Dangerousness hearings

This guy clearly broke the law, no LTC nor FID. I don't have any sympathy for him or the fact he has other charges now. Just because iot is a gun possession case doesn't mean we should get behind this guy.

And just because the prosecution states these facts doesn't mean they contributed to the judgement. We should be wary of this approach and think about counters to it.
 
67ray said:
This guy clearly broke the law, no LTC nor FID. I don't have any sympathy for him or the fact he has other charges now. Just because iot is a gun possession case doesn't mean we should get behind this guy.

And just because the prosecution states these facts doesn't mean they contributed to the judgement. We should be wary of this approach and think about counters to it.
Click to expand...

I am crystal clear what 2a says. If I or most NESers on the jury ... he walks.

-qOMMsXLMGxq5J7Xxg9en1dLnDDna4vjLWuEGNhyfsVZQu7q705E2z5tfHF9GnYG09mZ6aqZ-io61c6G-NYDIQDE94N0r3qD8l9gI-VCPxOspilGJR45QedNcHqFpQ


He also killed one less person than Alex Baldwin because he can only buy so little "justice"
 
67ray said:
This guy clearly broke the law, no LTC nor FID. I don't have any sympathy for him or the fact he has other charges now. Just because iot is a gun possession case doesn't mean we should get behind this guy.

And just because the prosecution states these facts doesn't mean they contributed to the judgement. We should be wary of this approach and think about counters to it.
Click to expand...
clearly you are so used to the oppression you can't see how immoral those laws are, in a free state you don't need permission from the state to own a firearm. imagine if people needed a license to buy a hammer or a baseball bat
 
GaryO said:
I'm surprised his parents haven't been charged based on his mothers comments. She didn't know he had guns but knew he was shooting up in Maine and NY? Don't worry, he's wicked smaht and should figure a way out of this jam.
Click to expand...
Calabrese’s parents, who also have advanced scientific backgrounds, testified they were not aware of their son’s illegal possession of weapons, but were well acquainted with his passion for them and described him as “extremely safety-conscious.”

Seems like they said they knew he used and was in possession of them and was "safe" but did not know he could not legally be in possession of them in MA
Maybe he told them he was licensed or they were just unaware that in MA you need a LTC
 
Boghog1 said:
clearly you are so used to the oppression you can't see how immoral those laws are, in a free state you don't need permission from the state to own a firearm. imagine if people needed a license to buy a hammer or a baseball bat
Click to expand...

Illegal suppressors? Ya, good luck with that defense guy . . .
 
67ray said:
Illegal suppressors? Ya, good luck with that defense guy . . .
Click to expand...
no, you said
This guy clearly broke the law, no LTC nor FID.
Click to expand...
and a suppressor should be available over the counter without a background check that takes 6-12 months. keep believing the government is looking out for your best interest
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The fact that the prosecution would even attempt to use such an allegation against a defendant is troubling.
Click to expand...

In a wonderful, technicolor world, the judge would absolutely smack-down the DA for even adding this. A public "You pull that stunt again in my court and I'll hold you in contempt so long you'll think you're an inmate" would be a nice start. Clearly, someone in the DA's office has been watching too many Law & Order reruns. . . . WITHDRAWN! [rofl]
 
67ray said:
This guy clearly broke the law, no LTC nor FID. I don't have any sympathy for him or the fact he has other charges now. Just because iot is a gun possession case doesn't mean we should get behind this guy.

And just because the prosecution states these facts doesn't mean they contributed to the judgement. We should be wary of this approach and think about counters to it.
Click to expand...
Does this mean you favor pre-conviction punishment?

The defense is routinely prohibited from introducing facts that will cast the defendant in a sympathetic light but are not relevant to guilt or innocence. Way before legalization, I remember a case where the judge prohibited a defendant from mention the MJ he was caught with for for medical use because that had no bearing on the jury's question of "did he possess MJ as the police claimed". Ditto pre-Adjutant where a defendant could not mention the violent history of his aggressor in a self defense case unless he could prove he knew of such a history at the time of the defensive act.
 
you should not need a permit to own a gun and keep it in your home, and screw that the Supreme Court said states could require one.

It wasn't until about 20 years ago that you needed a permit to have a gun in your home in MA ..... you needed one to buy one, but you could legally have a gun in the home without any permit

Any time I read a story where someone in MA gets jammed up for not having a permit for a gun in their home, absent of them being a Felon or prohibited person, I shake my head and think how this would be a non story in many other states NH and FL included.
 
