self defense in MA

Joined
Nov 20, 2005
Messages
406
Likes
4
Location
MA
Feedback: 2 / 0 / 0
All gun owners who carry a gun for self defense, should watch this (36 minute windows ) video of the Pring_Wilson
appeal. Be sure to listen at around 15 minutes, when an
ADA for this great Commonwealth tells the justices that
a citizen has no right to self defense, even when on the ground and getting pummeled by multiple attackers.
http://www.suffolk.edu/sjc/archive/2007/SJC_09843.html
 
ADA for this great Commonwealth tells the justices that a citizen has no right to self defense, even when on the ground and getting pummeled by multiple attackers.
That's not what she's said.

What she said was that he did not have the right to use deadly force in response to that attack. To use deadly force, you must be in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. She's arguing that he was not facing danger of death or grave bodily injury and therefore he had no right to use deadly force. She is not arguing that he had no right to self defense.

While you may disagree with her about whether the defendant was facing danger of death or grave bodily injury (I haven't followed the case closely enough to argue one way or the other), it is wrong to characterize her as saying a citizen has no right to self defense.
 
Last edited:
That's not what she's said.

What she said was that he did not have the right to use deadly force in response to that attack. To use deadly force, you must be in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. She's arguing that he was not facing danger of death or grave bodily injury and therefore he had no right to use deadly force. She is not arguing that he had no right to self defense.

While you may disagree with her about whether the defendant was facing danger of death or grave bodily injury (I haven't followed the case closely enough to argue one way or the other), it is wrong to characterize her as saying a citizen has no right to self defense.

One well placed kick is all it takes to kill someone. A teenage friend is now in a cemetery from just such a blow that ruptured his spleen and he died of internal bleeding. A shod foot is considered a dangerous weapon in Mass and it's a charge routinely dispensed.

If there's more than one person, my gun is coming out of the holster. That ADA can eat shit and die.
 
Finalygotbeltfed:

First, that's a different issue. The original poster claimed that she
tells the justices that a citizen has no right to self defense
That's not what she said. What she said was that he didn't have the right to use deadly force in that situation. There are plenty of situations where you have the right to use force to defend yourself but not deadly force.

Second, I don't think that particular video gives one enough information to determine whether or not he was justified in using deadly force.

We are not given enough information to know the complete course of events. When did Pring-Wilson pull the knife? Was it when he was on the ground, being kicked? I thought it was after he'd been able to get back to his feet, and when he pulled the knife, one of the attackers backed off. At that point, it was no longer 2:1. Was he in danger of death or grave bodily injury at that point? I don't know and I don't think you can judge without knowing more than was in the oral argument to the SJC.

As for the ADA, her argument didn't seem terribly convincing and the justices seemed to be shredding her. I didn't listen to their treatment of the Pring-Wilson's attorney, so perhaps they shredded him as well.
 
One well placed kick is all it takes to kill someone. A teenage friend is now in a cemetery from just such a blow that ruptured his spleen and he died of internal bleeding. A shod foot is considered a dangerous weapon in Mass and it's a charge routinely dispensed.

If there's more than one person, my gun is coming out of the holster. That ADA can eat shit and die.



I agree. 1 on 1 is one thing, multiple on 1 that's life and death.
 
The best line is when the state attorney argues that a shot foot is not a "deadly weapon" but a "dangerous weapon".
 
I agree. 1 on 1 is one thing, multiple on 1 that's life and death.
I don't think the courts necessarily agree with that. 1 on 1 may be life and death and multiple on 1 may not be.
 
Depends on the 1 on 1. Put and old fart against a 25 year old cro magnon and its lock and load time. No such thing as 1 on 1 when the deck is stacked against you!
 
I agree. 1 on 1 is one thing, multiple on 1 that's life and death.

+1 What the hell do they expect you to do punch your way out? If you have a gun it's your only way out simple... If they expect you do lay down and cover up they should offer to have the same treatment done to them... [thinking]
 
I lasted untill she was talking about the testimony about how it was somehow relevent that the defendant wasn't kicked in the head. I agree with her assessment that a boot is a deadly weapon, but now you need to be harmed with a weapon before its considered in play? And somehow a fist (espeshally a group of fists) isn't deadly?

So if somebody pulls a knife on me I need to be cut first before the knife is "in play" [rolleyes]

I'm with you guys, as soon as he was being attacked by a group he had the right to let-er-rip.

Arrrr

-Weer'd Beard
 
Interesting case. I was surprised when the jury found him guilty. I was less surprised when I saw that the conviction was overturned because the trial judge refused to allow testimony about the "victims" history of violence.

IIRC, the SJC remanded the case back to Superior Court for retrial. I believe that the Commonwealth is appealing Pryng-Wilson's bail. If so, I'm going to guess that the ADA is arguing dangerousness as a reason to put him back into custody.

Gary
 
If you're looking at this case for advice for using deadly force, the glaring advice in this case would be:

1. Try to avoid using deadly force while intoxicated
2. Don't get into shouting arguments with strangers
3. Make an effort to retreat or flee before force
4. Don't deny involvement when the police show up--you should be the one reporting the incident to the police

In summary, if you're drunk, arguing with people, can't demonstrate that you tried to avoid a fight, end up killings someone in the process, and then try to cover it up, you'll most likely be charged with manslaughter.

Furthermore, unless your parents are criminal lawyers like our case study defendant (or you're OJ simpson), you'll get convicted.
 
Last edited:
If you're looking at this case for advice for using deadly force, the glaring advice in this case would be:

...

Furthermore, unless your parents are criminal lawyers like our case study defendant (or you're OJ simpson), you'll get convicted.

Excellent advice. Also on topic, sort of at least, I read this the other day.

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2007/01/meditations-on-aftermath.html

What sounds like really good advice on what to do if you ever have to shoot someone in self defense.

Gary
 
So someone is beating you badly, i know, wait until your so badly beaten
that you fall to the ground with broken arms and a busted head and finally
decide that your life is being threatened. Oh sure.

Here's my cut, avoid confrontation.... always walk away....

If some insists and starts it, make a decision on what may be ahead.

I can't offer any furhter opinions, at this point you need to make a decision.

JimB
 
UPDATE

I think I'd have to be on the jury to pass judgment on this one. My knee jerk reaction is he's guilty and would get a real sentence if his mom wasn't a DA herself. But who knows...

Quote from the movie Blow, "24 months for murder, I must meet your lawyer"

Pring-Wilson gets 2 years in plea bargain for stabbing
By Marie Szaniszlo | Saturday, January 12, 2008 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Local Coverage

Nearly five years after he stabbed an 18-year-old father to death on a Cambridge street, a former Harvard graduate student yesterday changed his plea to guilty and was sentenced to two years in prison.

A plea bargain will allow Alexander Pring-Wilson to avoid a third trial and go free in 14 months, having already served 290 days in connection with the killing of Michael Colono.

“Today, we engaged in a balance of assurances and uncertainties,” Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone said after yesterday’s hearing. “The assurances far outweighed the uncertainties.. . He has admitted his guilt.”

Pring-Wilson had testified he acted in self-defense after he was attacked by Colono and his cousin, Samuel Rodriguez, as he walked home from a bar on April 12, 2003. But prosecutors said Pring-Wilson became enraged and pulled a knife after Colono ridiculed him for stumbling home drunk.

“On the day my son was killed, time stopped; the clock stopped,” the victim’s mother, Ada Colono, wrote in a statement. “I feel that what I am living is not real. Before, I had hope in life. Now, the light has been turned off.”

She wrote of the pain of losing the youngest of her five children, and of hearing his daughter, Jade, who was 3 at the time of his death, ask, still, “Where is my daddy, and when is he coming back?”

The victim’s sister, Desmaris Colono, bitterly alluded to the defense’s attempts to “vilify” her brother, a high school dropout with a juvenile criminal record but who had earned his graduate equivalency diploma and was set to train for work as a postal worker.

“And it’s all Alexander Pring-Wilson’s fault, the man who thinks he’s God,” she said.

In October 2004, a jury declined to convict Pring-Wilson of murder, instead finding him guilty of voluntary manslaughter. A judge sentenced him to six to eight years in state prison. But an appeal led to a second trial, which ended with a hung jury.

Article URL:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1066056
 
if he had in a situation like this used pepper spray or mace would he have gotten into shit?

Regardless of the merit of his response, it certainly would
be a different situation- he'd probably only be dealing with some kind of
assault charge instead of involuntary manslaughter. The game
changes magnitude considerably when someone dies.

-Mike
 
All gun owners who carry a gun for self defense, should watch this (36 minute windows ) video of the Pring_Wilson
appeal. Be sure to listen at around 15 minutes, when an
ADA for this great Commonwealth tells the justices that
a citizen has no right to self defense, even when on the ground and getting pummeled by multiple attackers.
http://www.suffolk.edu/sjc/archive/2007/SJC_09843.html

Just be thankful that my school makes these things accessible as your government would not dare put a video on their website.

Bill
 
Check the video at 15:00. One of the judges lays into the ADA's assertion that it wasn't valid self-defense. Heh.

EDIT: From about 15:00 to 21:00 is the exchange. Quite enlightening, actually.
 
Last edited:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that an attacking group of people are considered a "gang". And that entity, as defined by law, constitutes a lethal threat to their target.

-James G.
 
I remember I watched portions of his first trial on CourtTV. And while I don't remember specific testimony from the witnesses I do remember developing a general opinion, from what the witnesses said, that if he had just walked away the fight wouldn't have happened. He shot his mouth off and escalated it. However I believe that he believed that he was in mortal danger once he was attacked.

Drunk, diarrhea of the mouth, complete lack of trying to avoid physical confrontation, and avoidance of the police investigating the incident is just bad, bad, bad, bad.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that an attacking group of people are considered a "gang". And that entity, as defined by law, constitutes a lethal threat to their target.

-James G.

James, it is likely more complex than that. What the group is doing, and what the result of their attack is, both objectively and subjectively, is what matters most, assuming the victim was not the initial aggressor.

For example, if the group punches him, pushes him to the ground, and then starts kicking him in the chest and head, and he feels like he's losing consciousness, the guy on the ground may be justified in using lethal force.

Understand, there is more to it than just this.

If you haven't taken GOAL's Art of Concealed Carry, you really should. Jon Green, Director of Education and Training for the GOAL Foundation, and I teach this seminar. We go into far more detail than I can outline in this post.

Darius Arbabi
 
Drunk, diarrhea of the mouth, complete lack of trying to avoid physical confrontation, and avoidance of the police investigating the incident is just bad, bad, bad, bad.

+1.... this isn't exactly a good case to use as a metric for what
constitutes lawful self defense.

-Mike
 
That's not what she's said.

What she said was that he did not have the right to use deadly force in response to that attack. To use deadly force, you must be in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. She's arguing that he was not facing danger of death or grave bodily injury and therefore he had no right to use deadly force. She is not arguing that he had no right to self defense.

I disagree with you. Self Defense is about using deadly force to prevent deadly force. The ADA argued that the defendant had an opportunity to flee while on the ground and therefore should not have engaged in deadly force.

It does not make much sense to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom