Quincy man charged after guns found in car, home Read more: http://www.patriotledger

[terraformer]

Who is the victim of this assault charge if he didn't point it at anyone?

There are two types of Assault. Direct and indirect (aka attempted battery and threatened battery). Direct is obvious, x pointed it at y and y is the victim. Indirect is what would be here based on the news article but the state will still have to prove that the gun was pointed at a third party victim (aka the other driver who doesn't even need to know it was pointed at them and likely won't even be found) and that the observer (the victim in this case) was fearful for their life. It seems like current witness testimony nails the first part. How big of a fracking moon bat the witness is controls the second. Also, a dishonest ADA can leverage charges of filing a false report, etc against the victim to make sure they testify correctly as well. I have had too many people, including lawyers, tell me that the "victims" were pressured into testifying for this to be a purely isolated occurrence. However, I would like to think that most ADAs are generally honest and will not try to pull this crap so it likely is not pervasive either. Thirdly, if the witness claims general dread at the sight of a gun, it's not altogether clear to me that this is not enough to convict on that element. I suspect there may be play in the system there on this point.


See here for the jury instructions explaining the differences. http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...ry-instructions/criminal/pdf/6120-assault.pdf

 

[DickWanner]

You are right, but I think some people are trying to make the point that all it takes is a few stupid gun owners to give all of us a bad name. And that is true. If you are going to carry a gun, especially in MA, use your brain. Its not that hard.

Just like drunk drivers give all drinkers a bad name? Or people who get in car accidents give all car owners a bad name? Why the hell are gun owners somehow a magically collective group that is judged as a whole and not individually??

 

[DickWanner]

There are two types of Assault. Direct and indirect (aka attempted battery and threatened battery). Direct is obvious, x pointed it at y and y is the victim. Indirect is what would be here based on the news article but the state will still have to prove that the gun was pointed at a third party victim (aka the other driver who doesn't even need to know it was pointed at them and likely won't even be found) and that the observer (the victim in this case) was fearful for their life. It seems like current witness testimony nails the first part. How big of a fracking moon bat the witness is controls the second. Also, a dishonest ADA can leverage charges of filing a false report, etc against the victim to make sure they testify correctly as well. I have had too many people, including lawyers, tell me that the "victims" were pressured into testifying for this to be a purely isolated occurrence. However, I would like to think that most ADAs are generally honest and will not try to pull this crap so it likely is not pervasive either. Thirdly, if the witness claims general dread at the sight of a gun, it's not altogether clear to me that this is not enough to convict on that element. I suspect there may be play in the system there on this point.


See here for the jury instructions explaining the differences. http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...ry-instructions/criminal/pdf/6120-assault.pdf

Sounds like a charlie-foxtrot. I'm just curious how there can be a crime without a victim.

 

[Bob Palermo]

Why the hell are gun owners somehow a magically collective group that is judged as a whole and not individually??

Because the sheeple are brainwashed to think that way. I think it is complete BS as well.

 

[josh2600]

just curious how there can be a crime without a victim.

Really....? Have you lived in the US long?

 

[DickWanner]

Really....? Have you lived in the US long?

Exactly my point.

Because the sheeple are brainwashed to think that way. I think it is complete BS as well.

So in going along with their mindset we are accomplishing what exactly? Other than eating our own until there are none left.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Sounds like a charlie-foxtrot. I'm just curious how there can be a crime without a victim.

What about perjury? Who's the victim there? Surely that's not a crime we should get rid of...or is it?

 

[BOBKATT]

People do a lot of things that are potentially dangerous. If shooting them for it is the standard I think this weekend I should sit outside a bar and shoot people heading to their cars that I feel drank to much. Once they start the car it's two to the chest and one to the head. Potential danger ended.

I'm sorry. Please refresh me. I must have a momentary lapse of memory because I can't remember reading where anyone was shot here....

 

[DickWanner]

What about perjury? Who's the victim there? Surely that's not a crime we should get rid of...or is it?

Seriously? There's a bit of a difference between lying under oath and assault.

Edit: Wouldn't the victim be the courts or 'we the people' or whatever. Anyways, still a big difference between that assault.

 

[atmay]

What about perjury? Who's the victim there? Surely that's not a crime we should get rid of...or is it?

Perjury has the potential to be injurious, and in cases where it is, it SHOULD be considered a crime. But, as with all other things, if no injury is sustained by any party, why would/should it be considered a crime?

 

[mark056]

Just like drunk drivers give all drinkers a bad name? Or people who get in car accidents give all car owners a bad name? Why the hell are gun owners somehow a magically collective group that is judged as a whole and not individually??

Because gun owners are a minority, car owners are not. People make sweeping generalizations about Latinos, African-americans, the Irish, Gays and Lesbians and yes...gun owners...esp in Mass.

DW unfortunately your ideology or philosophy doesn't always square with reality, and that is the reality: we are a minority and the vast majority only know about guns from what they read in the newspapers and see on television and movies.

 

[BOBKATT]

You guys gotta get the hell out of MA.

