• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

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

drgrant said:
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.
Click to expand...
There was also a Boston Housing Authority Police officer that shot a home invader and because he chased the perp out the front door while exchanging gunfire resulting in the perp sustaining additional wounds in the back on the front lawn, the DA went after him hard. Not sure what the final resolution of that case was.

MA doesn't tolerate "self help". Coakley made the comment. As did Cheryl Jacques when she proudly got pepper spray to require a permit in 1998 and said something along the lines of "more victims raise awareness of the state's needs for tools to combat violence".

MA has a toxic brew of profoundly stupid and evil people (both with impeccable credentials from 'the best schools') to get what they want out of the cocktail party and zoned out normie sheep without being challenged. Basically McKinsey & Company but government.
 
HooVooLoo said:
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.
Click to expand...

We don't live in a "mass shooting world" That's the narrative the gun-grabbing hoplophobic anti-freedom groups like Giffords and EveryTown &c. want us to believe.

Stop saying shit like that, because it's not true and is counter to our interests.
 
milktree said:
We don't live in a "mass shooting world" That's the narrative the gun-grabbing hoplophobic anti-freedom groups like Giffords and EveryTown &c. want us to believe.

Stop saying shit like that, because it's not true and is counter to our interests.
Click to expand...
+1

Such a ridiculous premise made me think OP is either trolling or grossly immature. Perhaps both.
 
M1911 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is a much, much harder case than the OP's hypothetical.

In the hypothetical, there's a mass shooter. As far as I know, he's indiscriminate; that means I and my dependents are at risk, which is why I'm fine with just leaving tout suite.

In the case of that therapist, it's a murder being committed right in front of you. There's no threat to you. I think I'd still choose not to intervene, but to be honest I'd lose a lot more sleep over that one rather than the OP's case.
 
HooVooLoo said:
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.
Click to expand...

I reject your premise. You sound like you are fishing. We do NOT live in a "mass shooting world." Stop listening to the gun grabbers who hype everything up in order to advance their agenda of confiscation and total disarmament of the population.
 
I think this out (sadly) at times and always come back to retreat if possible, protect myself if needed and get home to my family.

If my family is with me then they are priority and who knows what to do at that point except keep them covered, or concealed and figure out how to get them out safely

I’ll say this I’ve gone from carrying a Glock 43 with 2 spare mags to carrying my SigPro 2022 and one spare standard cap mag
I’ve changed my dress habits to facilitate and am thinking of switching to my Beretta 92 compact IWB

Unfortunate we have to think about this stuff

ETA the law would be the last thing on my mind
 
Last edited:
HooVooLoo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Let me guess... never served in the .mil?
Forgetting about the legal ramifications, the likelihood of surviving an engagement with an adversary fielding an AR with 30 round magazines, with your micro compact 9mm are so remote that you will likely never face trial.

If you "are on the other side of the store" GTFO. You have almost no chance with your ccw. Sure, it's better than a sharp stick, but not by much.
A much more likely scenario is that a few people will be able to get out the exit, that you should have used, while the perp is engaged in turning you into a #2 pencil. Full of lead.
That headline is going to start with... " Man heroically gives his life, in an attempt to....pretend he is Rambo"
I think you watch too many movies.
 
Picton said:
This is a much, much harder case than the OP's hypothetical.

In the hypothetical, there's a mass shooter. As far as I know, he's indiscriminate; that means I and my dependents are at risk, which is why I'm fine with just leaving tout suite.

In the case of that therapist, it's a murder being committed right in front of you. There's no threat to you. I think I'd still choose not to intervene, but to be honest I'd lose a lot more sleep over that one rather than the OP's case.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the legality of the situation, not the moral or ethical considerations. In either situation you can legally intervene, without a need to retreat.
 
MassPete said:
I love the line, "The defendant used more force than was necessary." Then they say, "you could have shot them in the foot." :)
Click to expand...

