Fatal Shooting in Worcester by Westborough LTC holder UPDATE: Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter! 4-7 Year Sentence with 77 Days Credit.

[HARRYM]

Again, I didn't see all of the testimony so this issue may have been covered, but here is why I think a defense expert was necessary:

Everyone is an armchair quarterback. Everyone will "shoulda-woulda-coulda" a situation from behind their computer screens. Nobody had felt what the defendant had felt at the moment. Evidence was presented that a man high on fentanyl had gotten out of his car in the middle of the street to confront the driver of the car behind him, and strike the driver's side door window breaking the glass. People on this forum would be of the mind that this is justified as self defense. The general public I am not so confident in. Do they appreciate the threat? Do they understand things like target fixation or tunnel vision? Do they understand that the defendant had only a moment to act based only on information known to him at that very moment?

Is it sad that a man died? Sure it is. Is it sad that the wife and kid were there? Sure it is. Because it is sad, does that make the defendant's act criminal? No it does not!. How will the juror's judge it? I would hate to find out first hand.

Why did the defendant follow the victim, huge error. You just put yourself in a situation where you run into a person high on fentanyl that will turn the tables on you.

I did not read that the victim was high on fentanyl and I have wondered several times if the victim had broken the shooters drivers door window.

Indeed, a mess and someone is dead. Cluster trucks usually do not end well.

 

[LakeTrout]

Anyone find out what caused the defendant to start following the deceased initially? Sounds like they met at an intersection traveling opposite directions and something at that point caused the defendant to follow.

 

[eboos]

Why did the defendant follow the victim, huge error. You just put yourself in a situation where you run into a person high on fentanyl that will turn the tables on you.

I did not read that the victim was high on fentanyl and I have wondered several times if the victim had broken the shooters drivers door window.

Indeed, a mess and someone is dead. Cluster trucks usually do not end well.

There was no following. Decedent turned right directly in front of defendant. Defendant beeps. Decedent gets out and becomes deceased.

 

[HARRYM]

That wasn't in evidence. One of the drivers made some claims about the Defendant driving aggressively, but there was no claim at all about him chasing anyone.

I did read that the shooter was upset that the victim did not yield the right of way and cut him off so he followed him tailgating and the victim jumped out and the shooter was then dealing with a lunatic and the shit hit the fan.

 

[Matt_SERE]

There was no following. Decedent turned right directly in front of defendant. Defendant beeps. Decedent gets out and becomes deceased.

Now that's the Reader's Digest version if I've ever seen one!

 

[HARRYM]

There was no following. Decedent turned right directly in front of defendant. Defendant beeps. Decedent gets out and becomes deceased.

So as usual stories are just that, stories. So it happened that quickly.

 

[snax]

Just as a reminder folks that run dashcams absolutely need to run high endurance micro sd cards... the normal ones will burn out/error and become read-only fairly quickly... and you dont want to reach for the recording just to find out that your dashcam has error-ed... 2 months ago.

Edit: Just search on Amazon "high endurance micro sd card" and pick a reputable brand

I learned that hard way. Luckily under warranty!

 

[HARRYM]

Now that's the Reader's Digest version if I've ever seen one!

condensed

 

[HARRYM]

Is it fair to say the state did everything they could to keep details of this case under wraps?

 

[Matt_SERE]

condensed

Zactly, that's the whole purpose of Reader's Digest. It was the Cliffs Notes for adults.

The idea for Reader's Digest was to gather a sampling of favorite articles on many subjects from various monthly magazines, sometimes condensing and rewriting them, and to combine them into one magazine.[4]

 

[EJFudd]

That wasn't in evidence. One of the drivers made some claims about the Defendant driving aggressively, but there was no claim at all about him chasing anyone.

There was no following. Decedent turned right directly in front of defendant. Defendant beeps. Decedent gets out and becomes deceased.

Okay, so much for accurate news reports. Under your quoted scenario, I'm back in the Defendant's camp.

 

[eboos]

Is it fair to say the state did everything they could to keep details of this case under wraps?

There really wasn't any details to announce. Witnesses in the other cars see a guy get shot after hitting the car window. Naturally they freak out. They sympathize with the decedent because they don't understand the threat he posed. In their minds the shooter is now the bad guy and they frame their recollections accordingly.

