Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Pro-Israel veteran arrested in Massachusetts after shooting pro-Palestine assailant that instigated the fight.


Sedalia Dave

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted

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. 

Posted

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

Posted
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 🙄

Posted
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.:ph34r:

Posted

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.

Posted

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.

Posted

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."

Posted

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. 

Posted
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.

Posted
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. 

Posted

 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 

Posted
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.

Posted

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!!!

 

 

 

 

 

Posted
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

Posted
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 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? 

Posted

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!

Posted

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.  

Posted
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. 

 

 

Posted
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

Posted
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

Posted
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

Posted
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. 

Posted
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.

Posted

 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

Posted

WOW!  Three responses within two minutes!  Musta hit a nerve.  And again arguing that one may not respond in any way when attacked.

Posted
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!

Posted
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.

Posted
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

Posted
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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.