Now you're all marginalized minorities who are guilty until proven innocent no matter what you do if you are accused of a crime and you happen to own a gun.

Time to move North a few minutes and keep New Hampshire free with your votes.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

You guys gotta get the hell out of MA.

Now you're all marginalized minorities who are guilty until proven innocent no matter what you do if you are accused of a crime and you happen to own a gun.

Time to move North a few minutes and keep New Hampshire free with your votes.

I am working on it. Threads like this just stoke the fire for me.

 

[RadiCS]

Jesus... Read the Linda Hamilton story. That was really sad. It's scary on how much they could eff with your life. Anything ever good come out of that story?

Yup... I moved north.

 

[DickWanner]

Because gun owners are a minority, car owners are not. People make sweeping generalizations about Latinos, African-americans, the Irish, Gays and Lesbians and yes...gun owners...esp in Mass.

DW unfortunately your ideology or philosophy doesn't always square with reality, and that is the reality: we are a minority and the vast majority only know about guns from what they read in the newspapers and see on television and movies.

I don't change my ideology, philosophy, principles, or morals just because of what someone else thinks, does, or says.

 

[mark056]

I don't change my ideology, philosophy, principles, or morals just because of what someone else thinks, does, or says.

Yeah, but that doesn't change reality and the world we live in. Nobody is asking you to change your principles or morals or anything else, but things are not likely to change in your direction regardless of the fact that it might be a good thing or not.

So, what solution are you offering to change public perception? It's real easy to bitch about what's wrong, but quite another to come up with a solution that is reality based.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

quite another to come up with a solution that is reality based.

The reality of the situation in MA is most people here don't own guns, and telling someone they will become LTC ineligible is about as irrelevant to most folks as "that would disqualify you for a license to practice medicine" would be to a non-doctor.

For people to care, it has to effect them. This is why the referendum to kill the pike tolls failed - more than half of the state are not effected by that system, and few see the need to protect the "elses".

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Yeah, but that doesn't change reality and the world we live in. Nobody is asking you to change your principles or morals or anything else, but things are not likely to change in your direction regardless of the fact that it might be a good thing or not.

So, what solution are you offering to change public perception? It's real easy to bitch about what's wrong, but quite another to come up with a solution that is reality based.

I'd start by heavily fining media outlets for every single word of false information they knowingly and willfully spew about guns and gun owners, starting at $100,000 dollars per word in any article and going up from there for repeated offenses, capping it off at $1,000,000 per word, with the funds going to a defamation assistance program that deals soley with and for gun owners. A simple copy of an article or transcript of a radio or TV broadcast shall be sufficient proof to bring suit against the offending media outlet.

First Amendment protection doesn't apply to slander and libel.

 

[mark056]

I'd start by heavily fining media outlets for every single word of false information they knowingly and willfully spew about guns and gun owners, starting at $100,000 dollars per word in any article and going up from there for repeated offenses, capping it off at $1,000,000 per word, with the funds going to a defamation assistance program that deals soley with and for gun owners. A simple copy of an article or transcript of a radio or TV broadcast shall be sufficient proof to bring suit against the offending media outlet.

First Amendment protection doesn't apply to slander and libel.

No, you are 100 percent correct it does not, but just how are you going to implement this? It's going to take a tremendous amount of money mount this campaign against the media? Realistically, how are you going to make this happen? Libel and slander cases can drag through the courts for years. How are you going to get a law passed which imposes these fines? In other words what is the practical and realistic solution?

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

No, you are 100 percent correct it does not, but just how are you going to implement this? It's going to take a tremendous amount of money mount this campaign against the media? Realistically, how are you going to make this happen? Libel and slander cases can drag through the courts for years. How are you going to get a law passed which imposes these fines? In other words what is the practical and realistic solution?

Practicality would dictate to declare open warfare on them and bring all the armament that could be mustered against them. Disrupt their power, seize and destroy their delivery trucks, burn their buildings and kill all their employees. With thirty dedicated people it could be done in one night, or enough to get the F'ng message through loud and clear. This would be far more effective, final and cheaper than going through any legislative meat grinder of MA.

Reality,= find some sympathetic political hack to introduce the legislation and put the media on notice that they're going to be held hugely financialy accountable for every word the utter or print.
Sometimes a law isn't even necessary, just a rumor of it might compell them to be more responsible.

Second reality, disobey the laws completely. Government doesn't obey the laws its supposed to operate under, why should anyone else?

 

[OfficerObie59]

Seriously? There's a bit of a difference between lying under oath and assault.

Edit: Wouldn't the victim be the courts or 'we the people' or whatever. Anyways, still a big difference between that assault.

I never said there wasn't a difference, but your distinction had to do with crimes where there weren't a victim. Crimes like perjury protect the integrity of the system, but don't have an individual victim per se.

 

[DickWanner]

I never said there wasn't a difference, but your distinction had to do with crimes where there weren't a victim. Crimes like perjury protect the integrity of the system, but don't have an individual victim per se.

Fair enough, I'll agree with you on that point. That is, if the 'system' has any integrity left

 

[OfficerObie59]

Perjury has the potential to be injurious, and in cases where it is, it SHOULD be considered a crime. But, as with all other things, if no injury is sustained by any party, why would/should it be considered a crime?

Because perjury protects the integrity of public institutions.

I see the argument that offenses commonly regarded as "victimless crimes" (ex. Drugs and prostitution) should probably be at a minimum, reexamined. I just don't know that just because lacking offense lacks an adverse effect upon a particular person should be the standard for that review. I think some laws serve a valid public purpose (ex. integrity of the judicial system) despite not requiring an actual person be adversely affected.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

This still makes us gunowners look bad. No matter what the laws are, the public will always be afraid of guns.

 

[fivepak]

The only thing I have in common with this guy is we're both gun owners. Don't give me any shit about guilty until proven innocent. There are plenty of news stories discussed here where the perp is condemned. Whether it be child molestation or home invasion usually the guy is fried on this forum before receiving a fair trial. This case happens to be about a guy that was cut off in traffic. The person that cut him off may have been a homicidal maniac on bath salts, or some teenage girl texting while driving and just not paying attention. We don't know. So I guess both sides of this debate should just at ease until all the facts are in, right?
Since one person mentioned this may be the same guy that recently shot himself you do have to wonder WTF? Let's be honest. Even if he just opens his coat to reveal he has a gun what is his intent? You know damn well it's a threat. For getting cut off? Really? If he did that to anyone in my family just because of poor driving habits I'd want to beat him near to death with his own gun.

 

[atmay]

Because perjury protects the integrity of public institutions.

I see the argument that offenses commonly regarded as "victimless crimes" (ex. Drugs and prostitution) should probably be at a minimum, reexamined. I just don't know that just because lacking offense lacks an adverse effect upon a particular person should be the standard for that review. I think some laws serve a valid public purpose (ex. integrity of the judicial system) despite not requiring an actual person be adversely affected.

I would say that perjury often does affect actual people. In fact, I can't really think of any situations where lying on the stand doesn't negatively affect one of the parties involved.

 

[OfficerObie59]

I would say that perjury often does affect actual people. In fact, I can't really think of any situations where lying on the stand doesn't negatively affect one of the parties involved.

Often, not always. Take the case against Zimmerman's wife. If we were to assume for the sake of this argument that the allegations are true, who would be the real person adversely affected there?

 

[atmay]

Often, not always. Take the case against Zimmerman's wife. If we were to assume for the sake of this argument that the allegations are true, who would be the real person adversely affected there?

Admittedly, I stopped following the Zimmerman ordeal after about a week, so I'm not sure what you're referencing.

 

[flintoid]

The only thing I have in common with this guy is we're both gun owners. Don't give me any shit about guilty until proven innocent. There are plenty of news stories discussed here where the perp is condemned. Whether it be child molestation or home invasion usually the guy is fried on this forum before receiving a fair trial. This case happens to be about a guy that was cut off in traffic. The person that cut him off may have been a homicidal maniac on bath salts, or some teenage girl texting while driving and just not paying attention. We don't know. So I guess both sides of this debate should just at ease until all the facts are in, right?
Since one person mentioned this may be the same guy that recently shot himself you do have to wonder WTF? Let's be honest. Even if he just opens his coat to reveal he has a gun what is his intent? You know damn well it's a threat. For getting cut off? Really? If he did that to anyone in my family just because of poor driving habits I'd want to beat him near to death with his own gun.

you really don't get it.

You are STILL feeding on press generated outrage of a man who owns a gun. Do you understand what this does for your right to bear arms?

You are fundamentally fueling journalism which generally villainizes gun ownership by refusing to acknowledge that this story could be based on non-factual situations.

By doing so, you are perpetuating such journalism. And strengthening the opinion of the public who hates firearm ownership by agreeing with them.

Why does this matter?

Because you "aren't one of them" yet you are in line with their train of thought. You agree that this man shouldn't own a firearm. That agree-ance in itself is a whole other debate I won't tackle. Either way, you are supporting the fact that it isn't a right to own firearms, and that it's a privilege and that this man has lost it.

And you're doing so without knowing the whole story. And by doing so you are championing the laws which took this man's rights away.

If you really do like gun ownership, you need to sit down, and think about what you type and how you react to stories like these. Because you just may have a little bit of anti-2A sentiment when you parade about a story like this as you are doing right now.


Think about it. Let's say your neighbor is a Nancy Pelosi. You meet her at the end of your driveway and you start talking about the "crazy" guy waving his gun all over the place. Would you tell her "yeah, thank god he lost his rights." Or would you say "we don't know the whole story... and besides the point, no crime was committed from what we read, why should a man lose his rights?"


What is the answer? Who's side are you on, fivepak?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Crimes like perjury protect the integrity of the system, but don't have an individual victim per se.

It depends on the situation. Perjury that is used to convict an innocent person does indeed have an individual victim.