Pro-Israel MA Veteran Charged For Shooting Anti-Israel Perpetrator Who Violently Assaulted Him
“Scott Hayes, 47, of Framingham, Mass., was getting ready to leave when the assailant began yelling at the group, showing his middle finger and shouting at the protesters.”
Some people in Newton, Massachusetts, held a pro-Israel demonstration when a random man on the street, who wore a pro-Palestinian pin, stopped to criticize them.
After a brief exchange, the man rushed across the street and tackled a veteran at the demonstration.
The gun went off during their fight. The attacker ended up with a bullet through his stomach.
Kassy Akiva of the Daily Wire broke the story:
EXCLUSIVE: Man With Pro-Palestinian Pin Shot After Tackling Pro-Israel Veteran
A man wearing a Palestinian pin was shot in Newton, Massachusetts Thursday evening after he charged across a street and tackled a pro-Israel veteran protester.
In a video shared with The Daily Wire, the man with the pin, sporting a surgical mask around his neck, stood across the street shouting at the group of 10 protesters, calling them “sick” and accusing them of “defending genocide.”
Scott Hayes, 47, of Framingham, Mass., was getting ready to leave when the assailant began yelling at the group, showing his middle finger and shouting at the protesters.
In the next video, the man charges across the street through traffic and tackles Hayes, an Iraq War veteran, who was carrying an American flag during the protest. Seconds later, the gun was discharged and the man was shot in the stomach during their tussle on the ground, another video angle shows.
Watch the video below:
🚨BREAKING🚨
A man wearing a Palestinian pin was shot in the stomach this evening after he charged through traffic and tackled a pro-Israel Iraq war veteran in Newton, Massachusetts.pic.twitter.com/Ix5JEJaJNp
— Kassy Akiva (@KassyAkiva) September 13, 2024
I can now release his name since the DA put it out there.
The veteran is Scott Hayes of Framingham pic.twitter.com/Ltqf9AeLDZ
— Kassy Akiva (@KassyAkiva) September 13, 2024
Newton has a large Jewish population and is also known for being an extremely liberal city, even by Massachusetts standards.
That should give you an idea of how local authorities are going to handle this.
WCVB News reports:
Man charged after confrontation, shooting at Newton pro-Israel rally
Charges have been filed against a Framingham man after a confrontation and shooting at a pro-Israeli rally in Newton, Massachusetts, on Thursday evening.
Scott Hayes, 47, of Framingham, is charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, as well as violation of a constitutional right causing injury, following a violent confrontation, Middlesex County District Attorney Marian Ryan said.
At around 6:40 p.m. Thursday, Newton police responded to an altercation near Washington and Harvard streets in the Newtonville neighborhood…
Hayes was arrested and charged, authorities said. He was scheduled to be arraigned Friday morning in Newton District Court.
Watch the press conference by Marian Ryan and others below. Note the number of times that the mayor emphasizes that counseling services are available for people who were traumatized by this.
Here is the press conference with Middlesex County District Attorney Marian Ryan announcing that Scott Hayes will be charged after shooting the man with a pro-Palestinian pin who tackled him during a protest. pic.twitter.com/YBuRhzHeJU
— Kassy Akiva (@KassyAkiva) September 13, 2024
If authorities in Newton think they’re going to drop a hammer on Mr. Hayes, the veteran, they had better be prepared for this to become a national news story.
Featured image via Twitter video.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Minnesota is criminalizing self defense to.
If you want to have the right to defend yourself against a leftist you have better be in a red state or swing state with a strong enough Republican Party to prevent the left from just doing what it wants.
Constitutional right to assault pro Israel demonstrators?
MA-Are you surprised in some way?
Law is not something you could expect there.
As facts come out it’s clear that the prosecutor has made his charge too quickly. Because there was no need to do that, the speed tells the nation of the liberal/D mindset in Massachusetts.
“The veteran was charged with: assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and violation of a constitutional right causing injury.”
Well of course they did.
And wow, guess who’s the DA? A crazy white liberal chick.
Ya screwed up, Scotty. Ya stayed there.
‘… as well as violation of a constitutional right causing injury…’
So you can attack someone as long as you are exercising your first amendment right. Didn’t he cause his own injury? Should not have run across the street to attack Hayes.
Yeah, my first thought was “WHAT constitutional right?”
I mean, if Massachusetts wants to revive the fighting words doctrine, I’m all for it!
Let’s see you say something about my mama, now, Mr Beaneater!
Note that. Constitutional rights are guarantees against the government. Yet, in Massachusetts Bizarro World, YOU aren’t allowed to violate someone else’s constitutional rights, only the government is allowed to do that!
My Father always warned me to ‘be careful how you talk to folks’ and not to ‘let my alligator mouth overload your hummingbird ass’. Seems like the assailant here who ran across the street to tackle this man either never got the advice or decided to ignore it. FAFO at your own risk but the legal system in Massachusetts won’t see it that way.
I think this is revealing of how Democrats feel about us.
“An armed society is a polite society” right there.
I hate this, because I’m very pro-Israel, and very pro-self defense and 2A. However, I’ve got to say that I think they are right to charge the man who shot his assaulter. Here is the reasoning:
The veteran doesn’t look like any kind of slouch, so his match-up against the (admittedly weaker-looking) mask guy doesn’t rise to the level of “disparity of force” that would be needed to justify employing deadly force against the mask guy. If there had been two or more men who overwhelmed the veteran, that is an example of disparity of force. But as it is, the veteran would have only been justified in using ordinary force (punches, kicks, pepper spray, taser, etc.) to defend himself, since his life was likely not in danger, and he doesn’t seem to have any reason to believe that man posed a deadly threat to him. Therefore, deadly force doesn’t seem justified, and therefore remains illegal to use. In fact, it looks like the veteran had helpers in his fight against the masked guy, further reducing any perceived justification to use deadly force.
The ONLY way I can see this being justified is if the masked guy somehow got a hold of the veterans gun during the fight and was attempting to use it against him. That fact will have to be proven by the veteran here.
