Police respond to report of shooting at pro-Israeli protest in Newton

not new guy said:
But the legal advice I got earlier in this thread is that proportionality isn't a thing. Strange.
Click to expand...
It is, but I don't think in this context.

If the aggressor displayed a knife on the other side of the street and the shooter shot him then, you could argue proportionality and many other things, but fact is, that is not what happened.

How in danger does one have to be to be able to defend yourself? Surely a stranger barging across flowing traffic to wrap his hands around your throat meets that standard, does it not?

Were the hands around the throat a greeting I'm not aware of in some other culture?
 
Drix said:
It is, but I don't think in this context.

If the aggressor displayed a knife on the other side of the street and the shooter shot him then, you could argue proportionality and many other things, but fact is, that is not what happened.

How in danger does one have to be to be able to defend yourself? Surely a stranger barging across flowing traffic to wrap his hands around your throat meets that standard, does it not?

Were the hands around the throat a greeting I'm not aware of in some other culture?
Click to expand...

Did he actually get his hands around the shooter's throat? It looked like he was trying to get him in a headlock with one arm and failing while the other two guys were tapdancing on his face and neck, after the shot was fired.

Proportionality is absolutely a thing in this context. Maybe shooting him wasn't excessive given the nature of the attack, maybe it was. That will all be worked out in court.
 
pewpewpew said:
I'm still struggling to follow this tbh. The jury is determining a verdict on specific charges (A&B, manslaughter, etc.), right? Is "guilty conscience" one of the charges? Does a guilty conscience negate the actual reality of what happened? I understand why fleeing the scene coupd be interpreted as the sign of a guilty conscience but what I don't understand is why a guilty conscience matters.
Click to expand...
No when deciding if the Commonwealth has proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, if the jury wants to consider evidence of a defendant's consciousness of guilt they may do so.
 
I have been thinking about the weight disparity, or not, between the parties in this event. It leads to an interesting perspective that I have not heard mentioned.

When I watch the video, I think "that guy outweighs me by a chunk. And if he tackled by surprise from behind, I would be in big trouble." It is hard to judge sizes from the video, but I weigh about 160, and it looks like the ponytailed attacker in this situation has 50 pounds on me.

Now lets consider how proportionality might apply to a similar situation. If I find myself face down on the pavement, with no warning, and with a guy I have not gotten a good look at on my back on top of me, I need to base my response on how much I think he weighs. If he is about my weight, then I should not exceed pepper spray, but if he outweighs me by a sufficient amount, then the threat is grievous and any available force might be justifiable.

This sounds like an untenable assessment to make in 2 seconds while face down on pavement. But I guess even if it is untenable, it may still be required.
 
Dadstoys said:
Na the old broad is a pussy , she should have used the eyes in the back of her head and dropped him with a spinning roadhouse kick to the head.
Then gone to the ground and pound.
Click to expand...

She was ambushed and knocked out before she had any idea what was going on so I'm not sure when everyone thinks she's have had a chance to use a gun. The guy was already strolling away by the time she came to, but suppose she managed to fish her Desert Eagle out of her purse a few seconds later, while the guy had his back to her and was calmly and clearly strolling away. Would she be within her rights to shoot him then? Do you think she'd be cleared if she did?
 
not new guy said:
She was ambushed and knocked out before she had any idea what was going on so I'm not sure when everyone thinks she's have had a chance to use a gun. The guy was already strolling away by the time she came to, but suppose she managed to fish her Desert Eagle out of her purse a few seconds later, while the guy had his back to her and was calmly and clearly strolling away. Would she be within her rights to shoot him then? Do you think she'd be cleared if she did?
Click to expand...
I would clear her. Actions, meet consequences.

Anyways, something that nobody ever really seems to mention, but which is definitely important, is that the victim in any attack is not going to be thinking in a cold, dispassionate way like some in this thread are analyzing the situation. Someone who got tackled or punched in the face is going to be in panic mode and their entire perception of reality is going to be completely warped. However, that doesn't change the fact about what they perceived or what fears they experienced, even if it seems ridiculous to someone else sitting in the comfort of their home.
 
pewpewpew said:
I would clear her. Actions, meet consequences.

