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

[Texas Jack Black]

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

[Subdeacon Joe]

https://mylegalwriting.com/2019/05/22/do-offensive-remarks-justify-physical-retaliation/

 

https://jeremyhuss.com/use-of-physical-force-in-self-defense/

 

Physical Force is Not Justified in Response to Verbal Provocation

Words alone are not adequate provocation for use of physical force. It does not matter how much a person offends another, unless there is some threat or act of physical force, words are never adequate provocation. Rather, a “reasonable” person must believe physical force is immediately necessary. But, can’t another’s imminent threats support a belief that physical force is necessary? Indeed it can. However, as the statute clearly states, physical force is not justified “[i]n response to verbal provocation alone.” On the contrary, if threatening words accompany movements that could be construed as causing imminent harm, a person is justified in using physical force. But it is important to note, words alone are not adequate provocation to justify use of physical force.

 

 

[Blackwater 53393]

NO!!  I won’t rethink my position! I guarantee that a competent attorney will be able to successfully navigate the garbage statutes put up by any prosecutor!  
 

THE MAN WAS ATTACKED!! Physically assaulted by someone who had ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO DO SO!!

 

While it may be more difficult to present a defense in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, (and I’m fairly confident that it won’t be all that difficult) federal civil rights laws will eventually trump any of these lame statutes or the lack of proper ones.

 

 The man who charged across the street was never in any danger until he came charging into the line of, (obviously peaceful) demonstrators.  He was as wrong as he could possibly be!

 

I will add that just because the man who was attacked has been charged, that doesn’t mean that the charges will not be dropped when a thorough examination of the evidence is completed.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 14 by Blackwater 53393

[Texas Jack Black]

10 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

https://mylegalwriting.com/2019/05/22/do-offensive-remarks-justify-physical-retaliation/

 

https://jeremyhuss.com/use-of-physical-force-in-self-defense/

 

Physical Force is Not Justified in Response to Verbal Provocation

Words alone are not adequate provocation for use of physical force. It does not matter how much a person offends another, unless there is some threat or act of physical force, words are never adequate provocation. Rather, a “reasonable” person must believe physical force is immediately necessary. But, can’t another’s imminent threats support a belief that physical force is necessary? Indeed it can. However, as the statute clearly states, physical force is not justified “[i]n response to verbal provocation alone.” On the contrary, if threatening words accompany movements that could be construed as causing imminent harm, a person is justified in using physical force. But it is important to note, words alone are not adequate provocation to justify use of physical force.

 

 

 Read the Mass Law you are going to be wrong on this shoot. Mass. has a must retreat law outside the home .

Best Wishes

[Texas Jack Black]

11 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

NO!!  I won’t rethink my position! I guarantee that a competent attorney will be able to successfully navigate the garbage statutes put up by any prosecutor!  
 

THE MAN WAS ATTACKED!! Physically assaulted by someone who had ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO DO SO!!

 

While it may be more difficult to present a defense in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, (and I’m fairly confident that it won’t be all that difficult) federal civil rights laws will eventually trump any of these lame statutes or the lack of proper ones.

 

 

 

 The Law in Mass. is a Must retreat. Mass. laws are clear on this.

 

 

Best Wishes.

[Texas Jack Black]

13 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

NO!!  I won’t rethink my position! I guarantee that a competent attorney will be able to successfully navigate the garbage statutes put up by any prosecutor!  
 

THE MAN WAS ATTACKED!! Physically assaulted by someone who had ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO DO SO!!

 

While it may be more difficult to present a defense in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, (and I’m fairly confident that it won’t be all that difficult) federal civil rights laws will eventually trump any of these lame statutes or the lack of proper ones.

 

 

 

 But did he have the right to fire on him Read the Mass.Laws

[Blackwater 53393]

Once he was physically assaulted and in the grasp of his attacker, THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY OF RETREAT!!

 

Those laws are not applicable in this instance!!  He was on the ground in the clutches of his attacker!  At that point your argument became moot!  No avenue of retreat! No recourse but to defend himself as best he could!

 

You can post the same “read Mass. law” as many times as you like. It will not change the facts! Any competent attorney will likely have this thrown out, with prejudice, if it ever actually goes to court.

 

If the man grabbed a brick or a rock and smashed the attacker’s skull, if he crushed the attacker’s larynx with a blow or smacked him in the head with a crowbar, at the point that his attacker took him to the ground, it became a life or death situation and he was within his rights to do so!

 

The fact that the attacked man had a gun and chose to defend himself with it was the attacker’s bad luck accompanied by his bad judgment in initiating the attack in the first place.

 

 

Edited September 14 by Blackwater 53393

[Eyesa Horg]

1 hour ago, Texas Jack Black said:

 Read the Mass Law you are going to be wrong on this shoot. Mass. has a must retreat law outside the home .

Best Wishes

Hard to retreat when you've been attacked, tackled, and being choked. He had no way of knowing what the crazy was going to do next. As I said before, shoot him to save your own hide. Even in Mass, he'll likely be cleared.

[Texas Jack Black]

39 minutes ago, Eyesa Horg said:

Hard to retreat when you've been attacked, tackled, and being choked. He had no way of knowing what the crazy was going to do next. As I said before, shoot him to save your own hide. Even in Mass, he'll likely be cleared.

Read the law

[Texas Jack Black]

1 hour ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

Once he was physically assaulted and in the grasp of his attacker, THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY OF RETREAT!!

 

Those laws are not applicable in this instance!!  He was on the ground in the clutches of his attacker!  At that point your argument became moot!  No avenue of retreat! No recourse but to defend himself as best he could!

 

You can post the same “read Mass. law” as many times as you like. It will not change the facts! Any competent attorney will likely have this thrown out, with prejudice, if it ever actually goes to court.

 

If the man grabbed a brick or a rock and smashed the attacker’s skull, if he crushed the attacker’s larynx with a blow or smacked him in the head with a crowbar, at the point that his attacker took him to the ground, it became a life or death situation and he was within his rights to do so!

 

The fact that the attacked man had a gun and chose to defend himself with it was the attacker’s bad luck accompanied by his bad judgment in initiating the attack in the first place.

 

 

With all due respect JUST GO READ THE Mass laws on self defense.

Best Wishes

[Texas Jack Black]

2 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

Once he was physically assaulted and in the grasp of his attacker, THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY OF RETREAT!!

 

Those laws are not applicable in this instance!!  He was on the ground in the clutches of his attacker!  At that point your argument became moot!  No avenue of retreat! No recourse but to defend himself as best he could!

 

You can post the same “read Mass. law” as many times as you like. It will not change the facts! Any competent attorney will likely have this thrown out, with prejudice, if it ever actually goes to court.

 

If the man grabbed a brick or a rock and smashed the attacker’s skull, if he crushed the attacker’s larynx with a blow or smacked him in the head with a crowbar, at the point that his attacker took him to the ground, it became a life or death situation and he was within his rights to do so!

 

The fact that the attacked man had a gun and chose to defend himself with it was the attacker’s bad luck accompanied by his bad judgment in initiating the attack in the first place.

 

 

 Did any of his actions  possibly contribute to the shooting? Yes he engaged in an altercation and contributed to it escalating.

He will be charged and most likely convicted of assault and battery with a deadly weapon.

 ,Loss of permit all firearms and may serve time all due to a big mouth .The other party is also at fault.

 All that aside it is a sad situation for both 

Best Wishes

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

5 hours ago, Texas Jack Black said:

 Only matters what the laws are in Mass. What we think makes no difference.  Read the Mass .laws and you may rethink your position 

Read Mass laws

 

4 hours ago, Texas Jack Black said:

 Read the Mass Law you are going to be wrong on this shoot. Mass. has a must retreat law outside the home .

Best Wishes

 

4 hours ago, Texas Jack Black said:

 The Law in Mass. is a Must retreat. Mass. laws are clear on this.

 

 

Best Wishes.

 

4 hours ago, Texas Jack Black said:

 But did he have the right to fire on him Read the Mass.Laws

 

2 hours ago, Texas Jack Black said:

Read the law

 

2 hours ago, Texas Jack Black said:

With all due respect JUST GO READ THE Mass laws on self defense.