Nothing you have said is even remotely correct on the legality of the use of deadly force or the situation as it actually happened.
Ummm, ok, you’re going to have to back up that statement.
“Disparity of force” is one of the key self-defense doctrines, particularly as it concerns proportionality.
You might want to read Branca’s book.
Stephen Winburn, I would highly advise watching this lecture by Massad Ayoob, a leader in the gun industry in the use of deadly force. I mean it, I don’t want my fellow 2A proponents getting into hot water should they ever find themselves in dicey situations like this:
https://youtu.be/a9VhVEd6ti4?si=pwQYYaeVO5rtNqMf
That video is an hour and a half long, and has no transcript. No thanks.
An hour and a half now or 30 years later.
Branca’s book is shorter. 😉
You have the same right to start a fight with a 4 year old girl you have to start a fight with a champion boxer (none).
When you attack someone they are allowed to use maximum force against you in their own defense so long as you are still attacking them.
This goes for police officers as well as civilians.
There is no proportionality of “he is attacking me, he is not yielding I can only use whatever force he is”-That is neither law nor does it make any sense.
If you don’t want to be shot in a civilian setting here are some rules I have. They have worked through my entire life, and I promise you 100% they will work for the rest of it
1. Don’t assault anyone
2. Don’t get into physical altercations with someone even if you think they are wrong about a political issue
3. Don’t attack the property of another person
4. Do not threaten to use deadly force on someone
5. Do not threaten to use physical force on someone
6. Do not deliberately try to provoke a fight
7. If you are little more than an animal like that masked attacker do not let yourself out of the house.
I don’t care if you are 400 pounds and he is a paragon of fitness if you are attacking someone you are in the wrong and they are justified defending themselves.
That the state of MA sees fit to charge a man who is on tape defending itself indicts MA, it indicts Democrat leadership, it indicts this nation (as lawless) and frankly it indicts anyone who supports the charges.
If you could use a taser you could use a gun. That man was not a police officer and even if he was police officers are allowed to defend themselves.
I have avoided being shot by not being an animal, that animal could have done the same.
No, you are not allowed to use maximum force in all self defense situations. You must use force proportionate to the threat. A military veteran trained in fighting tactics is probably not experiencing an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death from the random pro-Palestinian protestor tackling him. The questions of if this was intentional fire or an inadvertent result of being attacked and all the other stuff will be important in court.
You are assuming here. Most military veterans didn’t hold combat roles or receive any training in hand to hand combat. Even in the Army, for every combat soldier there are about 10 support people…logistics, administration, medical, intelligence, maintenance, etc etc etc. In the Marines, the ratio is slightly lower, but not much and in the Marines even the REMFS get combat training. Two of the military services…Navy and Air Force…the ratio is probably closer to 100 to 1 of non combat roles to combat roles unless you consider loading bombs onto an aircraft or pushing the button that launches the missiles to be a “combat role”…but I can assure you that the bomb loaders and missile launchers receive no special training in hand to hand combat.
Even if he had combat training, He is not young. Many veterans have physical disabilities that make them unable to effectively employ hand to hand combat techniques, some of those disabilities aren’t visible to the naked eye. I’m rated 40% disabled from the VA based on restricted range of motion in my shoulders and hips from years of abuse in the military. There’s no chance I could outrun a young, fit attacker and I have little confidence that I’d be able to fight effectively given my limitations, but you’d never know it just by seeing me walking around in public.
Not to mention that there are plenty of non-military people with extensive training in hand to hand combat be it Boxing, Wrestling, Asian martial arts or MMA. Your assumptions about the relative fighting skills of the two combatants are just that…assumptions…and irrelevant to the question of self defense.
If what we saw in the above video truly depicts the events and there aren’t significant parts edited out, I’d say it was clearly self defense. Hopefully the judge and/or jury will agree and Mr. Hayes isn’t financially ruined in the process of being vindicated.
Thank you for letting me know my navy days makes me a martial arts expert, it will be big news to the Petty Officers who trained me, enormous news to myself. Why I had no idea that all of that paper work was readying me for a combat scenario. My hat is off to you I learn something new about myself every day! Don’t discuss what being a veteran means if you don’t know.
No you are not required to only use fists because that is what he is using.
I watched the video and can see nothing wrong with self defense.
Again if you want me first rate advice on how I miraculously managed to navigate or horrendously wicked gun culture how in spite of all dangers I have remained not shot and healthy my entire life?
1. Don’t start a physical attack
2. Don’t provoke a physical fight
3. Don’t tackle people to the ground
4. Do not attack someone
5. Do not punch people
6. Do not hit people
7. Do not kick people
8. Do not tackle people
9. If you are the animal who can’t achieve the above check yourself in to a mental institution.
You have the same right to attack a 6 year as you do Lebron James NONE. Unless of course you are a leftist activist in which case the state of MA thinks you do.
ohhh so wrong>>from a common sense perspective
yeah..ON PAPER it sounds good
but when attacked
not so much
How in the hell are you supposed to know what is proportional? What if the guy has a knife you didn’t see at first? That’s a deadly weapon and easily concealed, attack me and I’m just going to shoot you out of an abundance of caution.
If you can show that you have a reasonable suspicion that the attacker had a deadly weapon you can respond with deadly force. “What if” isn’t normally considered reasonable.
The key here is “reasonable”, not just some hunch or other undefinable suspicion.
For situations like this, carry pepper spray.
The fact that the guy physically assaulted you is enough for a belief that they meant you serious harm.
When you attack someone they are allowed to use maximum force against you in their own defense
This is not true. You may not employ lethal force in self-defense except when in reasonable fear of imminent “grave bodily harm or death.”
That is correct, and I’d say being charged, tackled to the ground and grappled with by a younger, fitter assailant is reasonable grounds to be in fear of great bodily harm or death.
The only question is will the judge and/or jury agree?