Anyways, something that nobody ever really seems to mention, but which is definitely important, is that the victim in any attack is not going to be thinking in a cold, dispassionate way like some in this thread are analyzing the situation. Someone who got tackled or punched in the face is going to be in panic mode and their entire perception of reality is going to be completely warped. However, that doesn't change the fact about what they perceived or what fears they experienced, even if it seems ridiculous to someone else sitting in the comfort of their home.
Click to expand...

I get it, but the question that matters is will the jury get it.

And if she shoots him in the back while he's walking away I would expect her to do time in NY.
 
not new guy said:
She was ambushed and knocked out before she had any idea what was going on so I'm not sure when everyone thinks she's have had a chance to use a gun. The guy was already strolling away by the time she came to, but suppose she managed to fish her Desert Eagle out of her purse a few seconds later, while the guy had his back to her and was calmly and clearly strolling away. Would she be within her rights to shoot him then? Do you think she'd be cleared if she did?
Click to expand...
Did I really need to use a sarcasm tag ?
 
not new guy said:
She was ambushed and knocked out before she had any idea what was going on so I'm not sure when everyone thinks she's have had a chance to use a gun. The guy was already strolling away by the time she came to, but suppose she managed to fish her Desert Eagle out of her purse a few seconds later, while the guy had his back to her and was calmly and clearly strolling away. Would she be within her rights to shoot him then? Do you think she'd be cleared if she did?
Click to expand...
legally, Not in MA, the threat has passed.

Morally, ventilate the a**h***. Beating on an old person is lower than low.
 
not new guy said:
But the legal advice I got earlier in this thread is that proportionality isn't a thing. Strange.
Click to expand...
Proportionality is a thing
Either non-deadly or deadly force.
Branca is stating that the tackle and subsequent arm trying to get neck control was not deadly force.
And he said that the age difference wasn't an issue. This is after in previous videos stating that in martial arts age difference is can overtake skill.

But he does bring up the question of if the gun was knocked loose during the tackle then it became a fight to the gun therefore raising to a deadly force threat.

He was also operating off old info since he was talking about the already dropped civil rights charge.

My position is that a full speed charge tackle from the rear is an attack likely to inflict serious injuries especially to an middle aged person - not knowing how long he served it's hard to gauge disabilities but if he did a tour or two in the middle east, he likely has some level of service related disability.
 
Not surprised to find out a good chunk of NES members are a bunch of
7a57da6a-6821-40b5-843a-bf1d94e3b088_text.gif
 
straightshooterjake said:
I have been thinking about the weight disparity, or not, between the parties in this event. It leads to an interesting perspective that I have not heard mentioned.

When I watch the video, I think "that guy outweighs me by a chunk. And if he tackled by surprise from behind, I would be in big trouble." It is hard to judge sizes from the video, but I weigh about 160, and it looks like the ponytailed attacker in this situation has 50 pounds on me.

Now lets consider how proportionality might apply to a similar situation. If I find myself face down on the pavement, with no warning, and with a guy I have not gotten a good look at on my back on top of me, I need to base my response on how much I think he weighs. If he is about my weight, then I should not exceed pepper spray, but if he outweighs me by a sufficient amount, then the threat is grievous and any available force might be justifiable.

This sounds like an untenable assessment to make in 2 seconds while face down on pavement. But I guess even if it is untenable, it may still be required.
Click to expand...
If you don't know how to grapple weight doesn't matter. I would put real money down on anyone here not trained in grappling to loose to my former 110lbs female training partner.

I walk around at 160-170 and she puts me away more.

Its only when skill levels are the same that weight becomes a massive tie breaker.

Hell, my kids and i just watched a Russian MMA fight that had a 300lbs man fighting a normal sized female and the femame won in under a minute. Big boy didnt kniw how to fight and gassed.
 
pewpewpew said:
NYC is such a disgusting shithole. I can guess why she was targeted after watching the video too.

The state should execute that punk ass bitch. This is what happens in a society where the action-consequence relationship is no longer intact.
Click to expand...
Back in the day when there was tighter knit neighborhoods in the city...if that shit happened to an old lady. The cops, mafia or people in the neighborhood would have taken care of that punk. No one cares anymore or wants to do anything because of cameras, lawyers, lawsuits, and defending someone or yourself in a liberal shithole gets you treated worse than the fxcking criminal douchebag. Its disgusting.
 
Last edited:
pastera said:
Pepper spray - once the guy was close enough to hit, he was going to fast for it to take effect before impact.
Taser - too much fail in tasers to deploy without a backup deadly force option at ready.
Click to expand...
I've always considered pepper spray to be a lousy option. Although I do carry a small Fox Labs blaster myself, BUT I'm always aware that if I'm outside (where most attacks requiring the need for it likely would happen) the usually strong wind, especially in and around Downtown Boston (where I spend most of my days, five/six days per work week) is a MAJOR obstacle/concern/problem.

Even on a 'calm' day, there is frequently a 'good breeze' coming off of the harbor or hitting a tall building and often causing a 'wind tunnel effect' around Downtown.

Spraying at a mugger/assailant could probably get you a face-full of capsicum that will likely take you days to effectively flush out. And my thoughts are 'That would be my luck' (to try to spray a dirtbag and end up temporarily blinded LOL)

Just sayin'
 
Mark from ? said:
Back in the day when there was tighter knit neighborhoods in the city...if that shit happened to an old lady. The cops, mafia or people in the neighborhood would have taken care of that punk. No one cares anymore or wants to do anything because of cameras, lawyers, lawsuits, and defending someone or yourself in a liberal shithole gets you treated worse than the fxcking criminal douchebag. Its disgusting.
Click to expand...
Its a real problem. We have a broken legal system that protects violent criminals and as a result we have people leaning towards vililantism. I cant see a lot of good coming out of that either.

This is all by design and its generally found in the same democrat leadership hierarchy. Its all a big game to them. And if you get ground up its your fault for existing.
 
GlockJock said:
I've always considered pepper spray to be a lousy option. Although I do carry a small Fox Labs blaster myself, BUT I'm always aware that if I'm outside (where most attacks requiring the need for it likely would happen) the usually strong wind, especially in and around Downtown Boston (where I spend most of my days, five/six days per work week) is a MAJOR obstacle/concern/problem.

Even on a 'calm' day, there is frequently a 'good breeze' coming off of the harbor or hitting a tall building and often causing a 'wind tunnel effect' around Downtown.

Spraying at a mugger/assailant could probably get you a face-full of capsicum that will likely take you days to effectively flush out. And my thoughts are 'That would be my luck' (to try to spray a dirtbag and end up temporarily blinded LOL)

Just sayin'
Click to expand...
Have you tried the Gel pepper sprays? More stream than spray, so need a little more aim, but much less just floating around. It does go farther though so really crowded or tight spaces require a bit more care.
 
Mark from ? said:
Back in the day when there was tighter knit neighborhoods in the city...if that shit happened to an old lady. The cops, mafia or people in the neighborhood would have taken care of that punk. No one cares anymore or wants to do anything because of cameras, lawyers, lawsuits, and defending someone or yourself in a liberal shithole gets you treated worse than the fxcking criminal douchebag. Its disgusting.
Click to expand...
i think there was a movie or show that said it best "in the age of social media and the internet, we are more alone than ever" I cant remember the exact wording or where i saw it, but it was along those lines. Its sad but true, no real such thing as community anymore. Not in the Northeast anyway. I'm sure you go to small rural towns downs South or in the Midwest, there is still some of that.
 
Dench said:
Its a real problem. We have a broken legal system that protects violent criminals and as a result we have people leaning towards vililantism. I cant see a lot of good coming out of that either.

This is all by design and its generally found in the same democrat leadership hierarchy. Its all a big game to them. And if you get ground up its your fault for existing.
Click to expand...
When the deck is stacked against good people, vigilantism is the only remedy that will bring any good to the situation.

Government doesn't like it because it robs them of their belief of having a monopoly on force, criminals don't like it because it removes their government protections from the communists who support and facilitate their criminal activities.
BUT unfortunately it becomes the last and only resort..... people can like it or lump it.......but they will have to make a decision if they expect to not be swallowed up by criminals.
 
Back
Top Bottom