Best Wishes

Maybe a little help here. Could you post the pertinent sections of the law so that the rest of us don't have to search it out? 

While I agree with Blackwater, I had the unfortunate experience of being Stationed in Massatooshits for a couple years, and I know just how horrid Pilgrims can be. I can readily believe that you are correct about this, but a little help would go a long way.  

[Blackwater 53393]

2 hours ago, Texas Jack Black said:

 Did any of his actions  possibly contribute to the shooting? Yes he engaged in an altercation and contributed to it escalating.

He will be charged and most likely convicted of assault and battery with a deadly weapon.

 ,Loss of permit all firearms and may serve time all due to a big mouth .The other party is also at fault.

 All that aside it is a sad situation for both 

Best Wishes

TJB! Have you even looked at the videos??  He didn’t “engage” in anything!  He was violently attacked and taken to the ground by an idiot that charged across a street to assault him!!

 

He was on the defensive from the instant that the other man touched him!!  What exactly was he supposed to do in your opinion??  He protected himself and finally fought back!!

 

One would have to be delusional to expect him to just lay there and take it!!  
 

THERE IS ONLY FAULT ON THE PART OF HIS ATTACKER!!
 

Where he might run into trouble will be in civil proceedings!!  Since the number one passtime in this country has become civil litigation, he will likely be harassed and dragged into court by some sorry ambulance chaser out to make a buck at his expense and the expense of his attacker!!

 

He made no overt threats and did NOTHING physical to warrant the attack and if I were him, I’d have attorneys filing suit in civil court that very day and I would be swearing out complaints in city, state, and federal courts for violation of my First Amendment rights and anything else that my legal team could think of!!

 

Further! I would be seeking redress and relief from the courts for having false charges filed against me and probably for false arrest!!

 

 

 

Edited September 14 by Blackwater 53393

[Cypress Sun]

27 minutes ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe a little help here. Could you post the pertinent sections of the law so that the rest of us don't have to search it out? 

While I agree with Blackwater, I had the unfortunate experience of being Stationed in Massatooshits for a couple years, and I know just how horrid Pilgrims can be. I can readily believe that you are correct about this, but a little help would go a long way.  

 

MA self defense laws, both lethal and non lethal requirements.

 

9260 Self-Defense (mass.gov)

[Blackwater 53393]

Thanks CS!!

 

Pretty much supports what I have said!

[Sedalia Dave]

5 hours ago, Texas Jack Black said:

 Only matters what the laws are in Mass. What we think makes no difference.  Read the Mass .laws and you may rethink your position 

Read Mass laws

 

Because searching the laws of Massachusetts is a long and and tedious task. Please point to the statute you say applies.  

[Texas Jack Black]

8 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

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

 Not so,  must be measured.

The courts will decide this not a bunch of old cowboys like us.😉

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

5 minutes ago, Texas Jack Black said:

 Not so,  must be measured.

The courts will decide this not a bunch of old cowboys like us.😉

A Pilgrim Court at that. However, Pilgrims being the way they are, I'd about bet if he says he's kin to the Kennedys or was going home to watch a Patriots/ Red Sox/ Celtics game, he'll get by with it.

[Texas Jack Black]

32 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

Thanks CS!!

 

Pretty much supports what I have said!

Not so 9.260 clearly states that the defendant must not have done anything to contribute to the attack to be found not guilty.

Please read again ALL of it  he contributed by escalating with a verbal confrontation .He is obligated to retreat under Mass Law

 

I am done the courts will rule

[Blackwater 53393]

37 minutes ago, Texas Jack Black said:

Not so 9.260 clearly states that the defendant must not have done anything to contribute to the attack to be found not guilty.

Please read again ALL of it  he contributed by escalating with a verbal confrontation .He is obligated to retreat under Mass Law

 

I am done the courts will rule

You’re making my point FOR me!!  He did NOTHING  to warrant the attack!!  It’s just another point in his favor!!  It was a peaceful demonstration by EVERYONE’S  account! The man who was attacked never raised a finger to harm the attacker and anything he said was uttered from across a busy street! It constituted NO imminent threat to the attacker!