I generally concur. Except, have you seen that goober that attacked him? Younger maybe, but fitter? 😉
The attacker did not relent or deescalate after the initial attack, the attack continued with no end in sight. Even multiple people could not stop his attack.
Zimmerman?
ZImmerman?
Zimmerman?
Tackled to the ground by a man charging across the street and beating you doesn’t qualify? Are you with the Kyle Rittenhouse prosecutor in claiming when a leftist attacks you just take your beating?
OK, I’m going to stop you right there, Danny boy. You can stop with the stupid ad hominem attacks and back your cart up. You can either look at what the person is saying and their sources, or you can just drop out of the conversation.
Also, you might want to go back and look at what people have said previously in regard to something like the Rittenhouse event, before you try to smear by association.
You want to have a reasonable conversation, fine. But this kind of crap will lead me to simply ignore your antics.
@ GWB
Please, before throwing brickbats, make certain they’re not boomerangs.
An ad hominem is an attack on a person rather than the substance of his argument
and from what i can see, you’re the only one employing ad hominems.
Please stop.
In most jurisdictions, it’s usually not ‘grave.’ It’s serious. You don’t have to have a reasonable fear of death, only a reasonable fear of ‘serious’ injury. What’s the difference? You can lose an eye in a fight. That’s not a ‘grave’ injury. But, that is a serious injury and to prevent it, you can use deadly defensive force….in most jurisdictions.
BTW, I should not have used the word ‘fight.’ I did not mean ‘fight.’ I meant ‘attack.’ If someone ATTACKS you in an unprovoked act of aggression (as this clearly was), if you have a reasonable fear of serious harm or death, you can use deadly force. Unfortunately, that may not be the standard in crazy MA.
You are correct in the wording for some jurisdictions. I think you’re incorrect about losing an eye not being considered “grave” in those other jurisdictions. But the intent is the same – something that will affect you severely. Not a black eye, not a mere bruise.
“Unfortunately, that may not be the standard in crazy MA.”
When I lived there, the standard in crazy MA was that if you shot someone, no matter how good the shoot, you would be arrested. What happened after that depended on how stupid the DA would look prosecuting you. But in 30 years, that bar has been lowered quite a bit, Democrats no longer much care how stupid they look, as long as they have the power to make their will stick.
Danny, as I said to Stephen above, I would highly recommend watching this old lecture from Massad Ayoob regarding the law concerning the use of deadly force. There’s a lot of law riding on the line when you defend yourself, and you need to understand the fine lines beforehand, because a jury will be deciding your fate should you get into a situation like this, and they have the luxury of learning the law in the comfort of a courtroom. You won’t, so it’s smart to learn ahead of time.
https://youtu.be/a9VhVEd6ti4?si=pwQYYaeVO5rtNqMf
The reason for having a legal process is in order so when someone does this kind of attack it does not appear before a jury.
Tackled to the ground and being beaten……
If that doesn’t qualify as self defense it is time to enshrine in law that the right no longer exists and permit all police to be sued by local residents if an attack happens to encourage them to be in more places at once.
The problem, Danny, isyou keep asserting “self-defense” as equivalent to lethal self-defense, and the two do NOT equate in the law. Lethal self-defense is a subset of overall self-defense.
And you can disbelieve all you like that proportionality is an element of the law (and rightly so), but it is. Please point out an actual lawyer that claims otherwise. I will just about guarantee he is not an accomplished self-defense attorney in any jurisdiction where it matters.
“he ONLY way I can see this being justified is if the masked guy somehow got a hold of the veterans gun during the fight and was attempting to use it against him. That fact will have to be proven by the veteran here.”
You aren’t just not in favor of self defense you are completely and utterly clueless about what the law or morality is if you think that is true.
To specify a lot of Europeans think you have no right to defend yourself, and that you should take your beating and cops can decide to charge or not charge your attacker.
I am firmly of the belief self defense is one of the key god given rights everyone has.
Self-defense is an inalienable right because EVERYONE WILL FIGHT TO SURVIVE. Outlawing it makes as much sense as outlawing breathing.
Yes, defense of self from death or grave bodily harm is a natural right. And, you don’t have to take a beating – except where progressive Soros DAs work… because evil. But you can’t simply whip out a gun and shoot someone because they’re punching you or have tackled you. You can’t knife someone because they slapped you. And you can’t ground-and-pound someone because they tackled you – except insofar as required to stop the attack.
Actually, Danny, you might want to read up on ACTUAL self-defense law. Because you seem pretty clueless about it. Plenty of actual 2A attorneys out there (like Andrew Branca) who would set you straight.
Have you ever been tackled to the ground while taking a beating?
I am 100% sure your perspective would be different if you had.
We have a video of a clear cut case of self defense by any standard that has self defense as a legal principle at all.
Actually, Danny, I have.
And, no, you’re wrong about it being so clear cut, as concerns lethal self-defense.
Again, I’m basing my statements off of the work of numerous actual self-defense, 2A attorneys who have won lots of cases by their testimony or legal work. I think I have a much better understanding of things than you do.
If someone punches and tackles me, I will try to end the fight by whatever means possible. Ass besting, shooting, whatever. This is just more Masshole BS.
That’s “ass beating.”
I’m with you man, if they attack me they’ve done voided all their rights.
For all you know, the veteran could have spinal and/or shoulder issues which would make it far easier for him to sustain injuries and harder for him to defend himself.
He was also knocked to the ground, so he may have whacked his head causing disorientation and certainly making fears of further life-threatening, or at the very least permanently life-changing, injuries reasonable.
Just because an assault victim looks to be, or even is, buffer than the assailant should not mean that the assailant gets a free pass to try to beat in the victim’s head on the sidewalk.
While this is true, it would have to be shown in a court that he reasonably feared for his life.
And also why everyone reacting to this needs to wait and see/hear some better evidence than this one video.
(As to being on the ground, even disoriented, he had a large contingent of friends stomping on the man. And they didn’t think it was a huge threat, evidently, since most of them didn’t put down their phones or flags to actually get into the scuffle.)
Fair enough. Just pointing out that there may be reasonable arguments made for the otherside against the “of course he didn’t need a weapon to defend himself” claims flying around.
I’m just not going automatically assume the vet is the one in the wrong as some here are. Since I can think of plenty of possibilities as to why the shooting could be legit, I’d like to see all the evidence. But given that the vet was attacked, I’ll incline towards believing his actions reasonable until proven otherwise. But I am open to the idea that that evidence exists.
Equally, more “over-reactions” might convince more of these anti-american protesters to think twice about resorting to physical violence, and that would be a good thing.
You have no clue how a court works.
Show it to the jury?
NO
A jury could rule either way.
THE VIDEO shows reasonable fear for life he was being attacked brutally.
Danny, please go get educated before spouting more nonsense here. You’re making yourself look bad again.
And nowhere will I ever claim that presenting it to a jury guarantees you win. But that is where the argument actually happens, not in your imagination, where whatever you determine must be true and right.
Personally, if someone tackles me down to the ground, where I could have lost consciousness and suffered a concussion, that’s grounds for eliminating the immediate threat to my life. When a rabid and unhinged person, charges across the street and tackles you to the ground, it’s not so he can give you flowers. It’s because he wants to cause you grievous bodily injury.
The presence of his friends is irrelevant because they do not have a legal obligation to “save” him. No one is expected to lay down and take a beating from an unhinged attacker while waiting for their friends to save them.
I guess the guy being threatened and then violently assaulted needs to frisk his assailant, as he is being beaten by him, to determine he is, in fact, unarmed, before deploying his own defensive measures.
Yes. I’m sure that everyone wishes that the idiot wasn’t shot, but he created a situation with prolonged threats and a violent assault that the shooter had to be ready for anything.
I’m also wondering if the shooter drew his weapon as he was being charged, and it was accidentally discharged in the process of the violent idiot assaulting him.
My 2 cents, regardless of the side of the argument, the idiot who violently charged and assaulted the protestor needs to be locked up for mental evaluation because he is clearly a threat to himself and others – he proved it.
I, for one, have no regrets about the guy getting shot. I just wish you’d have been hitting a better spot and died immediately.
The idiot brought fists to a gunfight
That sounds like that nonsense argument I was given by “authorities” (teachers, principal) when accosted by bullies and taunters when I was in grammar school: “Pick on someone your own size.”
I was the giant in my classes, and fat. Got lots of taunts and bullying, and some very nasty remarks because I was from the then-not common broken home. So, at times I fought back.
If the world had had any common sense, these alleged authorities would have told the bullies 60% my size to “pick on someone your own size, or you will get more than you bargained for”.
It’s very important to understand the two main levels of force. Ordinary force is totally justified by the veteran here. He’s allowed to fight back. I totally agree.
But employing deadly force, which would be a gun, knife, etc. raises the situation to a new legal level which must be justified. You’re only allowed to do that if all of the following are being met:
1) Your attacker has the ability to maim or kill you
2) Your attacker has the intention to maim or kill you.
3) The above two conditions are true in the current moment (in other words, maiming/killing is ABOUT TO HAPPEN RIGHT NOW
If any of the above three elements don’t exist in the moment, then deadly force isn’t justified, and the veteran can only use ORDINARY force, such as punches, kicks to the limbs/body, pepper spray, taser, etc. (things that won’t kill his attacker).
As I said to others in this thread, I highly recommend watching this old lecture by Massad Ayoob on the use of deadly force. It’s an excellent video and teaches these aspects of the law very well.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
1) Your attacker has the ability to maim or kill you
2) Your attacker has the intention to maim or kill you.
With one caveat: what;s required is a reasonable belief in those things. Even if he’s unarmed, if he has big fingers and points one at you inside his jacket pocket while threatening to shoot you, it might be reasonable to think he has the capability, even if he doesn’t in reality. And the “reasonable” test is where the good self-defense attorneys come in.
What you just said justifies deadly force in almost any attack.
`1. The guy attacked you, it’s fair to make the assumption that he has the means to maim or kill you. Assuming otherwise is STUPID.
2. The guy attacked you, It’s fair to assume the intent you maim or kill you.
3. In the heat of the moment, it’s all about state of mind and only I can know that for myself. I will employ the most potent defense I can give at that moment in time.
So you have to pause the fight and interrogate your attacker as to his intent? Excuse me sir, are you trying to maim or kill me?
Do you even understand how incredibly absurd that is? If you charge across the street and take me to the ground, I’m going to assume your intent is to maim or kill me because that is a completely unhinged and rabid reaction.
Unfortunately, I am incapable of reading minds; this pro=Palestinian may have just wished to discuss Proust with me.
There is a lack of accurate information of how the gun was discharged. (at least a lack of accurate publically available information ) .
I could easily be wrong, but there is some indication that the gun discharging was accidental, ie part of the struggle.
Agreed. There also seem to be parts of the video missing. The facts must be determined, and then tried. My opinion is only based on the limited knowledge I can see from a first viewing of the video. The evidence will determine how this plays out.
I would hope the victim wouldn’t claim accidental discharge as that opens risk of other charges. Unless the attackers own hand pressed the trigger the accident excuse isn’t a good look.
Theodore Wafer was been found guilty of Second Degree Murder/Voluntary Manslaughter. The statements he made saying it was an accident helped convict him.
legalinsurrection.com/2014/08/guilty-verdict-in-detroit-front-porch-murder-trial/
Don’t give any statements to police other than I was attacked and believed the attacker was in the act of causing me great bodily harm. Then – “I won’t answer any other questions without my lawyer present. “
what??
have you ever been in fight?
in the ring we had a ref
in the streets the attacker has the advantage 90+% of the time
I’m of the mindset that a defender has the right to expect to survive a physical assault, and a criminal assailant has no such right. (Who will say “An innocent person has no right to survive a criminal attack”? Nobody? Good, so we agree here.) I call this the “right to survive.” It is distinct from (and I believe superior to) the right to “self defense.”
Because the possibility you will be killed in a physical attack always exists (merely by being tackled, Mr. Hayes could have been killed by striking his head on the sidewalk pavement – waiting to see if that would happen would have done him no good in the event he had been killed in that manner), I believe a defender has a right to use lethal force to assure his survival because he can’t know what the outcome may be if he doesn’t stop his attacker. And the surest way to stop an attacker is with lethal force. (The law of “self-defense” as it is now stupidly requires the defender to know things that may be unknowable at the time of an attack. See my comment here on this subject: https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/chad-read-shooting-evidence-supports-manslaughter-not-justification/#comment-1235007)
Surely, no sane person would claim a criminal assailant has a right to survive a physical assault he initiates. (Such a claim would turn “self-defense” on its head, allowing the criminal to kill his victim if the victim fights back.) Criminals are called “outlaws” because they are operating (even if only for a short period of time) outside the law. But in doing so they have also placed themselves outside the law’s protection, therefore surrendering (even if only temporarily) their own natural right to survive the day.
One might say this attitude could land me in prison. This is true. But this attitude will also prevent someone in Mr. Hayes’ situation from being convicted if someone with this attitude is on his jury. I suggest that everyone reading this adopt this attitude should they ever find themselves sitting on a jury hearing such a case. It is certainly my intent to do so.
Surely, no sane person would claim a criminal assailant has a right to survive a physical assault he initiates.
And lots of sane people would disagree with you. This is the point of the “reasonableness” argument. I don’t think most reasonable people would think shooting someone who slapped you would be considered appropriate. Period. Sure, he could have a poisoned needle in that hand and kill you with it. But no reasonable person would assume that – with possible caveats for edge cases*.
Even in the case of a reasonably assumed potentially lethal attack, yes, there’s an assumption the attacker has a right to life. That’s why “self-defense” is an affirmative defense. You have to assert it, particularly where someone is killed. It might be the case that it’s clear and the cops won’t even touch it. It might be the prosecutor after an examination of the evidence lets you go scot-free. But even in those cases it’s not because the killing is non-important to the law, but that they are positive any jury (or judge) will let you walk on your assertion of self-defense. At least in the purely legal sense – there may be emotions in play, as well, and just human understanding. But, according to the system they are letting you go because the evidence shows you’d win if they were dumb enough to prosecute it.
Yes, the criminal has placed themselves outside the law’s protection (to some extent). But that does NOT – not in modern Western civilization – make them now someone who can simply be executed on the spot. Anyone with that attitude will probably be excluded from a jury.
(* “Edge cases” would be the extreme stuff – an ambassador in negotiations with a country where assassination is common might be justified in shooting a local from slapping him because of the poisoned needle idea. A Russian dissident with enough juice might be justified in shooting a Russian approaching him with an umbrella – but only a Russian jury would probably find that reasonable.)
I don’t care how small you are, or how much of a lightweight you are. If you take a swing at me, I’m going to lambast you with whatever is the biggest stick I have at the moment. If I’m carrying, and that’s actually a high percentage chance, you will get shot if you attack me. I’m not going to take the chance you get lucky and seriously injure me which would interfere with my ability to care for my family. I’m simply going to end the whole thing as quickly as I can by the means that is safest for me.
This just shows that you don’t want to live in places run by idiotic communists.
If you are being attacked, the size, shape, sex or mental health of the attacker is of no import. Only you, the victim, can decide what is appropriate in their self defense.
If that guy didn’t want to be shot, he should not have run across the street and assaulted a peaceful citizen.
Only you, the victim, can decide what is appropriate in their self defense.
Everyone saying this can feel all self-righteous and such. But, the law says otherwise. It says you only get to declare “self-defense” in killing/shooting someone if “reasonable” people agree with you. And if you think “Someone raises a hand to me and I’m going to shoot them” will be considered “reasonable to most people, I hope you get one of those lawyers who will tell you to shut up.
In this case no one needs to make that argument, the guy literally ran across the street and tackled the other guy.
Can someone please explain to me the charge of violation of a constitutional right causing injury?
Does the violent idiot have the right to assault a person as a constitutional right?
It’s just one of those PFA “laws” made up on the spot to arrest or otherwise cause problems. Just watch any cop looking for trouble; he can make up laws out of thin air. “You look suspicious so I want identification or I will slap the cuffs on you and take you downtown.”
All I can think of is that the DA really believes that “our actual violence is speech and your speech is violence.”
The DA said Hayes legally possessed the gun.
The mayor urged community members to “remain calm.”
“Let the Newton police do the work and get the facts straight,” she said.
Why don’t they get their facts straight before they arrest and charge the dude defending himself?
I hope the guy who got himself shot recovers and learns from this.
I can’t, in good conscience, say I hope the guy dies. But if he does, all is not lost – maybe others will learn from this. So I really don’t care if he dies. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
“I hope the guy who got himself shot recovers and learns from this.”
I think the guy who got himself shot is looking to cash in on his 72 virgins.
Sorry to post so many comments. This whole thing is nuts.
There already is a GoFundMe for Scott Hayes (the vet arrested for defending himself from a charging crazy man):
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-scott-hayes-legal-defense?lang=en_US&utm_campaign=fp_sharesheet&utm_medium=customer&utm_source=native_options
Almost $60,000 already.
OK, last comment. I hope.
Scott Hayes was the one who provided emergency medical treatment to the dude who had just assaulted him.
Good show Scott!!
He’s a better man than I am, I’d have let the son of a b**** bleed out
The guy’s no dope. This after-action is #1 on the charts for a shooter looking to claim self-defense. #2 is calling the police first to make a report, before the dirtbag can.
IMO the idiot that ran across the street got what he deserved.
But according to what I have learned from the LI self defense attory, alot depends on the state laws.
Generally, if you can either prove, or show by the “preponderance of evidence” (depending on state law) that a reasonable person would see that the shooter’s life was in danger, then the shooting would be considered justified. The timing was appropriate (the danger was there at the time). So alot depends on the ability to show that the aggressor was using potentially deadly force. While I sympathize with the shooter, I don’t envy him right now, in Mass.
See my comment above. Merely being tackled could have resulted in Mr. Hayes striking his head on the pavement, killing him. (A knock out punch can do the same.) Almost all physical attacks are potentially lethal. No defender can know in advance which are and which aren’t.
I understand what you are saying, but the fact is that in court, it’s hard to argue that during a fist fight with 2 guys about the same size, 1 guy need to pull his gun and shoot.
A good prosecuting attorney will have too much fun with that.
See the article above where the LI lawyer, Andrew Branca, explains the 5 elements of a self defense claim, highlighting “proportionality.”
Yes, IMO the guy deserved what he got, but you and I aren’t going to be in that courtroom. That’s just the way it is.
I hope, as Mr. Branca wrote in the article, that this guy’s lawyer is able to show evidence of a fight for control of the gun.
On first blush, looks like clear self-defense…but there are several jump-cuts in the video…what did they edit out?
Maybe the DA saw things that we didn’t? I’m reserving judgement based on the fact that I don’t have all the evidence.
how come YOU are not familiar with our NEW LAWS
blmplo crt woke laws rule the streets and now the courts
You couldnt even get the scotus to look at obvious 2020 suppression of
gop votes
daniel penny is being chokeholded by the system
the guy down in texas who defended himself from the blmplo rioter found guilty
police charged with murder etc for stopping poc from committing even more crimes
get with the progran and YOUR NEW MASTERS,,,AMERICA
The little, commie shitbag got exactly what he deserved. It’s too bad that he survived.
I sure hope that this doesn’t stop Mr. Hayes from voting Dem in the coming election.
A pro-Israel veteran demonstrator carrying a flag?
Give the man some benefit of the doubt.
Mike’s analysis is pretty good. We don’t know what happened in the scuffle to cause the gun to discharge. There’s edits to the video. You can’t see inside the “scrum” in several spots.
Let’s look at the requirements for a valid self-defense claim:
– Innocence: there was taunting going on, but the Palestinian agitator actually took action and assaulted the defender. Unless the defender could have walked away from the fight during one of those edits and didn’t (thereby surrendering his innocence) he’s got this one on his side.
– Imminence: Unless, again, he could have walked away somewhere in there, the fight was ongoing so definitely “imminent.”
– Avoidance: Even without a duty to retreat, could he have avoided the scenario? Not without giving up his right to be there. A DA someplace like Massachusetts might try to argue he should have walked away when the guy came running across the street. The idea of that is stupid, but it’s the (evil) law some places. Maybe he could have avoided a “second phase” if the guy had stopped fighting and he was able to disengage – and that’s what is mentioned in the first two elements, too. Had he defended himself well enough to actually disengage during one of those cuts? If so, that had to be a pretty impressive cut.
– Proportionality: Here’s where the issue needs more evidence. Was the threat reasonably perceived as one of “grave bodily harm or death”? Based just on being tackled, probably not. Based on a bunch of possibilities after that moment, it could be. We’re not hearing of a deadly weapon being produced by the assailant, nor claims of “he tried to grab my gun.” (That might mean the guy is just smart enough to shut up and talk only to his attorney.) So this one will have to wait for further claims and evidence.
– Reasonableness: According to Branca, if you fail on any of those first 4, you fail “reasonableness.” If no one on a jury would think you were reasonable in fearing for your life and shooting someone in response, then it wasn’t reasonable enough to justify your self-defense claim. Even if everyone else at the VFW or the knitting club thinks you were right. So you have to prove that claim – that you acted similarly to any other person (not on the outer edges of the bell curve) in that same situation.
I think this will ultimately hinge on 1) are there bits we didn’t see where the defender could have ended it without lethal force, 2) did he think he was hurt significantly by the tackle (as happened with the protester that died from a concussion), 3) did something transpire in the ground melee that changed the equation, such as the assailant reaching for his gun. And, of course, the lack of fidelity to the law by the prosecutor, judge, and jury in Massachusetts.
“Was the threat reasonably perceived as one of “grave bodily harm or death”? Based just on being tackled, probably not.”
He was knocked down onto a concrete sidewalk. Had he struck his head wrong it would have been fatal. That’s not a stretch; it happens often. In fact, the man who was killed by a pro-Hamas marcher in April died that way.
spot on
Yes, I mentioned that attack in another comment and should have repeated it here. It was the basis for the “a bunch of possibilities after that moment” sentence. But, if he didn’t hit his head on that initial tackle it would make it “non-deadly” to that point and likely wouldn’t (in and of itself) be justification for a lethal response.
And this stuff is why Branca and others encourage those who legally carry to buy into one of the self-defense attorney programs. Because a lawyer is a professional at arguing this stuff, and a Soros prosecutor is often an expert at twisting words beyond reason. The attorney you would get in this instance would be likely to be significantly better than you or I at making your case, because of things like the issue of hitting your head on the initial tackle.
Boycott MA until they decide you have a right to self defense.
thousand years too long to wait
It amazes me that Leia manufacturer of my very excellent carry weapon, Smith and wesson, are still based in massachusetts.
Hardly.
When S&W suffered an extreme drop in sales i 1987 (i.e., organized boycott) due to their collaboration with Clinton on his “lock up your safety” initiatives, it got sold to British lawn-mower manufacturer Tomkins. They unloaded onto Arizona-based Saf-T-Hammer in 2001, who eventually conglomerated into American Outdoor Brands of Missouri. AOB split off the gun unit in 2020 and it’s now headquartered in Maryvale TN, along with their shiny new factory. The Massachusetts factory is almost certain to be phased out the next time a local politician has the wrong menstrual cramp. I imagine it’s still running today only out of loyalty to its local employees.
its ma so…
1 if by blm
2 if by plo
That’s very clever!
” Proportionality: Here’s where the issue needs more evidence. Was the threat reasonably perceived as one of “grave bodily harm or death”? Based just on being tackled, probably not. Based on a bunch of possibilities after that moment, it could be. We’re not hearing of a deadly weapon being produced by the assailant, nor claims of “he tried to grab my gun.” (That might mean the guy is just smart enough to shut up and talk only to his attorney.) So this one will have to wait for further claims and evidence.”
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/05/30/fbi-data-deaths-hands-fists-feet-versus-rifles/9960682002/
“Viral Facebook post: “More people die from hands, fists, feet, than rifles.”
PolitiFact’s ruling: Mostly True
Here’s why: In the midst of the gun control debate, a data-laden graphic shared on Facebook posits this: rifles are nothing compared to human brawn.
“More people die from hands, fists, feet, than rifles. Guess we should ban limbs now…,” reads the May 25 post. Underneath, a graphic titled “Number of murder victims in the Unites States in 2020 by weapon used” shows rifle deaths at 455 and deaths from “personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)” as 662. The post includes a link to a website called Statista.
The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed.
FBI data from 2020 does show that more people died from injuries sustained from other people’s fists, feet and hands than from rifles. But there’s a little more you should know about that data before you use it to draw conclusions.”
That fists are a deadly weapon is beyond dispute. That the FBI statistics confirms it is a deadly weapon however helps.
Could we dispense with the pseudo intellectualism? The left doesn’t like you, and it won’t like you because you back their right to mob rule, attacking other people to remove speech from the public square, or the idea that you can’t react to deadly force (fists) with deadly force.
No this is not for a jury we have the god damned video.
And NOTHING you said (or quoted) in that had anything to do with the statements I made. Just because people get killed by someone using their hands does NOT make any hand melee attack a deadly one. You’re trying to oversimplify things down to “Anything could kill me, so I get to shoot it!” And that fails the 5th element of a lethal self-defense claim: Reasonableness
Seriously, go read Branca’s book. He’s an actual attorney who defends people and gives expert testimony on self-defense. (Heck, he’ll probably have a video out on this incident by Monday.)
And, seriously, stop with the “This guy tells me I don’t know what I’m talking about so he must be a RAGING LEFTIST!” malarkey. It’s offensive. And it demonstrates a very shallow level of thinking.
How “reasonable” is it to be required to wait until you perceive a lethal threat before you’re allowed to use lethal force to defend yourself? I’d say that’s not reasonable, because often times people are killed before they are able to perceive the lethal threat. It is much more reasonable to allow an innocent person to presume lethal intent on the part of the attacker and to react appropriately. Of all the elements of a criminal assault, the law does not require the defender to know the most critical – the outcome. The outcome is unknowable. Should the defender be required by law to gamble his life on the outcome? Because that’s what the law does now.
Well, you’re required to wait until there actually IS a perception of a lethal threat. Holy cow, you think you should be able to shoot someone because you THINK they might attack you? “Harry, I thought I saw a glint of a rifle scope in that window. I’m gonna blast it” would not be considered reasonable.
Now, if you’re arguing that you don’t have to see a weapon to perceive the threat might really hurt you or kill you, that’s absolutely true. But you don’t get to simply assert “I thought he might have a gun.” You will have to convince someone (possibly a jury) that your belief he was going to use a lethal weapon on you was a reasonable one.
The defender is NOT required to know the outcome to proceed. But he is required to act in a “reasonable” fashion. And I think most people who would sit on a jury would feel that a mere fisticuff was insufficient reason to believe you were in danger of “grievous bodily harm or death.” So, take it up with them.
“you think you should be able to shoot someone because you THINK they might attack you?”
Did I say that? No, I did not. Note the word “attacker” in my comment. Also, I was responding to your post which is not about using force against other innocent persons, it’s about using force against criminal attacks.
Sheesh.
Why shouldn’t I have a right to argue “I didn’t know he didn’t have a weapon.” The state wants you to know many things, intelligence of which you may not have, before you use lethal force. What if you never get that intelligence before you are killed? You, an innocent party, aren’t allowed to presume the worst? You’re supposed to gamble your life by giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt concerning whether he is armed or not? The state can require you to surrender your life, if at the time you made the mistake of not using lethal force when you should have (i.e. before acquiring the necessary information to legally make the decision to use lethal force)?
I believe we’ve been conditioned by society to accept the law’s definition of what is “reasonable” when defending your life/assuring your survival. Start from a different point – you have the right to survive a criminal attack – and the law no longer seems reasonable. Because if you have a right to survive a criminal attack, that means the attacker has no right to the same expectation. Do you think attackers have a similar right? Then your attacker should just kill you outright before grabbing your wallet, and then he’ll go scot free because he was exercising his right to survive.
Being battered into the ground gives reasonable fear for life.
Sorry that you don’t acknowledge that fists are deadly weapons, the FBI does more people are killed by fists per year than guns of all kinds.
Reasonableness we see him running across the street in order to attack that man, knocks him down and is beating him.
You are calling the FBI liars if you do not think that is a deadly scenario because again according to the FBI fists are deadly weapons.
Again fists are deadly weapons
More people are murdered by fists per year than guns.
“That fists are a deadly weapon is beyond dispute. That the FBI statistics confirms it is a deadly weapon however helps”
Even moreso is a “shod foot,” and most every assailant has those.
Note that even tasers are considered deadly weapons in some states — usually as a result of “case law” after some incident in which a cop tased someone and he died.
people talk about “following the law”
the law has to have common sense as its foundation
when someone attacks you on the street
at that exact moment
its a war
Any charges against the attacker?
Really
If I was the Vet, I would immediately file civil charges against the attacker.
That would be the manufacturer. I have no idea how Leia came into this..
Civil charges? Screw that I’d be pressing for criminal assault and Battery charges. It’s on camera
The answer to this weighs heavily in the question of whether the defender is being railroaded. (My first guess is, yes, they are.)
I was told in my CC class that I should not carry if I am going to a protest.