A PHENOMENALLY high number of non-gun folks firmly believe it is a simple matter to merely "shoot 'em in the leg." I hear it literally every time I ever discuss guns with the ignorant. I don't even try to fight it anymore; unless and until they get out on the range themselves and try some precision shooting, they won't get it.
 
drgrant said:
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.
Click to expand...
The DA dragged their feet on the investigation but he was never charged.
 
appraiser said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but no. You are correct that he was a special and that the press played up that angle. But his actions were lawful and his special status didn’t give him any more authority than your average citizen. If the DA had taken this case to court the DA would have lost.

The MA jury instructions have been posted in this thread, confirming that you have a right to use force to defend a third party if they have a legal right to use force to defend themselves. In this case, the psychiatrist was being stabbed so she had a right to use deadly force to defend herself, therefore the shooter had a right to use deadly force to defend her.
 
M1911 said:
In this case, the psychiatrist was being stabbed so she had a right to use deadly force to defend herself, therefore the shooter had a right to use deadly force to defend her.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Somehow, magically, it still took the DA about seven months to figure that out.

It's still ongoing. Remember that double murder in Winthrop a couple years back, with the truck running into the building? An on-duty WPD officer took the murderer out. The DA investigated the cop and only cleared him about two or three months ago.
 
Picton said:
It's still ongoing. Remember that double murder in Winthrop a couple years back, with the truck running into the building? An on-duty WPD officer took the murderer out. The DA investigated the cop and only cleared him about two or three months ago.
Click to expand...
It took the DA two years to come to that conclusion? :mad:

www.wbur.org

Officer justified in killing man who gunned down two in 2021 Winthrop shooting, DA finds

Suffolk District Attorney Kevin Hayden said the police officer who shot and killed a man who gunned down two Black people moments earlier in 2021 "racially-motivated rampage" used reasonable force to defend himself and others and won't face criminal charges.
www.wbur.org www.wbur.org
 
M1911 said:
It took the DA two years to come to that conclusion? :mad:

www.wbur.org

Officer justified in killing man who gunned down two in 2021 Winthrop shooting, DA finds

Suffolk District Attorney Kevin Hayden said the police officer who shot and killed a man who gunned down two Black people moments earlier in 2021 "racially-motivated rampage" used reasonable force to defend himself and others and won't face criminal charges.
www.wbur.org www.wbur.org
Click to expand...

Yep.

Two. Years.

If a MA DA is giving an on-duty cop that kind of treatment? I don't know why it would enter any of our minds to intervene in any circumstances.
 
Some years ago there was a shooting at Mass General IIRC.

A patient was holding a doc or psychiatrist at knifepoint, threatening to kill said doc.

An off duty law enforcement guy heard the commotion and came to the rescue. He shot said patient, presumably saving the docs life.

It took the better part of a year for the prosecutors office to decline to press charges.

If anyone has better details on this situation, please provide them. But I think this tells you what you'd be facing in MA by saving someone's life.
 
HooVooLoo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Call me selfish, but unless my family, my friends, or I am in grave danger, I'm going to find the nearest exit. In Massachusetts, the cost of even the most justified shooting can approach 6 and 7 figures, can jeopardize my job, my financial stability and my health, and can put me at grave risk. I'm not willing to face those kinds of costs for strangers.

The commonwealth does not pay me to be a cop. Dealing with some mass shooter is what we pay the police for. Let them handle it.

Finally, if someone is stealing my car, or wheelbarrow, or anything else, it's less costly to call the insurance company and take any associated loss, than to incur the cost of a shooting. Anyone who tries to protect property with a gun is insane in most cases.
 
M1911 said:
It took the DA two years to come to that conclusion? :mad:
Click to expand...
I know from personal experience it can take the DA well over a month ro release the embargo on a motor vehicle report while they determine if they are going to charge anyone with vehicular homocide, even if the person the police conclude is at fauls is the dead one.

Apparently it is important not to let a potential defendant get the police report too early in the prosecutorial process.
 
richc said:
Some years ago there was a shooting at Mass General IIRC.

