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

looney tunes ugh GIF by Looney Tunes World of Mayhem


I think it's a clear case of self defense but they guy did himself no favors. How many times do people need to be told not to post stupid shit on social media that will bite them in the ass later?
 
Most of us are careful enough to not post stuff here that will hurt us later, then again this guy was here commenting in the thread after the incident. Dope.

I want to believe that was some other person who was there and not the guy doing the shooting but maybe that's wishful thinking.

Edit - apparently it was wishful thinking.
 

The fact that Hayes was attacked by the "peaceful" protesters prove that carry a firearm may have been a prudent action. And I bet others on both sides were also armed....
 
Stolen faith?
Some non-jews get really up in arms (har) about helping Israel. Rewind back 20 years. I worked with a white guy from NH. He was a Christian and went to church every week. He used to have the Israeli flag stickers at his desk. Used to talk about sending donations there. One time we were taking about GW Bush and he had to storm out of the lunch room in actual tears.
 
His attorney must love that he posted his gun on X with a provocative statement.
His attorney is probably mad, but I don't know if the post matters.

The state would have to argue and prove that Hayes goes to protests armed with intent to identify and legally kill people.

The state can't argue he goes to protests armed looking for trouble, if thats the argument nobody could protest. The defendant has the right to protest, and he has the right to carry, to our knowledge he has not attacked anyone up to this point, if he has as suggested by one of the news articles (pushing and shoving), it seems there should be a paper trail for assault, otherwise it is hearsay.
The state can't argue he goes to protests armed to kill people, because he's not done it before and seemingly nothing's changed. Implying carrying a gun is motive would mean all gun owners who CCW are up for murder 1 in any defensive shooting- it's just not the case.
The argument would have to be he goes to protests to legally kill people, but then, legally gets involved. You can't legally do something illegal.

Then of course, the self defense clause gets raised, which means the state needs to prove something from the following .pdf: https://www.mass.gov/doc/9260-self-defense-defense-of-another-defense-of-property/download


the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. In other words, if you have a reasonable doubt whether or not the defendant acted in self-defense, your verdict must be not guilty

If the defendant (used deadly force, which is force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm) (or) (used a dangerous weapon in a manner intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm):

the Commonwealth must prove one of the following three things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that the defendant did not reasonably and actually believe that he (she) was in immediate danger of great bodily harm or death; or
Second, that the defendant did not do everything reasonable in the circumstances to avoid physical combat before resorting to force; or
Third, that the defendant used more force to defend himself (herself)than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances..

In conclusion, to obtain a conviction for the offense(s) of , the Commonwealth must prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is evidence of self-defense, the Commonwealth also has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.


I think the most plausible angle for the state is the third defense- the defendant used more force to defend himself than was reasonably necessary.
How they can prove that is going to be difficult, his attacker clearly had more concern for attacking Hayes than he did concern for his own life as he charged across oncoming traffic. His attacker was already mentally in a position where his potential death was a acceptable result of attacking the defendant.
 
Stolen faith?
assuming that's a joke

but if I took it seriously, it's a religion, how to you steal something that is a choice. anyone can choose to be whatever religion they want

BTW what doers a Jew look like? I've walked into a Catholic church and didn't burst into flames, and no one was shouting JEW and pointing.
1727213117466.png
 
His attorney is probably mad, but I don't know if the post matters.

The state would have to argue and prove that Hayes goes to protests armed with intent to identify and legally kill people.

The state can't argue he goes to protests armed looking for trouble, if thats the argument nobody could protest. The defendant has the right to protest, and he has the right to carry, to our knowledge he has not attacked anyone up to this point, if he has as suggested by one of the news articles (pushing and shoving), it seems there should be a paper trail for assault, otherwise it is hearsay.
The state can't argue he goes to protests armed to kill people, because he's not done it before and seemingly nothing's changed. Implying carrying a gun is motive would mean all gun owners who CCW are up for murder 1 in any defensive shooting- it's just not the case.
The argument would have to be he goes to protests to legally kill people, but then, legally gets involved. You can't legally do something illegal.

Then of course, the self defense clause gets raised, which means the state needs to prove something from the following .pdf: https://www.mass.gov/doc/9260-self-defense-defense-of-another-defense-of-property/download







I think the most plausible angle for the state is the third defense- the defendant used more force to defend himself than was reasonably necessary.
How they can prove that is going to be difficult, his attacker clearly had more concern for attacking Hayes than he did concern for his own life as he charged across oncoming traffic. His attacker was already mentally in a position where his potential death was a acceptable result of attacking the defendant.

If it's a trial by jury and the posts are admitted, it will matter to some jurors, IMO. Not saying it can't be overcome, but it was a good way to make your legal team's job a little harder.
 
His attorney is probably mad, but I don't know if the post matters.

The state would have to argue and prove that Hayes goes to protests armed with intent to identify and legally kill people.

I'm sure they will, and they'll use his pictures as evidence and a MA jury will eat it up.

The state can't argue he goes to protests armed looking for trouble, if thats the argument nobody could protest. The defendant has the right to protest, and he has the right to carry, to our knowledge he has not attacked anyone up to this point, if he has as suggested by one of the news articles (pushing and shoving), it seems there should be a paper trail for assault, otherwise it is hearsay.
The state can't argue he goes to protests armed to kill people, because he's not done it before and seemingly nothing's changed. Implying carrying a gun is motive would mean all gun owners who CCW are up for murder 1 in any defensive shooting- it's just not the case.

They can argue that, and they will. I don't agree with it, and it may have no basis in reality, but they will argue it and it will be effective in front of a jury.

I think the most plausible angle for the state is the third defense- the defendant used more force to defend himself than was reasonably necessary.
How they can prove that is going to be difficult, his attacker clearly had more concern for attacking Hayes than he did concern for his own life as he charged across oncoming traffic. His attacker was already mentally in a position where his potential death was a acceptable result of attacking the defendant.

Exactly, they'll say he used more force to defend himself than was reasonably necessary and that he was just itching to do so... just look at all his social media posts, the guy is a nutjob. That's the argument they'll make and it will be rather effective on a Newton Jury, despite what we feel about the right to self defense. I think it was justified self defense but unless I get picked for the jury, it doesn't matter what I think. They're going to say deadly force should be used as a last resort but this guy clearly used it as a first resort based on his online shitposting.

You're trying to apply logic and rule of law to a situation which will be decided by emotion.
 
assuming that's a joke

but if I took it seriously, it's a religion, how to you steal something that is a choice. anyone can choose to be whatever religion they want

BTW what doers a Jew look like? I've walked into a Catholic church and didn't burst into flames, and no one was shouting JEW and pointing.
View attachment 920976
It's sorta like this.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240924-200511.png
    Screenshot_20240924-200511.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 24
Is it true that this guy isn't actually a jew, he just goes to all these protests with an israeli flag wearing some sort of jewish dog tags and pro-jewish clothing?
Is it true that most of the pro-Hamas protesters aren't actually Palestinian? Do they go to protests wearing keffiyeh and chanting death to Israel?
 
The state can't argue he goes to protests armed looking for trouble, if thats the argument nobody could protest. The defendant has the right to protest, and he has the right to carry, to our knowledge he has not attacked anyone up to this point, if he has as suggested by one of the news articles (pushing and shoving), it seems there should be a paper trail for assault, otherwise it is hearsay.
The state can't argue he goes to protests armed to kill people, because he's not done it before and seemingly nothing's changed. Implying carrying a gun is motive would mean all gun owners who CCW are up for murder 1 in any defensive shooting- it's just not the case.
The argument would have to be he goes to protests to legally kill people, but then, legally gets involved. You can't legally do something illegal.
"The state can't argue" only applies when the court prohibits that line of argument. It is doubtful (in my opinion) that the court will issue such an order, so I expect the above claim to be objectively false. Time may tell, but my guess is the court can and will allow the state to argue just that. But, I smell a plea bargain, in which case we will never know what arguments the court would permit.

"Prohibition on arguments" are often issued by the court that wants a conviction (or not) to prevent extraneous factors from swaying the verdict. There were trials for marijuana possession when the court ruled the defense could not raise or even mention "medical use" as it was irrelevant to the question of "did or did not the defendant possess the heathen devil weed?" and thus improperly influence the jury.
 
Last edited:
The state can't argue he goes to protests armed looking for trouble, if thats the argument nobody could protest.
They can and they will, and his social media posts help make that point. Remember that attorneys get wide latitude in what they say during their opening and closing arguments. They often make purely emotional appeals to try to sway the jury, and his social media posts don’t do him any favors.
 
I smell a plea bargain
it is pretty much the only practical outcome to anyone in MA who discharges a weapon, for any reason.
a plea, a prohibited person for life, etc. hardly possible to get any other outcome that does not include jail.
there is no more law here in this state and the law that is - is just a cruel joke.

and, problem #1 is not even the law itself, but the lawyers and the whole industry that got crafted around this mechanism of public punishment.
 
it is pretty much the only practical outcome to anyone in MA who discharges a weapon, for any reason.
a plea, a prohibited person for life, etc. hardly possible to get any other outcome that does not include jail.
there is no more law here in this state and the law that is - is just a cruel joke.

and, problem #1 is not even the law itself, but the lawyers and the whole industry that got crafted around this mechanism of public punishment.
Again, that is an overstatement. There have been cases where people shot attackers and were not charged, let alone convicted.

We need to stop making such overly broad statements. They are not accurate and mislead people.
 
Again, that is an overstatement. There have been cases where people shot attackers and were not charged, let alone convicted.

We need to stop making such overly broad statements. They are not accurate and mislead people.
as of lately or 20+ yrs ago? life is changing fast. what used to be a court of law is now just a mere mechanism for the enforcement of government will. and to alter that you need first to remove all those DAs, AGs and judges that were so carefully installed into their current positions to do exactly the things that they do now.
 
as of lately or 20+ yrs ago? life is changing fast. what used to be a court of law is now just a mere mechanism for the enforcement of government will. and to alter that you need first to remove all those DAs, AGs and judges that were so carefully installed into their current positions to do exactly the things that they do now.
Yes, lately.

And, no, the Newton situation that recently happened is NOT a clear cut case of justified use of deadly force.
 
Oh, come on, you well know that no one collects such statistics.
so there is no proof then, of what the outcomes are?
as in cases i know of the outcomes were that i spoke of. plead guilty, become banned but avoid jail. in the community i am i know of about 3 people who went over this ordeal.

i am not aware of any other outcomes, that does not mean there are no other better outcomes, but, that is why i say that i say.
 
There are a number of social groups when, no matter how badly one of their members misbehaves, they always scream "he dindu nuffin." The gun community behaves similarly on many occasions. We see it here on NES all the time. Whenever an otherwise legal gun owner gets in a jam, there is often a blind assertion that the gun owner's actions were in accordance with the law. The reality is that in some cases they were, in other cases they weren't, and in many cases it simply isn't clear based on press reports.

We need to stop making these broad brush assertions that after X happens then you will always get Y. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Yes, MA is not a gun-friendly state. We know that. But we need stop exaggerating.
 
Last edited:
so there is no proof then, of what the outcomes are?
as in cases i know of the outcomes were that i spoke of. plead guilty, become banned but avoid jail. in the community i am i know of about 3 people who went over this ordeal.

i am not aware of any other outcomes, that does not mean there are no other better outcomes, but, that is why i say that i say.
Talk to a defense attorney. The ones that you hear about are the spectacular cases, like Newton.
 
so there is no proof then, of what the outcomes are?
as in cases i know of the outcomes were that i spoke of. plead guilty, become banned but avoid jail. in the community i am i know of about 3 people who went over this ordeal.

i am not aware of any other outcomes, that does not mean there are no other better outcomes, but, that is why i say that i say.
If you talk to the people who actually deal with the cases, such as the defense attorneys, you will get the real data. The average gun owner is completely unprepared to use force in self-defense.
 
Back
Top Bottom