Garys
NES Member
http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/01/defense-of-others.html
This was in Florida, where the laws are definitely different.
This was in Florida, where the laws are definitely different.
-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
In Defense of Others
- Thread starter Garys
- Start date
Huh? All states, including MA, allow one to use deadly force to defend a third party if that third party would be justified in using deadly force to defend themselves.
Garys
NES Member
Try this in MA and see what happens. The only gun the PD took from him was the one that he used. He kept his CCW and all of his other guns. He wasn't arrested at the scene. That's three things that would be totally different here.
It would not surprise me here in MA (or in most states), that the shooter would be arrested and his firearm seized as evidence. Here in MA, I would expect that his LTC would be suspended and firearms seized during the investigation.
But given the same circumstances, I think the shooter would likely be exonerated, even here in MA.
Purely speculation. Probably accurate, but speculation never the less.
It's always dependent upon the situation as to how the law proceeds with sorting out the stories.
There is a constant perception that using a firearm in any defensive situation here in MA will always cause the law to pounce on the person who used the gun, whether they (both the shooter and the law) were justified or not, but it seems that even here in MA, things don't always turn out as badly for the shooter if the situation is cut and dry as to the proper use of force.
Garys
NES Member
The difference being that in MA he would likely be arrested, arraigned, indicted, and tried. It would cost him several thousand dollars to defend himself, and that wouldn't include the inevitable civil suit.
In FL, none of that is likely to happen. In fact, in several states in the south, none of that is likely to happen.
Another difference. A friend of mine drove from his home in LA to Ft. Worth, TX a couple of months ago. Along the way he stopped at a sporting goods store in LA (his state of residence) and bought a Glock 23, an over under shotgun, an AR-15, and a SAA clone in .22. He then continued on to Ft. Worth, where we met. He locked the firearms in his hotel room, but needed no permit, no FID card, nothing to possess them in Texas. When I told him what I would need to do if I wanted to do the same thing in MA, he thought I was making it up. He doesn't have or need a LA CCW permit, although he's thinking of getting one.
Much different than what we've come to expect up here.
Hello fellow frog - does this water seem warmer than it was yesterday? Oh well, can't be boiling yet, I'm still alive...
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Having previously lived in FL and NH, MA gun laws are a sight to behold (no pun intended)... Can only hope that Obama and the corresponding increase in gun owners is getting more people involved in exercising/protecting their rights...
Would he likely be arrested? Yes, I agree. As the remainder, I doubt it.
Just this past month, a shop owner in Worcester shot and killed a robber. Was he arraigned? No. Was he indicted? No. Was he tried? No.
Several years back, a woman in Waltham shot an intruder in her home. She was arrested and her LTC was suspended. But she wasn't arraigned, indicted, or tried. She did, eventually, get her LTC back.
Is MA less friendly towards self-defense (and defense of others) than many other states? Sure. Is it as bad as you posted? I don't think so.
Seems like a problem with the "duty to retreat". Obviously, that approach is flawed to its core, but I'm not so confident as you based on what I am seeing in the laws...
That may not be the intention of the law (to limit your ability to protect others), but once you open the "duty to retreat" can of worms, everything gets gray...
If the person being attacked would be justified in using lethal force (i.e., they could not safely retreat), then you can legally use deadly force in their defense. That is, if the victim already satisfied the duty to retreat, then you can use deadly force. In the original post, the woman could not retreat -- she was being beaten. Therefore, her rescuer did not have to retreat.
There are certainly many issues around intervening for a third party, but this really isn't one of them.
+1 agreed - that is the intention of the law as I understand it and that's certainly what I would assume my handy-dandy attorney would argue in this case...
I just find it pretty scary coming from places without such a requirement to add yet another legal wrinkle/interpretation to a process in which legal nuances will/should be last thing on your mind...
This case is a little easier as she was confined behind the counter and by the attacker, but its not hard to imagine cases where it was less obvious...
Garys
NES Member
I think that the perception is based on experience. Even that Dr. down on the Cape was arrested when she shot her abusive husband. She was no billed as I recall, but I'd think it cost her close to $30K in lawyer's fees even without a trial.
Attorney Kevin Reddington doesn't come cheap, but he is who I would call. That situation did not appear to me to be cut-and-dried at all. So it is not surprising to me that she was arrested and then investigated.
Garys
NES Member
A lot of people that I know developed a sudden urge to get their LTC and buy at least one gun for self defense. The trick will be to get them to join GOAL, the NRA, GOA, JPFO, or some other advocacy organization. As gun enthusiasts we should devise ways to get gun owners who are not enthusiasts to take protecting their rights seriously. This is an incredible opportunity to increase the membership in these organizations. The barrier to that is the media induced perception that the NRA is some sort of gun nut organization that doesn't care if criminals get guns.
I hope that people smarter than I am can figure out how to change that.
Garys
NES Member
Reddington is one of the guys that would be at the top of my list if I were in criminal trouble. There are a few others as well, but he's definitely a top notch defense attorney.
Any of them that are that good are going to cost a lot of money.
Similar threads
