1 hour ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said: The man who got shot initiated the situation. The protesters do not appear to be engaging in any violence whatsoever, but the attacker chose to attack the victim by crossing a busy street and assaulting the victim by physically tackling him and knocking him down and continuing to fight....in front of many witnesses and on at least one video.... even after he (the the attacker) was shot. HOW IN HELL CAN ANYONE SAY IT WAS NOT SELF DEFENSE! Such an argument is stupid beyond imagination! Read the Mass Laws. Best Wishes 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Jack Black Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 1 hour ago, Blackwater 53393 said: The thug had every right to cross the street. He was blatantly STUPID to do so, BUT he had no right to put his hands on the protester, NO MATTER WHAT HE SAID! ONLY the guy who crossed the street did anything wrong! He put his hands on the protester with the intention of doing harm!!! As I said in a previous post, the man who was attacked has/had a Constitutional Right to defend himself and, (not counting any local statutes that we know are NOT CONSTITUTIONAL) when in fear of serious bodily injury or possible death, was absolutely within his rights to use deadly force!! If he’d broken the guys arm, leg, or even his neck with his bare hands in defense of his person, he’d have been no more or less within his rights to do so. Only matters what the laws are in Mass. What we think makes no difference. Read the Mass .laws and you may rethink your position 1 hour ago, Blackwater 53393 said: The thug had every right to cross the street. He was blatantly STUPID to do so, BUT he had no right to put his hands on the protester, NO MATTER WHAT HE SAID! ONLY the guy who crossed the street did anything wrong! He put his hands on the protester with the intention of doing harm!!! As I said in a previous post, the man who was attacked has/had a Constitutional Right to defend himself and, (not counting any local statutes that we know are NOT CONSTITUTIONAL) when in fear of serious bodily injury or possible death, was absolutely within his rights to use deadly force!! If he’d broken the guys arm, leg, or even his neck with his bare hands in defense of his person, he’d have been no more or less within his rights to do so. Read Mass laws 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.