 

HOW MANY TIMES MUST SOMEONE POINT OUT TO YOU THAT HE WAS ATTACKED BY THIS INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT ANY ACCEPTABLE PROVOCATION!!

 

He was assaulted!  Dragged to the ground and placed in a chokehold by his attacker!!  There was NO AVENUE of retreat!!  He feared being seriously injured or possibly killed!! His attacker went out of his way to violently accost the man!!

 

This man has met EVERY criteria that you have mentioned and more that you haven’t!  He was in violation of no statute whatsoever when the attack occurred!

 

 

 

Edited September 15 by Blackwater 53393

[Subdeacon Joe]

1 hour ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

This man has met EVERY criteria that you have mentioned and more that you haven’t!  He was in violation of no statute whatsoever when the attack occurred!

 

Maybe he threatened to post a mean tweet. 

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

11 hours ago, Texas Jack Black said:

 Read the Mass Laws.

 

Best Wishes

Sorry, but I don't want to read anything about Massachusetts nor any other socio-communistic hell hole.

[Gorgo]

Why does the immigrant cross the street? i'm sure there is a joke somewhere in there.

[Eyesa Horg]

To get a feeling in his gut!

[Texas Jack Black]

12 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

You’re making my point FOR me!!  He did NOTHING  to warrant the attack!!  It’s just another point in his favor!!  It was a peaceful demonstration by EVERYONE’S  account! The man who was attacked never raised a finger to harm the attacker and anything he said was uttered from across a busy street! It constituted NO imminent threat to the attacker!

 

HOW MANY TIMES MUST SOMEONE POINT OUT TO YOU THAT HE WAS ATTACKED BY THIS INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT ANY ACCEPTABLE PROVOCATION!!

 

He was assaulted!  Dragged to the ground and placed in a chokehold by his attacker!!  There was NO AVENUE of retreat!!  He feared being seriously injured or possibly killed!! His attacker went out of his way to violently accost the man!!

 

This man has met EVERY criteria that you have mentioned and more that you haven’t!  He was in violation of no statute whatsoever when the attack occurred!

 

 

 

  In order to prove self defense you must not have done ANYTHING that MIGHT have contributed to the attack. Did he engage in a verbal exchange that escalated YES. 

I will await the outcome of the trail. 

 Remember Massachusetts has some weird laws

 

Best Wishes

[Blackwater 53393]

It says in the portion of Mass. law that is posted above that mere verbal exchange is NOT reason to warrant an attack!  That you can’t attack someone for something they said that is not a direct threat accompanied by some item or action and claim self defense.  It says nothing about what level of possible provocation is necessary to warrant such an attack!  It basically says that such an attack is all but inexcusable unless a direct threat is made and a weapon is brandished to back up that threat.  No such action was taken by the man who was attacked.
 

Mere words or gestures from across a busy street do not rise to such a level.

 

 

Edited September 15 by Blackwater 53393

[Texas Jack Black]

6 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

It says in the portion of Mass. law that is posted above that mere verbal exchange is NOT reason to warrant an attack!  That you can’t attack someone for something they said that is not a direct threat accompanied by some item or action and claim self defense.  It says nothing about what level of possible provocation is necessary to warrant such an attack!  It basically says that such an attack is all but inexcusable unless a direct threat is made and a weapon is brandished to back up that threat.  No such action was taken by the man who was attacked.
 

Mere words or gestures from across a busy street do not rise to such a level.

 

 

 As an ending  the LAW states in order to prove self defense you Must show that you did NOTHING to cause an escalation.

Also not to ruffle your feathers further he has postings on the internet showing a handgun saying Hey Jew Haters Bring it on.

No more from me on this.

I wish you well

[Blackwater 53393]

Still not a threat!!  A statement that he will defend himself is no threat!!

 

The attacker was never mentioned in the internet statement.

 

This, in fact, would classify the attack as having been planned and executed with “malice afore thought”, thus elevating and reinforcing the self defense claim!!