Dennis in MA said:
In a wonderful, technicolor world, the judge would absolutely smack-down the DA for even adding this. A public "You pull that stunt again in my court and I'll hold you in contempt so long you'll think you're an inmate" would be a nice start. Clearly, someone in the DA's office has been watching too many Law & Order reruns. . . . WITHDRAWN! [rofl]
Click to expand...
This is Massachusetts where you are considered guilty until proven otherwise. In my case after the jury sided with me the judge asked them to stay behind so she could talk with them, my lawyer left but i stayed to listen to what she had to say to the jury. She told them that she would have ruled against me before the trial even began if she could but since they heard the evidence they made the decision. How is that not tainting any future jury that one of those members might sit on? I was pissed off but the best advice my lawyer ever gave me was to stay calm and keep my mouth shut.
The whole system is rotten to the core in the Commonwealth.
 
GaryO said:
This is Massachusetts where you are considered guilty until proven otherwise. In my case after the jury sided with me the judge asked them to stay behind so she could talk with them, my lawyer left but i stayed to listen to what she had to say to the jury. She told them that she would have ruled against me before the trial even began if she could but since they heard the evidence they made the decision. How is that not tainting any future jury that one of those members might sit on? I was pissed off but the best advice my lawyer ever gave me was to stay calm and keep my mouth shut.
The whole system is rotten to the core in the Commonwealth.
Click to expand...

There was but one taint in that courtroom.
 
Boghog1 said:
Has anyone located the explosive videos? You know so I can see how dangerous this guy was
Click to expand...
[thumbsup]

According to the Assistant District Attorney Leigh Tinmouth, Calabrese’s history with explosives dates to March 2015. He cited a video posted on social media in which Calabrese displayed chemical explosions.



View: https://youtu.be/akMbsN4CWig
 
cathouse01 said:
So the only thing the article says about his actual offenses is:



First thing, it doesn’t say anything about how/why they obtained a search warrant. Second, in the picture I see 6 guns (a handgun and five long guns). Third the “sawed-off shotgun” appears to be a Shockwave with the original 14.375 in barrel, classified as a firearm by both the ATF and MA and only illegal for an FFL to transfer in MA, not for someone to own (with an LTC). Fourth, I don’t see any silencers, but I do see what appears to be a ballistic vest. Fifth, I don’t see any threaded barrels, though the pistol might have one and the PCC 2nd from the right end might also. Don’t know why someone would have silencers without any guns to mount them on. Sixth, I see ten poly ammo cans, not “15 boxes of ammunition”.

I’m really interested in why they pulled a search warrant on this guy. Did someone drop a dime? Were they investigating him for some other crime? Were they investigating him for his social media comments?

I’m also unimpressed with the accuracy of the reporting. Either the photo posted with the article is wrong or the reporting is wrong or the reporter is depending on the police report that is wrong. In any case the reporting doesn’t go with the photo.
Click to expand...
So I just checked and if the PCC in pic is a Hi-Point (and I’m assuming it is) it would have a threaded barrel. So I will rescind point five. Though for sure the two shotguns, the 10/22 and the Mini-14 do not.
 
StevieP said:
If you know what the result will be, it's not really an experiment...
Click to expand...
I disagree. You may have a very strong probability of an expected result, but you're never sure, until you test it.

It may be a lame-ass experiment, but it's still valid. Proven stuff is constantly being disproven, with new, better, more accurate experiments.

1636409497856.jpeg
 
appraiser said:
It wasn't until about 20 years ago that you needed a permit to have a gun in your home in MA ..... you needed one to buy one, but you could legally have a gun in the home without any permit
Click to expand...

20 years ago? 2001 was 20 years ago.

Is that what you meant?

Or is this like 1982 being 25 years ago, because we’re old and time goes too fast?
 

Similar threads

A Gem from the Assault Weapons Hearings...Braces=Bumpstocks
Replies
21
Views
973
MGnoob
MGnoob
Red Flag laws and ex-parte hearings; what could go wrong?
Replies
5
Views
513
Drix
Drix
GOP-controlled US Senate holds ERPO hearings
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Dadstoys
Dadstoys
NH Senate anti gun bill hearings Tues 4/30.....who's showing up to resist?
Replies
5
Views
454
ISOTOX
ISOTOX
NH: 3 Anti-Gun bill hearings scheduled for 4/30 at the State House: details below
Replies
3
Views
486
Drix
Drix
Back
Top Bottom