A real "hmm" on duty to retreat in a mass-shooting...

HooVooLoo

NES Member
Joined
May 31, 2008
Messages
2,543
Likes
256
Location
One of the places they filmed the "Stonado" movie.
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
So I've done a NES search and cannot find an in-depth discussion on this issue. I think it is relevant in today's mass-shooting world.

In FL, it is easy. You are allowed to use deadly force to prevent the commission of the crime of forcible felony, which includes a whole bunch of (considerably minor) shit like someone stealing you car, or witnessing a rape. Legal repercussions withstanding, as it is technically allowed by the law.

So we come to MA, where there is actually a duty-to-retreat law, which states that proportional force must be exercised, but first you have a duty-to-retreat before reasonable force may be applied.

The Castle Doctine in MA applies to truly only your home, and so is where Stand-Your-Ground applies.

-------------------

But what about in the situation like what happened in Buffalo, with that maniac targeting black folks? Or any of a hundred other recent cases across the country?

As I interpret it, if I am in a WalMart, and some freak comes in with an AR and starts killing people, and I am crouched behind some merchandising display on the other side of the store, the law says I have a duty to retreat from the incident because I am not in immediate threat of harm.

But this then brings up the Patriot Games Scenario...

The one where Jack Ryan (played by Harrison Ford) has the line..."I could not stand by and watch them kill all those people...") <----Paraphrasing, I am sure.

So where does the line blur in MA on the protection of others?

If I am legally allowed to carry in MA, and I am in a Walmart and some maniac is near me and gunning people down, do I choose the moral right and shoot the perp to end the encounter, or do I choose the safe route, as defined by MGL, and flee the store and let the cops deal with it, after a countless number of other people die after I flee and "leave it to the LE who are 10 minutes away"?


(As a side note, there is the legal theory of proportional force in MA. So if I shoot the mass-shooter in the leg and that ends the threat, that should be fine, legally. However...Because of said rule, was that disproportionate. because if he went down after a shot to the leg, then maybe he would have gone down with a good talking to instead)?

Your thoughts *sniffs* <------- Bonus points if you know what that is from.
 
My gun protects me and those who depend on me.

Every other person in the Wal-Mart with me can go buy their own gun. I'd assume those guns would be for the protection of them and those who depend on them.

I am not a LEO and I'm not interested in becoming one. I'm always aware of my exits, and my gun hopefully gets me there with my dependents. They are where my obligation lies.

If I leave a crazed gunman behind me murdering dozens? I'll empathize with their loss, but at least I'll be alive to empathize. They are not my responsibility, and neither is the gunman. It'd be great if I could save a few strangers enroute, I guess, but they are not my concern.
 
If you're smart in mass, you take your people and get the f*** out, up to including shooting your way out if needed. Everyone else? Too bad. They probably voted for people who would kill you and steal your shit anyways.
 
Last edited:
Mmmm, the ambiguous responses I expected so far. Especially by my favorite fat Forengi poster, drgrant. :)

Good grief, grant...You are still fat,
Ambiguous? Not at all. Pretty clear so far. You are not obligated to protect others. If your life is in peril you use deadly force.

Nice try pissing period of though.
 
Mmmm, the ambiguous responses I expected so far. Especially by my favorite fat Forengi poster, drgrant. :)

Good grief, grant...You are still fat,
So we have a real live Punisher on the forum. [laugh]

You can take off your CCW sash before filming your tactical rolls. We'll need to see that before assessing your ability to operate.

Seriously- unless it is your sworn duty and you are paid to nuke bad guys plus have regular training to do so, walking into CQB when you don't have to is fully retarded. I'd do it for family and some of my closest friends, but those are my only 'must do' scenarios.
 
The jury instructions are often helpful:

II. DEFENSE OF ANOTHER
Society wishes to encourage all of us to come to the aid of each other when that is necessary. Therefore, a person may use reasonable force when that is necessary to help another person, if it reasonably appears that the person being aided is in a situation where the law would allow him to act in self-defense himself. If there is any evidence in this case that the defendant may have been coming to the aid of another person, you must find the defendant not guilty unless the Commonwealth proves beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the following two things:

First: That a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would not have believed that his (her) use of force was necessary in order to protect [third party] ; or
Second: That to a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would not have believed that [third party] was justified in using such force in his (her) own self-defense.

So when does a person have a right to act in self-defense?

Here instruct on self-defense.

Defense of another is a complete defense. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 412 Mass. 368, 589 N.E.2d 311 (1992). The legal principles regarding defense of another “are not unlike those which control the use of self-defense.” As with self-defense, in determining whether there is sufficient evidence to raise the issue of defense of another, all reasonable inferences should be resolved in favor of the defendant. Commonwealth v. Green, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 376, 379, 770 N.E.2d 995 (2002). Where defense of another has been properly raised, the Commonwealth has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.; Commonwealth v. Monico, 373 Mass. 298, 302-304, 366N.E.2d 1241, 1244 (1977) (defense not limited to persons related to defendant); Commonwealth v. Martin, 369 Mass. at 649, 341 N.E.2d at 891; Commonwealth v. Montes, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 789, 794-796, 733 N.E.2d 1068 (2000) (absent excessive force by police, defendant cannot assist another in resisting even an unlawful arrest; doubtful that common-law right to resist an unlawful arrest, now abolished in Massachusetts, ever permitted third parties to assist another in resisting an unlawful arrest); Commonwealth v. McClendon, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 122, 125-126, 653 N.E.2d 1138 (1995) (use of force justified only in response to immediate danger to third person). Where defense of others is relied on by the defendant and the evidence is sufficient to raise the issue, an instruction is required, even absent a request by the defendant. Commonwealth v. Kivlehan, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 793, 795-796, 786 N.E.2d 431 (2003).
 
Ambiguous? Not at all. Pretty clear so far. You are not obligated to protect others. If your life is in peril you use deadly force.

Nice try pissing period of though.

The jury instructions are often helpful:

Good grief.

That is the self-defense aspect of the law. I specifically avoided that aspect in my question, because that is a whole other aspect of legality in MA. UG!

The defense of others is NOT a self-defense issue in a mass-shooting in a WalMart, unless under specific circumstances!
 
Good grief.

That is the self-defense aspect of the law. I specifically avoided that aspect in my question, because that is a whole other aspect of legality in MA. UG!

The defense of others is NOT a self-defense issue in a mass-shooting in a WalMart, unless under specific circumstances!
I'm so sorry that I lack you intellect. I'm getting off this train. See ya.
 
If you're smart in mass, you take your people and get the f*** out, up to including shooting your way out if needed. Everyone else? Too bad. They probably voted for people who would kill you and steal your shit anyways.
Good answer, as a resident of mass I have to walk away from a few incidents because I know that mass will take my guns and everything's else I have if I pull out my .357 and take care of business. This state suck.
 
The law says different. You should know this, as an instructor.
There are two parts of law: statute and common law. You are allowed to use deadly force to protect a third party in MA if that third party is allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves.

From the Law of Self Defense, by Andrew Branca, page 191:

...the majority of jurisdictions provide that the rescuer may use lethal force in self-defense of another to the extent that the use of such force reasonably appeared to be justified...

Now, has this actually happened in MA where a third party, who could have retreated, instead used deadly force to protect an innocent person who was being attacked? Yes, it has. In 2009 a patient stabbed a psychiatrist multiple times. A concealed carrier heard the screams, ran to the sound, and shot the perpetrator who was in the act of stabbing the psychiatrist. The rescuer was not charged.
 
Last edited:
What are YOU willing to? How far will YOU go? Only you can answer that. In Massachusetts no matter what the situation, you will be arrested. I'm with @drgrant, get out as soon as you can in Massachusetts.
 
There are two parts of law: statute and common law. You are allowed to use deadly force to protect a third party in MA if that third party is allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves.

From the Law of Self Defense, by Andrew Branca, page 191:



Now, has this actually happened in MA where a third party, who could have retreated, instead used deadly force to protect an innocent person who was being attacked? Yes, it has. In 2009 a patient stabbed a psychiatrist multiple times. A concealed carrier heard the screams, ran to the sound, and shot the perpetrator who was in the act of stabbing the psychiatrist. The rescuer was not charged.
One of the reasons The rescuer was not charged was that he was sworn as a Boston special under their section 400 at the time. The new police officer standards training law resulted in the removal of all police powers by security guards in Boston sworn as special police officers. They had to turn in their warrants of appointment and badges. If he had not been sworn a special in Boston I think that he probably would have been dragged through the legal system.
 
Id feel bad for the innocent people that were shot but I have no interest in being the only one alive with a gun in my hand when the cops show up to the active shooter call. My obligations are to my family, I'm useless to them if I can't go home at the end of the day. My gun Is my protection, it's my tool to get me out of harms way. That being said, I have no idea what I would do, it depends on the situation and I hope I never have to deal with it. I don't dwell on it, if it happens then so be it, I'll figure it out then.
 
Good grief.

That is the self-defense aspect of the law. I specifically avoided that aspect in my question, because that is a whole other aspect of legality in MA. UG!

The defense of others is NOT a self-defense issue in a mass-shooting in a WalMart, unless under specific circumstances!
You have no duty to retreat from the incident in a WalMart mass shooting unless you are talking about self defense. The jury instructions cover, in addition to self defense, defense of others with no claim of self defense. There is no duty to retreat in that case. If, rather, you are not acting in defense of anyone, rather just want to play cop, I don’t think it would be legal for you to employ deadly force in Massachusetts.
 
If he had not been sworn a special in Boston I think that he probably would have been dragged through the legal system.

Lol apparently you werent paying attention because he WAS dragged through the legal system, it took that peice of shit DA like the better part of a year to let him off the
hook for something that was a captain obvious case that should have been cleared in a week or less.

FWIW Boston Specials really aren't considered LE outside of a very, very narrow context. So there was no cop union trumpets, QI, etc, for Langone when he did what he
did.
 
I can see a situation where a guy is invited by a friend to a restaurant for lunch or dinner and on the way in a shooting starts in the restaurant.

Guy retreats only to find out there was a surprise birthday party for him and his wife kids and grandkids were in the restaurant.
 
i'm seeing the wind changing direction on this topic. we have this conversation every so often and i remember always getting ambushed when i took a me and mine tact. still haven't changed my opinion but i see others have. after you are the hero of the month and getting jammed up by the law, are any of those good people who hate guns who now owe their life to you and your gun gonna be helping you pay for that expensive legal defense and helping support your family after you've lost your job over this heroic deed. doubt it. good luck to ya.
 
I can see a situation where a guy is invited by a friend to a restaurant for lunch or dinner and on the way in a shooting starts in the restaurant.

Guy retreats only to find out there was a surprise birthday party for him and his wife kids and grandkids were in the restaurant.

This I'm not worried about at all. People don't like me so we don't do anything for my birthday.

Anyway goal one is to get me and my family out as quick as possible. I feel no obligation to put myself or family at risk to save someone I don't know. If they are safe as a result of me getting myself and my family out of the situation as quick as possible then great.
 
Good grief.

That is the self-defense aspect of the law. I specifically avoided that aspect in my question, because that is a whole other aspect of legality in MA. UG!

The defense of others is NOT a self-defense issue in a mass-shooting in a WalMart, unless under specific circumstances!
The Mass response goes far beyond what is legal and justifiable.

If you have 100% clean and justifiable defense event the state will purposely persecute you with the process if it so chooses. And often it's choice is to show the peasants that they need to stay in their lane and not take advantage of self help.

My responsibility is to my family so keeping the risk to them minimized is job #1 - if I can ass out of a situation, it's nopety nope time all the home.
Like others have said, the defenseless in that store chose to be defenseless and are extremely likely to have voted to strip me of rights so I would be defenseless. So not my problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom