Man prosecuted for defending himself in MA - Article

[terraformer]

The instructor was the owner of MFS. I'm assuming he knows his stuff seeing that he teaches about those types of scenarios. If not then I
want my money back

He said that he didn't know all the details. At the sametime he does know the laws. I think he was trying to make sense of why this guy would be
prosecuted and that was the only way. I know many might say "no, it's crappy Mass" and this maybe true too. I guess we'll only know the truth when it's all said and done.

He knows his stuff and is smart, but it is not clear what this person may have did to deserve to be pummeled in his car.

Steve is clearly trying to rationalize how they could be prosecuting this man because he is a good person who believes that the police and government are inherently honest. I would only add that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and as a result, the wrong person is sometimes prosecuted.

 

[Lank]

I am not sure this question has been answered- would someone fleeing in a MV be charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon?

For example, while attacked, the driver floors it and hurts the attacker. This is Massachusetts, so I assume that YES, the driver would be charged when fleeing.

This outcome seems consistent with italianppf2 and other posts basically stating that you're only allowed to reply with equal force.


Fr

 

[terraformer]

I am not sure this question has been answered- would someone fleeing in a MV be charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon?

For example, while attacked, the driver floors it and hurts the attacker. This is Massachusetts, so I assume that YES, the driver would be charged when fleeing.

This outcome seems consistent with italianppf2 and other posts basically stating that you're only allowed to reply with equal force.


Fr

Anyone can be charged with anything and prosecutors can spin anything to fit their narrative.

 

[Pilgrim]

In Mass you're only allowed to defend yourself with as much force as what is coming at you.

Really? Where does it say that?

A person's fists can be just as deadly as a knife. Are you saying the only defense the OLD guy had was his fists against the other YOUNGER guys' fists?

Until you can show me any law that states what you state, I'll just consider this another example of you posting bad examples of incorrect law....again.

 

[Realtor MA]

Realtor, there was a part in the story where they said that the PO on-scene claimed that "there was a lot of blood inside the car". To me, this implies that the stabber was still in his car when this happened . . . otherwise the rager's blood wouldn't have been found in the stabber's car.

Right. That was my first impression. My point was/is that we really don't know what the hell happened. To Bob P's post. I thought I read that there were mixed reports from the witnesses? Whatever the case let's hope justice is served.

 

[drgrant]

True, true. I'm on this guys side. In Mass you're only allowed to defend yourself with as much force as what is coming at you.

Sorry, but this is pure BS. A situation either allows for a deadly force response or it doesn't. There is no "granularity of force" specified in laws, whether in MA or the rest of the US, for that matter.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

I am not sure this question has been answered- would someone fleeing in a MV be charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon?

For example, while attacked, the driver floors it and hurts the attacker. This is Massachusetts, so I assume that YES, the driver would be charged when fleeing.

Maybe, anyone can be charged with anything.

That said, unintentionally injuring someone while attempting to flee an attack will
probably "smell" a lot better in court under the "reasonable person" principle.

"Intent" often plays a huge role. If you were trying to escape, it makes it a lot
harder for the prosecution to spin that negatively, because even the moonbattiest of
jurors are not going to fault someone for attempting to flee a dangerous situation.

-Mike

 

[06LemansC6]

Sorry, but this is pure BS. A situation either allows for a deadly force response or it doesn't. There is no "granularity of force" specified in laws, whether in MA or the rest of the US, for that matter.

-Mike

This

 

[EddieCoyle]

In Mass you're only allowed to defend yourself with as much force as what is coming at you.

Bullshit. If your 'instructor' told you this, ask for your money back.

Meanwhile, do me a favor. If you don't know or understand the laws, stop posting as if you do. If somebody follows your incorrect advice, it could get them in trouble or killed.

ETA: Dude, is this you?

 

[Admin]

 

[william_munny]

Whoever it is, I'm pretty sure he's lying about not doing acid.

 

[Lank]

Maybe, anyone can be charged with anything.

That said, unintentionally injuring someone while attempting to flee an attack will
probably "smell" a lot better in court under the "reasonable person" principle.

"Intent" often plays a huge role. If you were trying to escape, it makes it a lot
harder for the prosecution to spin that negatively, because even the moonbattiest of
jurors are not going to fault someone for attempting to flee a dangerous situation.

