While there were some extenuating circumstances here, what this whole thing tells me is that if I'm going to shoot a would be robber, rapist, bad person, etc' coming after me or my family I better know in advance that I'm going to be arrested, charged and sent to court. Basically MA's way of incentivizing the victim mentality
I'd still give it a big maybe, depends on the circumstances and if the scenario would make the DA look really bad or not for
charging you, and also whether the bad guy dies or not. Those two factors get run into an equation and the result
basically determines whether or not you are going to get charged or not. Of course even if they don't charge you they can leave you
on the fence for weeks.... just ask Paul Langone.
Fun example: Years ago the dude at Bobs? Liquors in Worcester was never charged for blowing away an armed robber that pointed a gun at
his brother who worked in the store. IMHO the DA never tried to charge him with anything because basically it would make the
DAs office look like shit and it would also make the police and the whole justice system look like hot garbage- because basically the state would
be prosecuting a citizen that ended an unsolved crime rampage in central MA. (the guy that hit Bobs hit like 4 or 5 liquor/convenience stores
before he got plugged). (there is a possibility that he got charged and got no billed, but I never saw mention of this ever in the papers. )
Also years ago a friend of a city councilor in fitchburg shot some punk kid in the leg that was sacking an apartment, guy tried to
advance at the guy with a knife, so he shot him. No charges ever came out of that either. BG didn't die in that one, though, that
also tends to seem to make a big difference.
On the other hand when that abused doctor lady on the cape gunned down her husband to protect her son, the DA still charged her and
sent it to the GJ... they no billed her, but she also had Kevin Reddington as an attorney, IIRC... that probably cost her a huge chunk of
change.
-Mike