A patient was holding a doc or psychiatrist at knifepoint, threatening to kill said doc.

An off duty law enforcement guy heard the commotion and came to the rescue. He shot said patient, presumably saving the docs life.

It took the better part of a year for the prosecutors office to decline to press charges.

If anyone has better details on this situation, please provide them. But I think this tells you what you'd be facing in MA by saving someone's life.
Click to expand...
Person was a Boston housing cop (Low wage, police power only on patrol area, but enough for the media to spin it as an "off duty officer")

Shooter eventually was able to join the MSP.

I believe the shootee was in the process of stabbing the MD.

Little or no public comment about the MGH no weapon policy being violated in the media report.
 
richc said:
Some years ago there was a shooting at Mass General IIRC.

A patient was holding a doc or psychiatrist at knifepoint, threatening to kill said doc.

An off duty law enforcement guy heard the commotion and came to the rescue. He shot said patient, presumably saving the docs life.

It took the better part of a year for the prosecutors office to decline to press charges.

If anyone has better details on this situation, please provide them. But I think this tells you what you'd be facing in MA by saving someone's life.
Click to expand...

Scroll up. Many of the last twenty-odd posts since last night have been about that exact case.
 
greencobra said:
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.
Click to expand...
I worry as much about me pulling a gun to fight off a mass shooter, and having the police mistake me for a bad guy, and them smoking my ass. Most of the experienced, skilled cops have quit, and have been replaced by people hired under much less stringent standards.
 
rogersmithiii said:
Call me selfish, but unless my family, my friends, or I am in grave danger, I'm going to find the nearest exit. In Massachusetts, the cost of even the most justified shooting can approach 6 and 7 figures, can jeopardize my job, my financial stability and my health, and can put me at grave risk. I'm not willing to face those kinds of costs for strangers.

The commonwealth does not pay me to be a cop. Dealing with some mass shooter is what we pay the police for. Let them handle it.

Finally, if someone is stealing my car, or wheelbarrow, or anything else, it's less costly to call the insurance company and take any associated loss, than to incur the cost of a shooting. Anyone who tries to protect property with a gun is insane in most cases.
Click to expand...

Decades ago I worked for Xerox in field service. One of my co-workers was a big, muscular black guy with decades of Kung Fu experience.

He regularly fought in underground, no holds barred fights. Great guy, but tough as nails.

He came out to his company car one day to find a couple guys trying to break into it. He walks over very calmly and asks them to let it be and move on. One of them made a big mistake. They tried to stab him with the screwdriver they were using to break into the car.

When the cops arrived He had both of them by the hair and was smashing their faces together, causing substantial facial trauma.

The thieves sued Xerox and Xerox wrote them a large check to go away. And my buddy was told to let them take the car in the future. It was a lot cheaper to do so.

That's the world we live in...
 
Last edited:
richc said:
Some years ago there was a shooting at Mass General IIRC.

A patient was holding a doc or psychiatrist at knifepoint, threatening to kill said doc.

An off duty law enforcement guy heard the commotion and came to the rescue. He shot said patient, presumably saving the docs life.

It took the better part of a year for the prosecutors office to decline to press charges.

If anyone has better details on this situation, please provide them. But I think this tells you what you'd be facing in MA by saving someone's life.
Click to expand...
discussed in depth earlier in the thread
 

Similar threads

  • Locked
Massachusets is a Constitutional Carry State for residents only
2
Replies
33
Views
706
Thunder Dump
Thunder Dump
The Michigan Man is Coming to Town! | Join me on a Road Trip to see David Hogg!
Replies
1
Views
229
MassPete
MassPete
C&R and Mass. FFL (but not Mass. dealer)
Replies
6
Views
205
milktree
milktree
  • Locked
Registration on Mass. Portal
Replies
14
Views
876
M1911
M1911
"...possess prior to 9/13/14" Line in the Law
Replies
1
Views
133
Marty McFly
Marty McFly
Back
Top Bottom