 

[CATI]

There really wasn't any details to announce. Witnesses in the other cars see a guy get shot after hitting the car window. Naturally they freak out. They sympathize with the decedent because they don't understand the threat he posed. In their minds the shooter is now the bad guy and they frame their recollections accordingly.

I read he jumped out and did CPR, in one of the reports
Do you know what the firearm was?

 

[eboos]

I read he jumped out and did CPR, in one of the reports
Do you know what the firearm was?

Yes he did perform cpr until ordered away by first officer on scene. Don’t know what firearm.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

@eboos thanks for spending the time at the trial for us and passing along the pertinent info.

Bob

 

[drgrant]

There was no following. Decedent turned right directly in front of defendant. Defendant beeps. Decedent gets out and becomes deceased.

@eboos
Thank you for keeping us updated on this. The media sure as hell isn't. Of course the MA court system is "cryptic" at best but it's obvious the media has no interest in this case because it's outside the cup.

 

[hunt4riches]

Again, I didn't see all of the testimony so this issue may have been covered, but here is why I think a defense expert was necessary:

Everyone is an armchair quarterback. Everyone will "shoulda-woulda-coulda" a situation from behind their computer screens. Nobody had felt what the defendant had felt at the moment. Evidence was presented that a man high on fentanyl had gotten out of his car in the middle of the street to confront the driver of the car behind him, and strike the driver's side door window breaking the glass. People on this forum would be of the mind that this is justified as self defense. The general public I am not so confident in. Do they appreciate the threat? Do they understand things like target fixation or tunnel vision? Do they understand that the defendant had only a moment to act based only on information known to him at that very moment?

Is it sad that a man died? Sure it is. Is it sad that the wife and kid were there? Sure it is. Because it is sad, does that make the defendant's act criminal? No it does not!. How will the juror's judge it? I would hate to find out first hand.

here, I'll bite... if in a matter of seconds, an assailant rapidly approaches my car, breaks the driver-side window, and I have no immediate path of escape, AND my kid is in the car, I'm absolutely effin going to shoot. Why? I have lost a critical first-line of defense between my face and the assailant's fist at an absolute bare minimum. Should I get knocked unconscious, and assuming I have the car in 'drive' (and assuming there was not time to set it in 'park') then any number of dire situations are possible from that point forward including imminent bodily harm and/or death to me, my kid, or anyone else in the path of my vehicle. I FULLY expect to be arrested, charged, jailed and hypothetically convicted based on the circumstances. I FULLY expect this post to be up on a poster at my trial, but I am nearly 99.99% confident that if I ever de-brain someone, I will have determined at the time, in the time that I have, with whatever assessment that I have made - that it was 100% justified. That 0.01% time when I think it was justified and it wasn't, may come down to the opinion of a jury only.

 

[clampett]

here, I'll bite... if in a matter of seconds, an assailant rapidly approaches my car, breaks the driver-side window, and I have no immediate path of escape, AND my kid is in the car, I'm absolutely effin going to shoot. Why? I have lost a critical first-line of defense between my face and the assailant's fist at an absolute bare minimum. Should I get knocked unconscious, and assuming I have the car in 'drive' (and assuming there was not time to set it in 'park') then any number of dire situations are possible from that point forward including imminent bodily harm and/or death to me, my kid, or anyone else in the path of my vehicle. I FULLY expect to be arrested, charged, jailed and hypothetically convicted based on the circumstances. I FULLY expect this post to be up on a poster at my trial, but I am nearly 99.99% confident that if I ever de-brain someone, I will have determined at the time, in the time that I have, with whatever assessment that I have made - that it was 100% justified. That 0.01% time when I think it was justified and it wasn't, may come down to the opinion of a jury only.

The defendant's side window was the new type of window that is a laminate, 2 pieces of glass with a sheet of plastic in between them, It is like the windshield. When it broke, it didn't shatter into 100's of pieces. The plastic laminate held it together.

The defendant didn't have anyone with him. It was the dead guy that had his wife and child with him.

I hope the defense lawyers leave the jury with the image of a drug crazed junkie that was out of control and very dangerous.

