![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Last edited:
-
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 May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Man prosecuted for defending himself in MA - Article
- Thread starter Bob P
- Start date
I missed the Romney lover today. What was his take?
In the end what matters is were the elements met for the use of deadly force? The man has to be in fear of serious bodily harm/death and he has to have had no other means to prevent such harm other the the use of deadly force. For all we know the guy could have driven away. I would want to hear more facts before I rally to this guys side.Its possible he was totally justified,but then again maybee he wasnt. YMMV
A-hole stops for an accident he wasn't involved in and didn't see, then proceeds to assault one of the people involved in the accident. Damn right I'm rallying to this guys side for defending himself. The douche nozzle that got stabbed deserved it, he should have not gotten involved and went on his way to pick up the child he was so late to get to.
I'm sorry, but it's comments like this that just support the fact that there is absolutely no hope for that state whatsoever. The place is a toilet and needs to be flushed.
June4th
NES Member
I tuned in to fill in Howie's commercial slots. Severin basically curled into fetal position on radio and cried 'I want my mommy' about the 'road rage' as he called the whole deal. No word was said about the righteous self defense of the driver in the situation.
Severin has long lost relevance in my book.
Last edited:
I missed it. I used to really like Severin. He had a much more Libertarian edge to him. He's changed quite a bit.
While there is no question that the jerk who stopped was the aggressor, if the defender was able to retreat and did not do so, then he might not be able to claim self defense. Yes, that sucks, but that is the law here in MA and in most states.
So, was he able to retreat or not? We don't know and the press coverage is unlikely to enlighten us.
That's why I wrote "here in MA and in most states."
Lets say the 60 year old stabber took the punches and slaps whatever the guy was doing to him, and survived. Then what would the charges be? It seems to me that even if he took the beating and didn't have a knife (or never pulled it) they would have only charged the third party guy (stabee)? Even with the knife detail and the slice in the attackers arm, I feel due to the "mutual combat" element BOTH parties would have been charged regardless...
This case is insane. How are is the "mutual combat" charge even considered no matter who opened the door? The third party had no business being there he was not a witness or in any way apart of said accident between the two vehicles. That being said, remember the "latino" kid that beat the guy to death in chelsea over a parking spot? Well you can't charge dead guys (maybe in MA you can) but I wonder if he survived if he to would be faced with a "mutual combat" scenario.
WOW no wonder the 1%'r numbers are creeping up to 10%'r. I really need to leave this state, but honestly can't see myself living in Ohio. I wonder if this took place in NH how the legal outcome would have played out.
After reading all 11 pages of this post I feel dumber...
This case is insane. How are is the "mutual combat" charge even considered no matter who opened the door? The third party had no business being there he was not a witness or in any way apart of said accident between the two vehicles. That being said, remember the "latino" kid that beat the guy to death in chelsea over a parking spot? Well you can't charge dead guys (maybe in MA you can) but I wonder if he survived if he to would be faced with a "mutual combat" scenario.
WOW no wonder the 1%'r numbers are creeping up to 10%'r. I really need to leave this state, but honestly can't see myself living in Ohio. I wonder if this took place in NH how the legal outcome would have played out.
After reading all 11 pages of this post I feel dumber...
Kicker96FS
NES Member
I would have stabbed him in one eye and shot him in the other. Frack him and the DA.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
I would not assume he was able to retreat. He was confined in a car and especially if the car was off and the keys not in the ignition, then he was not able to retreat. Period. The man had gotten the door open by that point and was pummeling the old guy. I am happy to recreate this with anyone to see if you could easily retreat from that situation. This would include obstacles like the curb, the traffic, etc. You won't get away.
Retreat needs to be treated the way it was intended and not the way the moonbat judicial system has warped it over the years. The idea was supposed to be that two hot heads get into a scruff at the local pub, they can't claim SD against the other because they didn't walk away from the fight or from each other while there was no assault occurring (the chest puffing stage). That they had partaken in the violence by failing to retreat. If the chest puffing isn't there, once there is an assault, you shouldn't have to run screaming "Help! Help!" like a little child. The duty to retreat is to make reasonable attempts to avoid the physical confrontation. Once the physical confrontation exists or is imminent, there comes a time when retreat is no longer possible. Now, that isn't how these moonbat judges and ADAs see it, but they are wrong. They have warped the law to fit their political goals.
