• 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.

Road rage incident in Stoughton Lawful Gun owner defends himself

Picton said:
This is why "suitability," though it remains on the books, is a yawn to me until they try to apply it post-Bruen. My belief is that the state's career civil servants (as opposed to the elected blowhards) are far too clever to risk letting suitability make its way into court.
Click to expand...
Suitability is still used by many gun owners to instill fear into others that If you play by the rules, follow the law you will still lose your LTC.
 
AMV said:
Suitability is still used by many gun owners to instill fear into others that If you play by the rules, follow the law you will still lose your LTC.
Click to expand...
One case I am familiar with.
  1. LTC holding person verbally threatened by much larger individual
  2. That person holds gun by side, but does not point it at threatener.
  3. Threatener files charges, party with gun arrested. LTC holder made mistake of not being the one to call police first.
  4. Come trial date, threatener takes 5th so his statements cannot be used against him in pending assault trial from a different confrontation
    1. Licensee's attorney fails to cite Commonwealth v. Adjutant, and concedes criminal record of threatener cannot be introduced.
  5. Charged dismissed.
  6. LTC revoked by chief (in different town that incident)
  7. LTC file appealed in district court.
  8. Applicant lost.
  9. I think applicant's attorney told him any further appeal would be a waste of money, but not sure on that point.
So is it "to instill fear" or "to explain how things really work in MA?"
 
Rob Boudrie said:
One case I am familiar with.
  1. LTC holding person verbally threatened by much larger individual
  2. That person holds gun by side, but does not point it at threatener.
  3. Threatener files charges, party with gun arrested. LTC holder made mistake of not being the one to call police first.
  4. Come trial date, threatener takes 5th so his statements cannot be used against him in pending assault trial from a different confrontation
    1. Licensee's attorney fails to cite Commonwealth v. Adjutant, and concedes criminal record of threatener cannot be introduced.
  5. Charged dismissed.
  6. LTC revoked by chief (in different town that incident)
  7. LTC file appealed in district court.
  8. Applicant lost.
  9. I think applicant's attorney told him any further appeal would be a waste of money, but not sure on that point.
So is it "to instill fear" or "to explain how things really work in MA?"
Click to expand...
Interesting case, was the LTC holders in fear for his or her life? Not sure I would pull a gun unless I was gonna use it, I certainly wouldn’t to deescalate an argument.

We can alway find a case that contradicts what is supposed to happen, it dose not mean it dose 99% of the time
 
LTC holder used a lawyer not familiar with gun laws in MA?

Rob Boudrie said:
One case I am familiar with.
  1. LTC holding person verbally threatened by much larger individual
  2. That person holds gun by side, but does not point it at threatener.
  3. Threatener files charges, party with gun arrested. LTC holder made mistake of not being the one to call police first.
  4. Come trial date, threatener takes 5th so his statements cannot be used against him in pending assault trial from a different confrontation
    1. Licensee's attorney fails to cite Commonwealth v. Adjutant, and concedes criminal record of threatener cannot be introduced.
  5. Charged dismissed.
  6. LTC revoked by chief (in different town that incident)
  7. LTC file appealed in district court.
  8. Applicant lost.
  9. I think applicant's attorney told him any further appeal would be a waste of money, but not sure on that point.
So is it "to instill fear" or "to explain how things really work in MA?"
Click to expand...
 
Garys said:
LTC holder used a lawyer not familiar with gun laws in MA?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. The only thing that appears to be missed was an attempt to extend the concept of the defense being able to introduce prior conduct and convictions of the person defended against, even if the defender did not know it at the time, into evidence. Adjutant makes it clear that is allowed for homocide cases, but does not explicitly extend (or not extend) the concept to cases involving lesser offenses.

There are competing schools of though on introduction of prior conduct of the assailant that was unknown to the defender at the time of the incident.

1) The person claiming self defense did not know of the prior conduct, therefore it did not enter into the decision making process, therefore irrelevant.

2) Useful in a defense case to establish credibility as to the allegation of assault, therefore relevant and admissible.

#1 has generally been the philosophy of the courts, however, Adjutant adjusted that in MA. I think is was an appellate court, not the SJC.

The defendant was alleged to be the aggressor since he spoke to the person making the threats about littering.
 
Picton said:
They won’t charge him (because they know they can’t make it stick) and the media will simply let it die. Many people in MA will never hear anything about this.
Click to expand...
They're not hearing about it now. Channel 5's story this morning mentioned the chase, crash, and shooting, followed by the statement that Kieu was "charged with assault" and a few other things. The only logical impression that you could draw was that Kieu was the shooter, not the one who was shot.

Absolutely no way on Earth would Channel 5 EVER admit that someone used a gun to defend himself and stop a situation. No, no, no, we can't have that!! To top it off, at the end of the hour, the general manager spent 5 minutes wetting his pants over people being mean to librarians.
 
An unrelated question. It's always confused me how appeals work here. Does he Superior Court act as a court of appeals for District cases and the SJC for Superior cases?


Rob Boudrie said:
I don't think so. The only thing that appears to be missed was an attempt to extend the concept of the defense being able to introduce prior conduct and convictions of the person defended against, even if the defender did not know it at the time, into evidence. Adjutant makes it clear that is allowed for homocide cases, but does not explicitly extend (or not extend) the concept to cases involving lesser offenses.

There are competing schools of though on introduction of prior conduct of the assailant that was unknown to the defender at the time of the incident.

1) The person claiming self defense did not know of the prior conduct, therefore it did not enter into the decision making process, therefore irrelevant.

2) Useful in a defense case to establish credibility as to the allegation of assault, therefore relevant and admissible.

#1 has generally been the philosophy of the courts, however, Adjutant adjusted that in MA. I think is was an appellate court, not the SJC.

The defendant was alleged to be the aggressor since he spoke to the person making the threats about littering.
Click to expand...
 
What happened to the other similar case recently where a violent felon chased down a driver punched his window out and got shot in Randolph I think? He was charged.
 
AMV said:
wow, a guy that used his gun in MA, didn't get arrested and have his life ruined, Goes against a lot of the advice given in this forum
Click to expand...
It's early yet, Maura and company have not yet met to decide what can be done about this heinous crime committed by the victim.
 
hunt4riches said:
"Police said they don't anticipate charging the driver of the other car." Jesus Christ on a birthday cake... if the "victim" was a cop he'd get 5 promotions and an all-expenses paid family vacation to Tahiti...
Click to expand...
What are you complaining about?
 
Tim_McD said:
What, that string bean with the pointy elbows?
Click to expand...

Rob Boudrie said:
I don't think so. The only thing that appears to be missed was an attempt to extend the concept of the defense being able to introduce prior conduct and convictions of the person defended against, even if the defender did not know it at the time, into evidence. Adjutant makes it clear that is allowed for homocide cases, but does not explicitly extend (or not extend) the concept to cases involving lesser offenses.

There are competing schools of though on introduction of prior conduct of the assailant that was unknown to the defender at the time of the incident.

1) The person claiming self defense did not know of the prior conduct, therefore it did not enter into the decision making process, therefore irrelevant.

2) Useful in a defense case to establish credibility as to the allegation of assault, therefore relevant and admissible.

#1 has generally been the philosophy of the courts, however, Adjutant adjusted that in MA. I think is was an appellate court, not the SJC.

The defendant was alleged to be the aggressor since he spoke to the person making the threats about littering.
Click to expand...
While I understand the logic of #1, people with multiple pages of #2 at some point just need to sleep under a dirt blanket.
 
Broc said:
hunt4riches said:
"Police said they don't anticipate charging the driver of the other car." Jesus Christ on a birthday cake... if the "victim" was a cop he'd get 5 promotions and an all-expenses paid family vacation to Tahiti...
Click to expand...
What are you complaining about?
Click to expand...
At a guess, I'd think he's complaining that it even needed to be said, as though the news source is trying to enforce the idea that any firearm use should result in charges.
 

Similar threads

State Dems accused of pushing ‘backdoor gun tax’ on lawful firearm owners
Replies
13
Views
561
SS1
SS1
NY man dead after accidentally shooting himself in the groin
2
Replies
34
Views
824
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Los Angeles-area boy, 4, shot and killed in road rage incident, 2 suspects arrested
Replies
10
Views
445
namedpipes
namedpipes
Worcester pulls license of critical business owner
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
3K
s&w3913
S
43 Year Old Convicted Rapist Murdered GF and Killed Himself In Moxy Hotel
Replies
2
Views
187
pastera
pastera
Back
Top Bottom