[Irish Pat]

In Louisiana the charges are presented to the Grand Jury and they decide if it should be a true bill or no true bill and discharged. That keeps the DA to keep getting elected 

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

41 minutes ago, Irish Pat said:

In Louisiana the charges are presented to the Grand Jury and they decide if it should be a true bill or no true bill and discharged. That keeps the DA to keep getting elected 

Louisiana law wasn't written by pilgrims. If you've never been around them, you have no idea how bad these people are. 

During rush hour, the breakdown lane on the Highway is treated like a high speed passing lane.

Merely commenting that you saw that one of their sports teams lost a game is a perfectly justifiable reason to start a fight. 

Stopping for people in a crosswalk will get you looks of disbelief. 

Not making a right turn on red when there is a SIGN saying "No Right Turn on Red" will result in horns being blown at you and other drivers yelling at you, "HE!!, THAT DON'T MEAN ANYTHING". 

When my first wife worked at a doughnut shop, she would greet customers with a cheary, "Hi, how y'all doin' today?" (she was from Louisiana), which would earn her a sneer and a "Why don't you go back down South where you belong?" from said customers. 

As both a Marine and a truck driver, I've been all over this great country of ours. One place I never want to see again is Massatooshits.

Oh yeah, as a Marine, I met other Marines who were from Massatooshits. To a man, they said they were never going back. 

[Cypress Sun]

22 minutes ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

Louisiana law wasn't written by pilgrims. If you've never been around them, you have no idea how bad these people are. 

During rush hour, the breakdown lane on the Highway is treated like a high speed passing lane.

Merely commenting that you saw that one of their sports teams lost a game is a perfectly justifiable reason to start a fight. 

Stopping for people in a crosswalk will get you looks of disbelief. 

Not making a right turn on red when there is a SIGN saying "No Right Turn on Red" will result in horns being blown at you and other drivers yelling at you, "HE!!, THAT DON'T MEAN ANYTHING". 

When my first wife worked at a doughnut shop, she would greet customers with a cheary, "Hi, how y'all doin' today?" (she was from Louisiana), which would earn her a sneer and a "Why don't you go back down South where you belong?" from said customers. 

As both a Marine and a truck driver, I've been all over this great country of ours. One place I never want to see again is Massatooshits.

Oh yeah, as a Marine, I met other Marines who were from Massatooshits. To a man, they said they were never going back. 

 

A******s aren't just limited to Massachusetts, they come from every State of the Union.

 

I've know some real good people from Massachusetts and the New England area that came down here to Florida as Yankees, stayed and are now my friends.

 

You're painting with a pretty wide brush.

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

27 minutes ago, Cypress Sun said:

 

A******s aren't just limited to Massachusetts, they come from every State of the Union.

 

I've know some real good people from Massachusetts and the New England area that came down here to Florida as Yankees, stayed and are now my friends.

 

You're painting with a pretty wide brush.

Two and a half years living among them. I've known good people from Massatooshits too, Key is FROM there. 

Agreed there are a******s everywhere, but per capita, I met a lot more there.

I got kicked out of a restaurant up there for asking for Iced Tea. It was Winter, and I asked for Iced Tea. I was haughtily informed that it wasn't  Iced Tea Season. I asked if they served coffee in the Summer, since coffee is hot, and was told of COURSE  they served coffee in the Summer. I asked why the same wasn't true for Iced Tea, and was asked to leave. 

[Irish Pat]

Louisiana is the only state that laws are based from the Napoleonic code. My Cher

[Texas Jack Black]

3 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

Still not a threat!!  A statement that he will defend himself is no threat!!

 

The attacker was never mentioned in the internet statement.

 

This, in fact, would classify the attack as having been planned and executed with “malice afore thought”, thus elevating and reinforcing the self defense claim!!

 New footage shows Hayes was starting to leave. So he may be all set and  may have been attempting to de escalate .Time will tell. 

 All I can say is sad event for all 

Best Wishes

[Subdeacon Joe]

Unless he was aiming some sort of range weapon (firearm,  bow, blowgun, slingshot,  javelin) at the pro-Hamas thug across a busy street the pri-Israel demonstrator was no threat in any way to the thug who attacked him.  The victims statement that he would defend himself against a physical attack was an attempt at deescalation, one that the violent pro-Hamas thug ignored and then charged through traffic with violent,  possibly murderous, intent to harm his victim.