BTW: The above is not a legal opinion. The legal opinion of the state is basically run and keep running and call the police. The state discourages self help. YMMV.
Whether the guy in the car was able to retreat will affect his ability to claim self-defense. Since the bottom feeder was the initial aggressor, there's no way he can claim self-defense.
BTW, mutual combat is when both parties start the fight essentially simultaneously. When one guy is sitting in his car and the other guy reaches in and starts punching him, that's hardly mutual combat.
Ken
Last edited:
Mass-diver
NES Member
Would have been a nice time to have some OC. Dealing with unarmed aggressors are a big problem 
If he retreated, wouldn't that be leaving the scene of an accident, which is also a crime? Also, if I had just been in a car accident, in traffic, I may not notice someone pulling in behind me and coming up to my door. Some people get a little shaken up after a car accident.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
MA does't have any definition of mutual combat or even affray. Retreat appears to be the means for determining culpability here and assault the statutes under which prosecutions fall. I am curious what your thoughts are as you have a lot of knowledge in this area.
You can defend yourself here in MA. The issue is defending yourself using lethal force.
1) We don't know if he was able to retreat or not.
2) He would have been in a better situation if his door had been locked.
3) We don't know that the old guy was being "pummeled" -- you used that word deliberately to inflame passions in favor of your argument.
4) You, like many others in this thread, have interpreted my questions as statements.
5) IF you can get away, you should try to do so. That is not a statement that you WILL be able to get away. If you have tried to get away but were unable to do so, and were pursued, that may help your legal fight.
6) If you are trying to get away from an assault, go ahead and break traffic laws to do so. Jump the curb IF you can. Drive down the sidewalk. Run the red light. Get out of dodge. But you might not be able to get away.
I doubt that would be an issue if you drove a block away, called 911, and explained the circumstances.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
the glob said:
boston channel said:
As to the other points, I believe you are being overly conservative. If we don't start believing SD is a right, then the moonbats won't either.
terraformer, come on, dude, give me a break. You used the word "pummeled" for exactly the same reason that a Globe reporter uses words like "arsenal" -- you used it to create an emotional rise in the reader.
How severe was the fight? We don't know. Of course his attorney is going to present this as being a life-threatening attack. And maybe it was. But maybe it wasn't. We don't know.
At LFI-1, Ayoob said that it in a one-on-one fight between two adult men, it can often be very hard to justify to the court the use of a weapon for self defense against an unarmed attacker. Ayoob's comment wasn't about the ethics of this, but rather about the legalities of it. You think I'm being overly conservative? So, the fact that the stabber was arrested makes you think I'm being overly conservative? Huh?
Would a reasonable man, being in his situation, have felt he was in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury? We don't know.
How severe was the fight? We don't know. Of course his attorney is going to present this as being a life-threatening attack. And maybe it was. But maybe it wasn't. We don't know.
At LFI-1, Ayoob said that it in a one-on-one fight between two adult men, it can often be very hard to justify to the court the use of a weapon for self defense against an unarmed attacker. Ayoob's comment wasn't about the ethics of this, but rather about the legalities of it. You think I'm being overly conservative? So, the fact that the stabber was arrested makes you think I'm being overly conservative? Huh?
Would a reasonable man, being in his situation, have felt he was in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury? We don't know.
I'm talking about the legalities of the situation. You're talking about the ethics. The two are different.
Last edited:
If you jump the curb and end up hitting someone else while trying to escape then what? Also he was in an accident so if he fled he could be charged with leaving the scene of an accident and still end up in court.
No one should have to run if under attack unless they safely can.
I noticed that the part about leaving the scene of an accident was brought up by Max power and discussed some already.
Just because he could stop further away and make the call to explain his situation M1911 does not mean he would not still be charged.
Last edited:
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
No, it's not. One good strike with something hard and the tempered window glass will shatter. Ask any EMT, Paramedic or firefighter. I was about to say you can't do it with your fist and then I remembered a friend who did just that... so yes, even striking it with a fist can break it.
This guy tried with a hammer and had a hard time. Don't EMTs, Paramedics, and firefighters carry a special tool to break glass?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX3go6jV-hQ
Last edited:
Similar threads
