What a ****ing idiot. Sounds like he thought he could take the boyfriend, got one look and realized he had no chance, so he whipped out his gun. Sounds like a ****ing coward to me, and definitely a horribly irresponsible gun owner. This is the guy that gives us all a bad name.
-
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.
Self Defense? Or not?
- Thread starter MisterHappy
- Start date
OfficerObie could you answer this from a police perspective. Let's say the girl & her boyfriend upon seeing Bratu's gun yelled that they were calling the cops.
At that time Bratu called 911 and said that he had just been threatened by the girlfriend and boyfriend while sitting on his patio. That the boyfriend had what may have been a gun in his waist. He had some black looking thing that he motioned towards while yelling. Could have been a gun but he's not 100% sure.
Then when the police show up Bratu denies pulling out his gun and or remains silent when asked if he owns a firearm..... Would both of the guys get arrested on the spot? Or would the police let them both go and have to interview witnesses before making an arrest?
The courts won't side with you on that. You can only draw your gun if you are in immediate danger of death and grave bodily injury. A simple fist fight typically doesn't reach that level of threat, according to the courts.
Now you can decide that you don't like that, but that is the reality of our court system, and that is true in most all states, not just MA. So many people think they can draw a gun when they can't, and they end up in a world of crap as a result.
You seem to think that the law is how you want it to be. It isn't. I'm talking about our law of self defense as it is today. The choices he made were against the law.
Once again, you drifting into a debate on what you think the law should be. I'm talking about what the law is. We don't have a stand your ground law. You must retreat if it is safe to do so. He had an opportunity to retreat, and he chose not to.
As for your question, was his behavior criminal? By the laws of Massachusetts (whether you like them or not), yes, his behavior was criminal. As OfficerObie pointed out, his response (drawing the gun) was not proportional to the threat. So he is now facing multiple felony charges. It will cost him thousands of dollars to defend himself. If he's lucky, he will stay out of prison and wind up a prohibited person. And he could have avoided all this crap by simply walking away when she said she was going to go get Bubba.
So, yes, I stand by my previous statement: his behavior was stupid.
Now he is going to pay a very severe price for his lack of understanding of MA self defense law and his ego.
Not saying you are wrong, but I am saying I hold no faith in the courts to get any matters of self defense right. I also find it very ironic in a bad way that more people than not argue the exact opposite on this forum in threads that based on incidents where fist fights turned into shootings. See Zimmerman. See the thread on this incident:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3b_KS8_2s8
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...-shot-by-cop?highlight=cop+shoots+firefighter
You are absolutely correct. My argument isn't that that won't happen, this incident as well as plenty others proves it does, but that it shouldn't.
I don't think that. We are looking at it from different perspectives. It isn't how the law is, I'm well aware, I'm giving my personal opinion on how I think it should be.
That is usually how things work. People give opinions, in spite of laws. Sorry for the confusion.
Juries are allowed to judge the law itself. It is called jury nullification. I know you know about it. So having an opinion contrary to the law is perfectly valid and allowed. Not just in reference to this case, but if you were on a jury, and whatever it was, you didn't agree with the law itself, if the person broke that law would you still vote guilty?...
...because it sounds like you would.
Probably, sadly.
A situation can start out not being a threat of death or grave bodily injury, and then turn into one. But until and unless it turns into one, you can't use deadly force.
A fellow throwing a punch at you while you are both on your feet? Highly unlikely to be a threat of death or grave bodily injury. Trayvon Martin mounted Zimmerman and started bashing his head into a concrete sidewalk. That IS danger of death or grave bodily injury.
If you have so little faith in the court system, then I would expect you to recommend to people that they avoid conflict if at all possible. And yet, that's not what you are doing.
Yes, the court system is very unpredictable. You don't want to be caught up in it. So it isn't worth it to use deadly force unless you are about to die. Draw your gun because you want to be a tough guy? It really, really isn't worth it.
Why do you want to hang around if you know a fight is coming your way and you might end up mixed up in the court system, when you could just walk away?
As GPP posted in that thread, the cop was justified all day long, just as Zimmerman was. You start pounding someone's head into concrete, that's a danger of death or grave bodily injury and deadly force is justified.
Yes, I know about jury nullification. No, I likely would not vote to convict someone on a law that I don't agree with.
1) He could have retreated. He didn't.
2) His response was not proportionate to the threat.
3) He could have called the police when she went to go get Bubba. He didn't.
A stand your ground law, by itself, would not have prevented this guy from facing charges. You can not draw a gun until and unless you are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. From what little we know, he wasn't in such danger. His response was not proportionate. So even if the law didn't require him to retreat, he is still guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon x 2.
He was a willing participant in this incident. He could have prevented it at many points, but chose not to because he wanted to be a tough guy. So, yes, based on what we know so far (providing the press reports are accurate, of course), I would vote to convict.
Yes, I think Bubba and the woman should also be charged. But their actions didn't justify his response.
This is a very important point that people seem to miss: you can't draw your gun in response to all threats. You can't draw your gun because a threat might escalate to a danger of death or grave bodily injury. Unless you are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury RIGHT NOW, you can't draw your gun. And that is true regardless of whether your state has a stand your ground law or not.
So you are suggesting preventing it from turning into a deadly situation is not appropriate? I reject that argument.
Unlikely is not impossible. And there are numerous incidents that would prove even a single punch can be deadly. It either is or isn't a potential deadly threat. Whether it turns out deadly or not is not relevant. Do you want to take that chance? I don't.
http://q13fox.com/2014/12/22/deputi...greed-to-assault-as-way-to-resolve-car-crash/
This isn't to mention in street fights there is no referee. There are plenty of examples of people being punched and kicked AFTER being knocked unconscious. Hard to draw your gun when you are unconscious.
Exactly.
Straight up lie. I DO advocate exactly that. I specifically stated that is exactly what I have spent my whole life doing. Avoiding conflict. What I did suggest was that if someone does not make that decision, it doesn't necessarily make them a criminal.
My post, #78
" I've made it my whole life avoiding any sort of physical altercation and want no part in crap like this. That doesn't make someone else who stands their ground a criminal though. Or at least it shouldn't."
Maybe, maybe not. That is for the person in the situation to personally decide. I'm still wondering how you know that the two people who RETURNED to confront him were not there to hurt him and that he could not have been in a deadly situation...
See above. I don't.
You may have noticed in that thread, I said the same thing. Or maybe you didn't.
So you agree with MA law and disagree with stand-your-ground laws? I can't agree with you.
But do you know he wasn't? If they showed up for the purpose of beating him up, would that change your opinion? I don't know one way or the other, so absent proof the were not and could not have been a threat, I'd prefer someone who hurt nobody not become a convicted criminal and felon.
So poor judgment that causes no injury to anyone = felon. I think that is a very, very sad way to look at things.
Disappointing.
Maybe he just thought he was a cop and could pull out a gun any time anyplace and shoot any anyone that he felt "threatened by".. you know like the ones in Watertown who shot up an entire street,a few different cars and a boat with out any identifiable targets and only a vague fear of the bad guys "doing something"
Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk
Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk
You can reject what you want. But the courts don't agree. And once you've drawn your gun, you have escalated it into a deadly situation.
What you want to be able to do and what the courts will allow you to do are two different things. If you draw a gun because someone throws a punch at you -- absent other more threatening issues -- you are going to jail.
Come on now, you can disagree without being disagreeable. You've written a lot. I've written a lot. You're probably missed some things that I've wrote. I've missed some things that you've written. There is no reason for you to be calling me a liar. That was totally uncalled for and you know it.
A criminal is, by definition, someone who breaks the law.
Huh?
Who said they weren't there to hurt him? I didn't. She went to get Bubba so Bubba could kick his ass. From what little we're read, however, not a single punch was thrown. So, by the standards of the court system, he wasn't in IMMEDIATE danger of death or grave bodily injury.
I'd say that I'm ambivalent about stand-your-ground laws. Regardless of whether a state has a stand your ground law, I'm going to get out of Dodge if I can.
They did show up to beat him up. That's why she went to get Bubba. But once again, by law, a simple fist fight rarely rises to a threat of death or grave bodily injury. Barring special circumstances (like beating someone's head against a sidewalk), the courts rarely view a mano-a-mano fight between two adult males as rising to that level.
Breaking a law for which the penalty is a felony violation is what turns people into a felon. And that's what he did.
I strongly suggest that you read Andrew Branca's book "The Law of Self Defense." Read Ayoob's old, but still relevant, book, "In the Gravest Extreme." It is a very rare situation that rises to the level where you are legally justified in drawing your gun. Unless you are about to die right now, you can't draw your gun. Just because someone takes a swing at you does not legally justify drawing your gun.
Your statement was provably false. Lie, mistake, same thing. I don't know your intent, but I do know you responded and didn't admit it was a mistake still.
As spcantwell mentioned above...unless you are a cop. Cops can not only draw, but can shoot people and it's okay. But someone who isn't a cop draws and doesn't shoot anyone or even shoot at all, felon.
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...t-Situational-Awareness-(Carjacker-Shot-Dead)
Had that guy not drawn ahead of time he would be dead. People can't predict the future and always accurate discern when a situation is, isn't, or is going to turn deadly. Arguing against actions done in order to prevent or try and control those situations so they do not turn deadly is something I find wholly disappointing.
That you feel simply drawing a firearm on someone who you admit is there for the specific reason of beating him up and kicking his ass should constitute a felony is what I find disappointing. Extremely.
Last edited:
