-
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
Exactly. Trouble. They weren't coming over for tea and crumpets. They were coming to cause trouble. At the place he lives.
How in the hell do you know they were not a deadly threat? What did they return to do? Seems his actions prevented that. They accosted him at his own home and because he didn't run away he's the criminal?
I suppose if it is your belief that people don't have the right to self defense unless inside their home, an taking actions when you are not to prevent escalation isn't appropriate, I see your position. I also reject the idea that doing so is wrong.
Oh, you being from the area know the Framingham court system is a joke. Between judge Let'em go Greko and softer than a wet noodle Stoddard, he won't get anything (even if he's guilty). At the very most they'll drop it to a lower crime and give him a continued without a finding for a year or two. I've been in court sessions where career criminals are given very light punishment, sometimes it's basically nothing.
The guy obviously has a clean record prior to this, they'll shake him down for court costs or probation costs and call it a day. It's all about money at the district court level.
Garys
NES Member
CT and MA have similar laws, so if you did the same thing, you'd likely be charged. There is a duty to retreat in both states. That's different than in many states where he'd be justified in pulling the gun. First, those states don't have restrictions as we do. Second they don't have storage laws and a gun in the trunk is often the norm.
Not liking the laws in MA or CT doesn't mean that you can ignore them and not expect to be charged.
Be a sarcastic dick if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that this guy is in a world of crap because of his actions.
I don't see him skating, since there is at least one felony charge in there and the case is likely to be bound over to the Superior Court, not handled at the District Court level.
i know the law in CT, thats why i said it, that was his best legal recourse. unfortunately, according to the law we should run away and cower. in a common sense world he should be able to arm himself and stand his ground, but not seek conlict.
the storage laws are completely different in CT though. from what i understand you could lock you loaded gun in your car, no box and in view.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,505
- Likes
- 33,507
I had a similar problem with a neighbor and loud music. Rather than get in a fight, I just called the local PD and let them handle it for me.
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,378
- Likes
- 17,545
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,378
- Likes
- 17,545
The other people, the ones that came back, looking for trouble, say he pointed his bang bang. Whether that happened or not is yet to be adjudicated.
Well if he really felt threatened, better to be judged by 12 then carried by six. But you have to make that choice. The two that came back should also be charged. Willful intimadation.
It is a big no no in any state to draw a firearm when you are not in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. Stop pedaling this idea that this is all nanny state stuff and it would be different in some pro-gun nirvana. You can't draw a gun because some jerk is being a jerk. You can't draw a gun because someone says he's going to hit you.
As for standing your ground outside of your residence, why would you want to? Seriously? What do you have to prove? Even if this was a stand your ground state, he still wasn't in danger of death or grave bodily injury, so he wasn't justified in drawing a gun.
There are two fights to win: the fight on the street and the fight afterwards in court. The best way to win both fights is never to have them in the first place. If someone says "I'm going to get Bubba and he's going to come kick your ass" why the heck would you hang around? It's stupid.
thats what emboldens punks and criminals in america, if two people show up at your residence and make threats you have to run and hide. it would be a better world if you showed up to threaten someone at their residence you should be on your own and responsible for your own fate. strategically you would want to have the upper hand in any situation, but you have to live your life and not be afraid to leave your 4 walls. i dont agree with him pointing the gun if the bf was simply there to have a pleasant conversation, but it seems like he was there looking for trouble.
Nobody seems to be a punk or criminal. The gun guy was probably rude to the girl, and of course the boyfriend had to cock up.
I agree with M1911 that this has nothing to do with Nanny State. You do this in Texas, you will be charged as well.
The unknown is if the boyfriend's demeanor up was at a level where he felt seriously threatened.
In reality, he pulled out the firearm to stop and escalation.
Of course the laws are so effed up that "the right thing to do" would be to wait until the boyfriend starts beating the crap out of you and then "stop" him.
If he says he is going to hit you and then starts to act on it, then drawing your gun is called self defense. Some people believe in it.
See this is the problem I see, and see it all the time. The notion that because somebody would do something different, or because you or I wouldn't want to do something some way, that anything else should be criminalized. Did anyone get hurt? No? Was a potentially violent situation averted? Yes? So what is the problem? Oh, YOU wouldn't do that. YOU would do something different. Well YOU weren't there. People don't always make the same choices, nor should they.
He wasn't? How do you know this? What other information do you have? Do you think she left to get somebody, then came back with him to have a civil discussion over tea? Or maybe she came back with him for some other reason, like pick a fight. No chance?
It might be stupid, but it is criminal? That is what you seem to be suggesting. Being stupid or acting on a misguided sense of pride is not the same thing as acting criminally. There is a reason some states have stand your ground laws. Obviously you don't agree with the reason. 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.
Thank you for you post. I enjoy seeing and reading other peoples perspectives, even when I could not disagree more with them.
Mr. Bratu would have been wise to purchase and read Attorney Andrew Branca's book...
http://lawofselfdefense.com
"The 4th Element: Avoidance Avoidance refers to e generalized legal duty to take advantage of a safe retreat before one can use force in lawful self-defense. In Duty-to-Retreat states a breach of that duty -- the failure to retreat- automatically strips away the right to argue self-defense as a matter of law." continues
"The 5th Element: Reasonableness To be justified in using force in self-defense you must have done so reasonably. Think of the reasonableness element as an umbrella that stands over all the other elements. All of your perceptions, decisions, and actions must have been reasonable, or this element fails. And if this element fails, you claim of self defense fails."
Under the law Mr. Bratu will no doubt to found guilty if this goes to a trial.
He needed to attempt leave the area. He was not inside his home where there is no duty to retreat. He could have done so safely. If followed by the woman BF, then the situation would be escalated.
Mr. Bratu really screwed up. He should have kept his mouth shut in court. He needs a great lawyer to help plea things down. If he can't get a good lawyer he'd be lucky to just lose his restricted LTC and should be glad he's not going to jail.
His case is so poor that even if the BF had a club in his had he would have still had to attempt to leave the area.
I'm sure Mr. Bratu is a "good guy" but he has no idea about the law of self defense and his ignorance and pride apparently got him into this mess.
http://lawofselfdefense.com
"The 4th Element: Avoidance Avoidance refers to e generalized legal duty to take advantage of a safe retreat before one can use force in lawful self-defense. In Duty-to-Retreat states a breach of that duty -- the failure to retreat- automatically strips away the right to argue self-defense as a matter of law." continues
"The 5th Element: Reasonableness To be justified in using force in self-defense you must have done so reasonably. Think of the reasonableness element as an umbrella that stands over all the other elements. All of your perceptions, decisions, and actions must have been reasonable, or this element fails. And if this element fails, you claim of self defense fails."
Under the law Mr. Bratu will no doubt to found guilty if this goes to a trial.
He needed to attempt leave the area. He was not inside his home where there is no duty to retreat. He could have done so safely. If followed by the woman BF, then the situation would be escalated.
Mr. Bratu really screwed up. He should have kept his mouth shut in court. He needs a great lawyer to help plea things down. If he can't get a good lawyer he'd be lucky to just lose his restricted LTC and should be glad he's not going to jail.
His case is so poor that even if the BF had a club in his had he would have still had to attempt to leave the area.
I'm sure Mr. Bratu is a "good guy" but he has no idea about the law of self defense and his ignorance and pride apparently got him into this mess.
OfficerObie59
NES Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,899
This is it in a nutshell. It may have been self defense, but failed on the requirement of proportionality.
Proportionality - yes, maybe more so than the other elements.
"The element of proportionality addresses the degree of physical force involved in the encounter."
----
"If any one element is disproven beyond a reasonable doubt your claim of self-defense collapses" - Andrew Branca
Innocence
Imminence
Proportionality
Avoidance
Reasonableness
I am generally amazed at many of the uninformed shoot from the hip and the "way it should be" responses in this thread. This is again indicative of the general failure of the school system to instill in most any concept of the legal system, legal thought and laws.
Many of you confuse a concept of "street justice" with court justice and fueled by what you see on television and movies and what you "think is right." A lot think that our laws pertaining to self defense are some kind of liberal hodgepodge concocted in the last 50 years by moon bats and before that we lived in some kind of and gun owners paradise when in fact jurisprudence on self defense go back centuries. I'm sure you could find something in Blackstone which would illustrate the very points that Len and M1911 have been patiently, I might add trying to educate you. M1911 is sharing with you an education he received from Lethal Force Institute. He paid a lot of money, you are getting it free. LFI bases it curriculum not on the nanny states but on the several states. Len teaches attorneys firearms law. It isn't opinion, it isn't what you think and it isn't the way you think it should be. You really need to listen to these guys. There is opinion and then there is educated and informed opinion which translates into facts.
When you choose to be armed you are establishing a higher standard for yourself. A lot of you confuse "stand your ground" with macho bullshit. The best way to avoid trouble is to avoid it. I'll put it another way: if you are too much of a man and can't back down, then I'm sure that prison will bring out your feminine side.
Now there was massive fail on both sides. Somebody playing their radio on a friggin parking lot. For how long? I'm wondering how the gun guy asked to turn the music down too?
I hope that some of you guys who are spouting some of the incredible interpretations behind the safety and comfort of your computer screens don't put into to action what you advocate. There some really angry, and thin skinned dudes walking around packin' and this ain't Dodge City. Even Dodge City didn't like being Dodge City, as I recall that's why they hired the Earps.
Listen to M1911 and Len and any commentary by Officer Obie, they know their stuff. What the are saying is reality based on 1000 years of English and American Common Law. I'd hate to have to do some case support because one of you guys thought your dick was bigger than the other guys. That's what this case is about.
The whole idea is to deescalate conflict and avoid conflict. No real warrior I've ever known (and I've known a few) will seek trouble. I've known a few killers too (sanctioned by the .gov) and they are a different breed altogether, then I've known far too many macho idiots who get involved in senseless conflagrations. I'll read about some of them in today's Morning Report and my news apps. Hope you are not one of them, but I can only say, some of you dudes need to keep the number of a good attorney on speed dial. PSGWSP.
Many of you confuse a concept of "street justice" with court justice and fueled by what you see on television and movies and what you "think is right." A lot think that our laws pertaining to self defense are some kind of liberal hodgepodge concocted in the last 50 years by moon bats and before that we lived in some kind of and gun owners paradise when in fact jurisprudence on self defense go back centuries. I'm sure you could find something in Blackstone which would illustrate the very points that Len and M1911 have been patiently, I might add trying to educate you. M1911 is sharing with you an education he received from Lethal Force Institute. He paid a lot of money, you are getting it free. LFI bases it curriculum not on the nanny states but on the several states. Len teaches attorneys firearms law. It isn't opinion, it isn't what you think and it isn't the way you think it should be. You really need to listen to these guys. There is opinion and then there is educated and informed opinion which translates into facts.
When you choose to be armed you are establishing a higher standard for yourself. A lot of you confuse "stand your ground" with macho bullshit. The best way to avoid trouble is to avoid it. I'll put it another way: if you are too much of a man and can't back down, then I'm sure that prison will bring out your feminine side.
Now there was massive fail on both sides. Somebody playing their radio on a friggin parking lot. For how long? I'm wondering how the gun guy asked to turn the music down too?
I hope that some of you guys who are spouting some of the incredible interpretations behind the safety and comfort of your computer screens don't put into to action what you advocate. There some really angry, and thin skinned dudes walking around packin' and this ain't Dodge City. Even Dodge City didn't like being Dodge City, as I recall that's why they hired the Earps.
Listen to M1911 and Len and any commentary by Officer Obie, they know their stuff. What the are saying is reality based on 1000 years of English and American Common Law. I'd hate to have to do some case support because one of you guys thought your dick was bigger than the other guys. That's what this case is about.
The whole idea is to deescalate conflict and avoid conflict. No real warrior I've ever known (and I've known a few) will seek trouble. I've known a few killers too (sanctioned by the .gov) and they are a different breed altogether, then I've known far too many macho idiots who get involved in senseless conflagrations. I'll read about some of them in today's Morning Report and my news apps. Hope you are not one of them, but I can only say, some of you dudes need to keep the number of a good attorney on speed dial. PSGWSP.
Drops the mic and walks off.... Well said.
Varmint
NES Member
If the two 'victims' are the only witnesses, he'll get off, unless he's really stupid and admits pulling his gun.
He already did that in court at his arraignment. The judge cautioned him to STFU, but he didn't listen.
Varmint
NES Member
He probably thought he had the right to do that. Oops.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
On my "both of them went and got a weapon" thought - I certainly do not condone when gun guy did and I would have moved away myself. I'm just saying that she did threaten gun guy and it wasn't a threat to have her boyfriend sit down and have a beer together. I doubt she meant that she would get her boyfriend to have a verbal sparring with the guy. She was going to get her boyfriend to kick the crap out of gun guy. Maybe it's a lesser degree of threat than a gun but you can die from a beating.
Just because she has to sleep with her weapon to get it to do what she wants doesn't mean that "I'm going to get my boyfriend" is less of a threat.
Just because she has to sleep with her weapon to get it to do what she wants doesn't mean that "I'm going to get my boyfriend" is less of a threat.
Can't reasonably say without details.
When she left to get the BF it says they returned "a short time later". What does that mean? 30 seconds? 45 minutes? Maybe the girl was holding some kind of weapon. We have no idea what really happened and probably never will.
When she left to get the BF it says they returned "a short time later". What does that mean? 30 seconds? 45 minutes? Maybe the girl was holding some kind of weapon. We have no idea what really happened and probably never will.
Parker Duofold
NES Member
^^^^ This.
Similar threads