-Mike

Thanks, this does make sense, however I am afraid my faith in the legal system (especially the MA system) has forever been tainted by myths and legend about perps and thieves suing homeowners for defending themselvs.

 

[Kicker96FS]

You guys can talk and think all you want but this will not be resolved for 6-12 months, so you may as well sit down, shut up, and wait, because I am sure there is BS on both sides (there always is). I for one think the old man had every right to protect himself, by any means he had. Just what the DA is going to do is another matter, I hope it goes to trial because all the old mans lawyer has to do is get the jury to put them self's in the old mans place with some nut case stopping and start punching you while trying to exchange papers with a guy you just had a fender bender with. It could be your worst nightmare, and that is what he has to make them see. I don't see any decent mouthpiece having too much trouble doing that.

 

[DirkDiggler]

In this state you can only respond with "equal and opposite force" to defend yourself. If he brings his fists, you bring your fists, if he brings a gun, you bring a gun, etc. Unless you can prove that you were in fear for your life.

 

[Realtor MA]

In this state you can only respond with "equal and opposite force" to defend yourself. If he brings his fists, you bring your fists, if he brings a gun, you bring a gun, etc. Unless you can prove that you were in fear for your life.

I'm not so sure about the 'equal' part of your quote. Or at least the interpretation. My understanding is that deadly force from a fist or stick or whatever can be responded to with deadly force from a gun. They are equal only in that they are both deadly force.

 

[drgrant]

In this state you can only respond with "equal and opposite force" to defend yourself. If he brings his fists, you bring your fists, if he brings a gun, you bring a gun, etc. Unless you can prove that you were in fear for your life.

Where does it say this in MGL? I want to know. A lot of us in this thread would like to know.



Oh wait, it doesn't....

You and italianppf2 must have the same instructor. or you're both taking what he says out of context..... WAY out of context.

-Mike

 

[Pilgrim]

Where does it say this in MGL? I want to know. A lot of us in this thread would like to know.


Oh wait, it doesn't....

You and italianppf2 must have the same instructor. or you're both taking what he says out of context..... WAY out of context.

-Mike

I don't think he said his instructor told him that...he's probably been talking to italianppf2 who regularly gives bad legal advice.

 

[Kurtz]

This state is starting to remind me of England.

 

[ZX14]

Proportional

I think the legal principle is that the response has to be proportional to the threat.

A frail old lady isn't expected to go toe to toe with a 300 lb gangbanger.

An old man, being pummeled on a busy street, should be in fear for his life.

Stabbing the alleged attacker in the arm one time and then stopping when the 'attacker' stops makes him the model of restraint.

He response seems proportional to the threat.

I hope he gets a fast and good outcome.

 

[Kurtz]

In cases like this the local DA needs an email from all of us.

 

[Mass Firearms]

Clarifying my position on this...

On Saturday I was explaining some general principles concerning the use of deadly force for the protection of life in Massachusetts or Utah (I cannot remember).

One of the points I made was that you cannot claim self defense if you were party to the escalation of violence.

My point was simply that the prosecutor in this case, in order to convict the man who defended himself, would likely try to argue that the man escalated the violence in some form (swearing at the attacker, telling him to pound sand... etc).

I was not endorsing the prosecutor's actions. Nor do I believe the man who defended himself should be charged.

I was only explaining from an academic perspective how the man, who defended himself, could end up being prosecuted.

This is Massachusetts. If you want to be treated fairly by the courts I recommend finding another state to live in.

 

[Shortstuff]

I may have missed it, but in these 18 pages of posts I don't remember any mention of what some news reports stated that there was an exchange of words and cussing between the old man and the one who got stabbed (before he even pulled over) as he drove passed the old mans car. My initial thoughts would be that this may have had something to do with the "escalation" of the situation prompting the uninvolved driver to pull over and confront the older man in his vehicle. Perhaps in this initial verbal confrontation the older man made reference to the younger mans mother or sexual orientation, which agravated him enough to cause him to pull over and further the conversation.

That being said, in my opinion, as soon as the younger man pulled over he was wrong. He became the aggressor, he escalated the entire assault which never would have happened if he in fact minded his own business and continued on his way to pick up his son who he was delayed in picking up. From the instant he pulled over he was the one who initiated the whole incident and is responsible for everything that happened from that point on.

There are just too many details about this that we just don't know to either pass judgement or take sides right now.

 

[Bob P]

Clarifying my position on this...

