• 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.

Gun Owner Points LC9 at Police

Based on the report the guy sounds a like a dirtbag but he'll get his day in court.

I have to say though that based on the report I find it really hard to believe that he actually pointed the gun at the cops. It sounds like an "add on" charge. Who tries to "smack against a door jamb" a guy's hand with a gun in it that is pointed at them or at a fellow officer? I think if he was pointing the gun at the cops he probably would have been shot and justifiably so.
 
Um, where did you hear this? In MA, as in most of the country, you need a warrant for a blood draw, which is exceptionally rare. Only a couple states (and Nevada just got their rule overturned) draw blood without permission

Disclaimer: IANAL.

When I said "compelled", I meant with a warrant. You're right that in MA you can refuse a test, but it automatically results in a 180 day license suspension. If you caused injury by your actions, I believe the suspension is 10 years. If you are injured and hospitalized, you will most likely have your own blood drawn, and the BAC will be checked. That can be admissible: Commonwealth v Dube (1992)

Either way, this definitely seems like a good case for a night judge and a warrant to draw fluids.
 
Um, where did you hear this? In MA, as in most of the country, you need a warrant for a blood draw, which is exceptionally rare. Only a couple states (and Nevada just got their rule overturned) draw blood without permission

You don't need a warrant to take DNA, I am sure blood is either not far behind or already there.
 
We criticize LEO's often on this forum when they deserve it. In this case, they seem to have been in true danger from a violent drunk, and they handled the situation the right way. Yes, we are all expected to do our jobs the right way and that's all they did, but still, when so many incidents get out of hand, it's nice to at least see one getting handled the right way.

And it seems that there is enough evidence to put a violent drunk against bars for a while - good news all around.

+1
 
Well the holster was on his person at the time, so I'm sure they would take anything on him as evidence. They just didn't bother to report it. No one cares if he had a tube of chapstick in his pocket or something.

Plus, depending on how they want to proceed with charges, I can see that they might want to use it to concoct a story of "premeditation" or "intent" by having the holster on him, and not just spontaneously grabbing his gun. They like to trump the charges as much as they can, I'm sure.

Having the holster on him can show that he was carrying on his person while under the influence of alcohol or narcotics, not just in possession. I mean, who the **** knows where they want to take it, but they'd take his work boots from the closet if they thought it would add years to his sentence.
 
I have had nothing , but good experiences with the Taunton PD. A lot of good guys.

The old Chief actually bought me my first legal beer at about 11 am on my 21st birthday.

Had a bad experience with an old roomate who decided to do a bunch of drugs, and try to strangle me. When they found him unconscious they asked what all the blood was from. I said "he tried to choke me, so I knocked him out!". LEO said "good for you", and left with said roommate.

If you are not a scumbag ( like a lot of Tauntonians) They seem to really appreciate it!
 
In the case of a DUI in MA, the defendant's refusal to take a breath test cannot be used against him, and the jury must be told there are many reasons a breath test could be unavailable, and they are to draw no inference from its absence.

I wonder if this subject will receive the same protection on his carry under the influence charge.

But if you refuse, you automatically have a license suspension. Either way your screwed. Hopefully this guy gets screwed too. Can't stand guys that think it's cool to beat up women. F--cking tough guy huh??
 
Well the holster was on his person at the time, so I'm sure they would take anything on him as evidence. They just didn't bother to report it. No one cares if he had a tube of chapstick in his pocket or something.

Plus, depending on how they want to proceed with charges, I can see that they might want to use it to concoct a story of "premeditation" or "intent" by having the holster on him, and not just spontaneously grabbing his gun. They like to trump the charges as much as they can, I'm sure.

Having the holster on him can show that he was carrying on his person while under the influence of alcohol or narcotics, not just in possession. I mean, who the **** knows where they want to take it, but they'd take his work boots from the closet if they thought it would add years to his sentence.

Slow down dude. There may be LEOs that would trump up charges but these guys are not in that league. Your making a call without even knowing these guys.
 
Cohannet has turned into a such a S*** hole.

Parts of it, yeah. The part where this happened, really hasn't changed much in the past 20 years. The house he lives in is one of only a few in the immediate vicinity that have changed owners over the past 20 years.
 
They should have shot him for pointing a handgun at an officer. Two things: ONE: the police responding have no reason to take a casualty for some drunk scumbag who beats his wife. I don't know about you, but someone I don't know flags me with their pistol that's the point where I shoot. Two: if they did, it would have been one less scumbag off the streets that me and you would have to deal with. I don't know any "law abiding citizen" gun owner who gets wasted, beats his wife, and then points pistols at police. I am tired of criminal coddlers and police bashers on this forum.

Not that I disagree with you on principle here, but you are making a lot of assumptions based on a media story alone. Who says this wasn't just a jaded ex that was trying to get some revenge after finding out he shagged some other broad? Sure, he may have had a couple of beers, but who says he was a drunk? All I'm saying here is you are being very preemptive in convicting this guy based on a media report. For all we know this broad could have just used this to screw the guy over knowing that a) he had been drinking. b) he usually answered the door with a gun in his hand. Fact is that none of us know the people in question, or were there, so we can't say how this all went down to assume this guy is in fact a scumbag, drunken criminal.
 
We criticize LEO's often on this forum when they deserve it. In this case, they seem to have been in true danger from a violent drunk, and they handled the situation the right way. Yes, we are all expected to do our jobs the right way and that's all they did, but still, when so many incidents get out of hand, it's nice to at least see one getting handled the right way.

+1 for a relevant observation
 
I lived on the good end down by the bird sanctuary up until 18 m months ago. It's when you head towards the center after the flashing red 4 way does it get shady.

Yes that is nice area. I take my dog walking there all the time. I assume the "trash" blows down there occasionally because I saw this sign in the woods.

Sign.jpg

Good thing there is a "no hunting" sign. [rolleyes]
 
Back
Top Bottom