 

[hunt4riches]

The defendant's side window was the new type of window that is a laminate, 2 pieces of glass with a sheet of plastic in between them, It is like the windshield. When it broke, it didn't shatter into 100's of pieces. The plastic laminate held it together.

The defendant didn't have anyone with him. It was the dead guy that had his wife and child with him.

I hope the defense lawyers leave the jury with the image of a drug crazed junkie that was out of control and very dangerous.

If I'm solo in the car as he was, it would depend on my assessment of the situation. Things I would attempt to consider in no particular order are as follows:

*how it started (I simply don't road-rage, ever... so if someone is on me, they lost their shit over something in the 1% fringe of my behavior or actions)
*how aggressive are they (did they walk or run, do they have crazy-face, how physically aggressive are they actually)
*weapon? (if any object is used to break the glass, I am right to assume it's going to be used on me next)
*overall appearance (if you look like a thug/junkie/shitkicker, the bingo card fills up real fast)

Now for some geek math.... supposing the car is parked one car-gap from me. The distance upon vehicle exit is say 25 feet at best. Anything faster than a non-walk closes that gap in just a few seconds. That's one second or less for each of the above line items. For me anyway, when the glass breaks my 'fight/flight' brain parts are going to either "hit the gas" or "you're about to die, do whatever bro". For most of us, that's going to be the algorithm give or take.

I'm sure some dried up twat waffle drip working in a fusion center has printed this and put it in the front of my profile... good for you... if this post helps someone else make a good decision, then I guess it's worth it. Here's the irony, pretty much every LEO reading this runs through these scenarios daily, if not hourly, and actually trains for it. But the rest of us posting it, somehowe we're the bad guys in the eyes of the system. We just want to go home safe every day, like everyone else.

 

[alx]

If I'm solo in the car as he was, it would depend on my assessment of the situation. Things I would attempt to consider in no particular order are as follows:

*how it started (I simply don't road-rage, ever... so if someone is on me, they lost their shit over something in the 1% fringe of my behavior or actions)
*how aggressive are they (did they walk or run, do they have crazy-face, how physically aggressive are they actually)
*weapon? (if any object is used to break the glass, I am right to assume it's going to be used on me next)
*overall appearance (if you look like a thug/junkie/shitkicker, the bingo card fills up real fast)

Now for some geek math.... supposing the car is parked one car-gap from me. The distance upon vehicle exit is say 25 feet at best. Anything faster than a non-walk closes that gap in just a few seconds. That's one second or less for each of the above line items. For me anyway, when the glass breaks my 'fight/flight' brain parts are going to either "hit the gas" or "you're about to die, do whatever bro". For most of us, that's going to be the algorithm give or take.

I'm sure some dried up twat waffle drip working in a fusion center has printed this and put it in the front of my profile... good for you... if this post helps someone else make a good decision, then I guess it's worth it. Here's the irony, pretty much every LEO reading this runs through these scenarios daily, if not hourly, and actually trains for it. But the rest of us posting it, somehowe we're the bad guys in the eyes of the system. We just want to go home safe every day, like everyone else.

Well put. It is essentially fight or flight situation and you have your training (if you have any) and/ or your intuition to decide either way inside couple seconds. Hindsight is always 20/20, but in the spur of the moment folks make the strangest (il)logical decisions. Therefore the legal outcome is highly subjective and will depend on the legal team presentations on both sides. This sucks either way and is a stark reminder for any LTC holder to go get some training to avoid such scenarios whenever possible to begin with. I know- all too easy to say when on the sidelines... but... this is NES so it has to count lol...

 

[LakeTrout]

This is a fun one. I’m really not sure if it’s self defense or not. I think a lot of people here are cheering for the defendant because he has a LTC. How about if he didn’t? If he was “illegally” in possession of the gun, for simply not having a LTC, I think it would change a lot of people’s opinions here. And that is problematic for me.

I don’t care whether he has an LTC or not, and I don’t feel any connection to him whatsoever any more than someone who doesn’t have the license but has a gun. Those details are irrelevant to me.

If we have a road rage incident where the defendant followed the deceased and intentionally put himself in a situation where a confrontation is likely to occur, and then shot the guy when the confrontation happened, it’s not as obvious a self defense case for me.

 

[DJBrad]

@eboos Finger on the pulse as usual. I really appreciate you opening a window for us here.