On Saturday I was explaining some general principles concerning the use of deadly force for the protection of life in Massachusetts or Utah (I cannot remember).

One of the points I made was that you cannot claim self defense if you were party to the escalation of violence.

My point was simply that the prosecutor in this case, in order to convict the man who defended himself, would likely try to argue that the man escalated the violence in some form (swearing at the attacker, telling him to pound sand... etc).

I was not endorsing the prosecutor's actions. Nor do I believe the man who defended himself should be charged.

I was only explaining from an academic perspective how the man, who defended himself, could end up being prosecuted.

This is Massachusetts. If you want to be treated fairly by the courts I recommend finding another state to live in.

Which is a different animal alltogether from how you were paraphrased. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[terraformer]

I may have missed it, but in these 18 pages of posts I don't remember any mention of what some news reports stated that there was an exchange of words and cussing between the old man and the one who got stabbed (before he even pulled over) as he drove passed the old mans car. My initial thoughts would be that this may have had something to do with the "escalation" of the situation prompting the uninvolved driver to pull over and confront the older man in his vehicle. Perhaps in this initial verbal confrontation the older man made reference to the younger mans mother or sexual orientation, which agravated him enough to cause him to pull over and further the conversation.

That being said, in my opinion, as soon as the younger man pulled over he was wrong. He became the aggressor, he escalated the entire assault which never would have happened if he in fact minded his own business and continued on his way to pick up his son who he was delayed in picking up. From the instant he pulled over he was the one who initiated the whole incident and is responsible for everything that happened from that point on.

There are just too many details about this that we just don't know to either pass judgement or take sides right now.

This brings up an interesting interpretation of the man being in his car. (Lots of speculation here) IF, when these supposed words were exchanged, the man was out of the car, the retreat could be him getting into his car. In cases where an altercation, even verbal, is mutual, a person involved can regain right of defense through "retreat" (avoidance is a better term BTW).

All speculation.

 

[garandman]

This state is starting to remind me of England.

No, no on. There are far fewer drama queens in England. I don't know how some of you manage to get out of bed in the morning.

Lets see, according to news reports:

Flaherty hit McDevitt first.
McDevitt hit Flaherty first.

Since their wives weren't there to assign guilt, it's going to court.

A Quincy man who was involved in an accident with another motorist on Morrissey Boulevard in Dorchester yesterday was arrested for allegedly stabbing a third driver after that man stopped to complain about the traffic tie-up, according to State Police.

State Police arrested Colum J. Flaherty, 62, shortly after 3 p.m. Flaherty was heading southbound in his 1995 GMC Jimmy when he was rear-ended by a 63-year-old North Reading man operating a 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser, just before Freeport Street, State Police said. The two drivers were exchanging information when a 54-year-old Quincy man operating a 2010 Honda stopped in front of the two cars and complained about the delay in traffic.

The man and Flaherty became involved in an altercation, during which Flaherty allegedly brandished a knife and stabbed the man. The man, who State police are not identifying, was transported to Boston Medical Center with minor injuries, said State Police spokesman Sergeant Michael Popovics.

Flaherty was arrested at the scene and charged with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, State Police said. He was held at the State Police barracks in South Boston pending bail and is due to be arraigned today at the Dorchester Division of Boston Municipal Court, Popovics said.

The North Reading driver was also not identified. One state trooper called the incident the worst episode of road rage he had ever seen. Police closed down two lanes on Morrissey Boulevard for two hours to process the scene for evidence, causing significant traffic back-ups during the evening rush hour. The incident remains under investigation and more charges may follow, Popovics said.

- Both men involved in Monday's road rage incident in Dorchester will face charges. Colum J. Flaherty, 62, of Quincy was involved in a crash on Morrissey Boulevard that led to a traffic jam. According to prosecutors, a third driver, apparently upset at being delayed by the accident, began banging on Flaherty's car before opening a car door and striking him. Flaherty's attorney said his client responded by stabbing the third driver in the arm to defend himself. Flaherty pleaded not guilty to one count of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon in Dorchester Municipal Court. The third driver was identified as a 54-year-old Quincy resident, and may face a charge of assault and battery on a person over 60."

A Quincy man stabbed in the arm during a road rage incident following a two-car crash will be charged with throwing a punch first.

Colum J. Flaherty, 62, of Quincy, posted $500 cash bail after being charged Monday with stabbing 54-year-old Michael J. McDevitt, who is also from Quincy, in the arm with a small folding knife he had in his car. McDevitt will be summoned to Dorchester District Court for allegedly punching Flaherty before being stabbed, State Police said.

The crash happened just after 3 p.m. Monday on Morrissey Boulevard.

State Police said a 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser being driven by a 63-year-old North Reading man rear-ended a 1995 GMC Jimmy driven by Flaherty.

The two drivers were exchanging information when McDevitt topped his car and complained about the traffic backup. McDevitt allegedly hit Flaherty who then allegedly stabbed him, State Police said.

McDevitt was taken to Boston Medical Center Monday with what police described as minor injuries. Judge Robert Baylor on Tuesday ordered Flaherty to stay away from McDevitt while the case is pending. Flaherty was arraigned in Boston Municipal Court’s Dorchester division.

A 62-year-old Quincy man stabbed an irate 54-year-old personal injury lawyer in self-defense — not road rage — in the wake of a rain-soaked fender-bender, the defendant’s lawyer claimed yesterday.

The brouhaha broke out shortly after 3 p.m. Monday while Colum Flaherty was exchanging papers with a third driver with whom he’d collided.

Stuck in the backed-up traffic was Michael J. McDevitt. “(Expletive) you, get the (expletive) out of my way, I have to pick up my kid,” McDevitt admitted shrieking at Flaherty on Morrissey Boulevard in Dorchester, according to state police reports. McDevitt then reached into Flaherty’s SUV and began punching him about his head, police said. That’s when Flaherty allegedly plunged a pocket knife into McDevitt’s arm.

Flaherty, the owner of a tour bus service, was released on $500 cash bail after pleading not guilty yesterday in Dorchester District Court to assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.

McDevitt will be summoned to court on charges including assault and battery on a person over 60 and disorderly conduct. He could not be reached for comment.

Both Flaherty and the third driver told police they were in fear of McDevitt, reports state.

The stabbing “was an act of self-defense,” Flaherty’s attorney Jose Antonio Vincenty said. “The last thing he told me was, ‘I was scared to death.’ ”

Here's a summary, and it will work in all states, from the pristine, snowy Libertarian haven of New Hampshire to the venal, corrupt, effete Massachusetts:

Play Stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[GSG]

If you take the above version of the story at face value then it seems that Flaherty might already have been out of his car. Otherwise how could the two drivers be exchanging information.

I had this very thought.

Realtor, there was a part in the story where they said that the PO on-scene claimed that "there was a lot of blood inside the car". To me, this implies that the stabber was still in his car when this happened . . . otherwise the rager's blood wouldn't have been found in the stabber's car.

That implies there was a lot of blood inside the car. He could've gotten it all over his clothes outside than sat back down inside and got some there. There's also a gap in the timeline...how much time was there between the incident and the trooper's arrival?

ALL stories and all reports claim the guy was IN the car when this incident happened.

Someone should 66-10 the police reports, dispatch log, etc.

If a 250 pound body builder came at me I would be justified in using a deadly weapon because he could kill me. If a black belt came at me, again, i could use a deadly weapon. This is from a cop now FBI agent friend of mine. How a jury would decide is another issue.

Thanks, this does make sense, however I am afraid my faith in the legal system (especially the MA system) has forever been tainted by myths and legend about perps and thieves suing homeowners for defending themselvs.

 

[wahsben]

I addressed this in an earlier post but I still see it being mentioned so I will address it again.Both people don't have to be out of the car to exchange information. Just one does if they go over to the other car.

 

[M1911]

I addressed this in an earlier post but I still see it being mentioned so I will address it again.Both people don't have to be out of the car to exchange information. Just one does if they go over to the other car.

Yup. Maybe they were both out of the car. Maybe he'd gotten back into his car by that point. We just don't know.

 

[wahsben]

Yup. Maybe they were both out of the car. Maybe he'd gotten back into his car by that point. We just don't know.

Yes, we don't know but there are some that made comments that suggested the only way they could exchange information is if both drivers were out of their cars.

 

[M1911]

Yes, we don't know but there are some that made comments that suggested the only way they could exchange information is if both drivers were out of their cars.

Agreed. I suspect that at some point he would have gotten out of the car, but he may well have gotten back in to sit down while writing out the contact information. The last time I was hit, we both got out of our cars to inspect the damage.