So since the defense rested yesterday what is the next step? 2pm jury deliberations? Imagine we get another juror dismissed and then we’re down to 11……

 

[EJFudd]

This is a fun one. I’m really not sure if it’s self defense or not. I think a lot of people here are cheering for the defendant because he has a LTC. How about if he didn’t? If he was “illegally” in possession of the gun, for simply not having a LTC, I think it would change a lot of people’s opinions here. And that is problematic for me.

Please note that I raised the LTC issue only in the context of it suggesting that the defendant likely had a very clean criminal record going into this incident. In other words, he probably hadn't done anything similar to suggest a pattern of road rage behavior. He probably also wasn't high as a kite on drugs. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[LakeTrout]

Please note that I raised the LTC issue only in the context of it suggesting that the defendant likely had a very clean criminal record going into this incident. In other words, he probably hadn't done anything similar to suggest a pattern of road rage behavior. He probably also wasn't high as a kite on drugs. Nothing more, nothing less.

You make a good point on that. No, my post wasn’t directed toward your comment though. I didn’t have that in mind. It was more to say people here may jump to the defense of the defendant because there is something in common. And in general, gun owners are heavily marginalized in MA. I’m wondering if he owned a gun without a LTC, if that would cause people to be less apt to identify with him, and less apt to jump to his defense.

 

[eboos]

@eboos Finger on the pulse as usual. I really appreciate you opening a window for us here.


So since the defense rested yesterday what is the next step? 2pm jury deliberations? Imagine we get another juror dismissed and then we’re down to 11……

Jury deliberations should have started at 9am this morning. 2pm yesterday was closing arguments. Yeah, if they lost another juror it would be a mistrial.

 

[eboos]

I’m wondering if he owned a gun without a LTC, if that would cause people to be less apt to identify with him, and less apt to jump to his defense.

I've seen the hood rattiest shooting result in a not guilty before on the basis of self defense.

 

[eboos]

I just read a T&G article and it is amazing how stupid the author was. Lots of details factually incorrect and "the defendant was allowed to use the restroom unattended" - OMG the huge manatee!

 

[keysersoze]

Great thread-- and much appreciation to those of you who are able to report the trial firsthand-- I wish I could be there. I get my haircut across the street from the courthouse every two weeks but I never thought of popping in to watch a trial when I do have the time, might consider that.
My takes;
1- The area where the shooting took place is essentially college kid central-- WPI is just a few blocks away, so is the Art Museum and the Historical Society. Not a bad area by any means-- but it has its share of crazies as do most urban areas. A few years ago some nut was walking down Lancaster Street knocking on doors, he tried to get into the Art Museum but it wasn't open, went a few more doors down and then stabbed the first person who came to the door. The defendant is from Westborough, he may not have the experience to know what might be lurking around every corner.
2- If he did CPR on the perp that's a win-- at least in my mind when you're dealing with a likely Libtard jury.
3- He should have lawyered up right away. "I'll happily co-operate once my lawyer gets here." is my go too. I get the logic-- you did nothing wrong, you can explain this away, the cops will easily see your side and agree. I also feel for this guy-- clearly he was upset. He just killed a guy. Doesn't matter how much of a scumbag the perp was, you still just killed a guy, adrenaline spike can cause you to run your mouth. Too risky especially in a Blue State.
4- Honestly I side with the defendant about 75% of the way-- but there seem to be variables and details are not clear. I hope he gets a fair trial but I'm not sure that's even possible in MA.

 

[EJFudd]

I’m wondering if he owned a gun without a LTC, if that would cause people to be less apt to identify with him, and less apt to jump to his defense.

It would probably cause more people in Worcester to identify with him as that appears to be the norm there.

 

[keysersoze]

The Telegram is saying the DEF did follow the guy-- wouldn't be the first time they don't know what they're talking about-- in fact I'm always surprised when they get something right. There was a time there was a "protest" at City Hall-- it was a naked woman in a cage to protest the circus being in town, there was one person raging about it (I assume with the caged woman) and the rest were people gathering around to see why a naked woman was in a cage-- from the photos it made it seem like there was a huge rally when they ran an article. Not even close. Nobody in the crowd cared one whit about the circus.