Outside of the event, I would think this is just a great example of why you need to carry.
The reason you would not carry if going to a protest is simple — the Left can get away with sh!t the Right never can. Anticipate the book to be thrown at you while Left-wing assailants get away with no charges regardless of their actions.
Under those circumstances, I would carry non-lethal defenses with the understanding that I’m still risking my life in doing so.
thats exactly how it went in that blm austin tx shooting
the lefty who got shot stated ON VIDEO on why he was carrying his weapon…to stop the p****** from the right wing that might start trouble with the blm rioters/protesters
he approached the man in the vehicle with his weapon and was shot and died
then the lefty austinites put the true victim in prison
On the spot. The risk is that, at a protest, the prosecutor will get to lay into you with “He was looking for trouble!” like they did with Rittenhouse. It didn’t work with the Rittenhouse jury, but it will work some places.
BTW, one of the best defenses to “You were looking for trouble!” is that you carry ALL the time. It’s second nature to you and you gave no thought to a protest being anything more than a peaceable assembly – like everywhere else you go in a day.
Also, CC class instructors will almost always tell you to restrict yourself in carry and deployment of your weapon. They have liability issues to be concerned with, particularly in places where training is required for a carry license.
I actually think is says it in the law in some states, just like you can’t carry in a bar. Rittenhouse was carrying openly to protect property too. That is an added element.
Yes, some places specifically ban arms at a protest. It’s against the 2A, but it can get you in trouble while it’s in effect. (Unspoken to this point, is that the law in Mass.? That might be what the DA was talking about in terms of rights – the guy was a “counter-protester.” It’s still a stupid idea because he assaulted the man and was no longer then a “protester”, but those laws exist.)
“…one of the best defenses to “You were looking for trouble!” is that you carry ALL the time.”
That’s excellent.
Also, in your defense, raise the idea of the fire extinguisher in the home. Do you have one because you want a fire? Of course not! You have a fire extinguisher because a fire is a possibility for which you want to be prepared.
Smoke alarms and spare tires are the analogies I used to recommend. Unfortunately, spare tires are going the way of telephone booths.
Better than being carried by six, which was the alternative in this case.
That’s actually the question. WAS it the case, here?
I don’t think the man was interested in finding that out for certain. I don’t blame him
I stopped carrying a 9 and switched to OC spray.
I used to know a tough kid who could eat that for breakfast. He was also highly resistant to police baton control techniques. He did have a weakness – the wrist lock. He would bail as soon as someone (usually me) started to get him into a wrist lock.
He once took a knife from an attacker, knocked the guy to the ground, and then pinned him to the ground by driving the knife through the guy’s thigh. Tough kid. But he was also a very nice guy. It was just inadvisable to f**k with him.
“Huge knoife,” or a chicken leg?
It sounds like you should be thinking Crocodile Dundee
A lot of passionate disagreement in the comments, which underscores the complexity of deadly defensive force. I think in most states, the facts of this particular use of deadly force would likely lead to no charges much less a conviction. But, MA isn’t ‘most jurisdictions.’ It’s one of the states that are LEAST friendly to the use of self-defense. The moral of this story is don’t live in Massachusetts.
Yep, the location and the culture of that location makes a huge difference. This guy wouldn’t be charged with a damn thing in my rural Alabama County. I can’t say for sure if it happened in Birmingham…probably not though b/c I honestly don’t think they could get a conviction even there where political environment is Blue but the cultural environment is still heavily influenced with a Red/traditional outlook on many things. Self defense being one of those things with more than a splash of FAFO.
Consider that courts allow the testimony of experts to explain technical subjects about which juries lack familiarity or understanding. But courts allow experts to testify to juries about the law of self defense. What? A jury isn’t presumed to understand the law of self defense, but the defendant was required, at the point of the assault against him, to not only understand the law of self defense (about which the experts themselves argue), but to apply it correctly to a situation in which awareness of all the facts is impossible, and while already engaged in what may possibly devolve into a threat to his life?
Does this make sense? Does it seem fair? Is it just?
This is why most states require at least a cursory course in self-defense law before issuing a concealed carry license. And every self-defense/2A lawyer I’ve read or listened to says you ought to even if it’s not required. So you know your limits.
But some states don’t.
In any event, allowing experts to testify about the intricacies of the law of self defense is an admission that the common citizen doesn’t understand or know the law and the court is officially acknowledging that the law requires expert-level understanding! Yet, at the same time, the court is prosecuting a citizen who similarly lacks an expert-level of understanding of the law! The citizen defendant is held to a different standard than the citizen juror? When you consider that even experts disagree about what the law requires and how to apply those requirements to a real-life situation, in discourses that may last minutes, the court requires the defendant to have had expert-level knowledge of the law, to have applied it correctly to a situation in which he had limited knowledge of the facts, and when the actual situation took place in a matter of seconds! This all strikes me as unreasonable and unjust.
(The old maxim, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” comes from a time when the law was about right and wrong, and not about second-guessing a person who was fighting for his life – whether he knew it or not.)
Let me preface this by saying I totally agree with you. But, this is a gigantic deficiency in our legal system that doesn’t just affect 2a/Self-Defense cases. My company was involved in a ridiculously complicated patent dispute several years ago and the case was put to a jury to decide if the patent was infringed. Luckily, we prevailed at trial. But, after watching the entire trial, I’m absolutely convinced the only reason we won is our lawyer was more likeable than their lawyer. The jurors had absolutely ZERO understanding of the hugely technical issues. They were lost.
For us, ultimately it was ‘only’ about money (even if it was a ridiculous sum of money). For this guy, the issue may be about a decade-long prison sentence, or more. I honestly don’t know how it could be reformed. I do know, however, the philosophy of the prosecutor makes a GIGANTIC difference, which underscores the importance of choosing to live someplace that is not run by retards.
“But some states don’t.”
Including constitutional carry states, which I believe has now topped the 50% mark.
I’ve never so much as applied for a carry license with the state because it’s none of the States business what Firearms I own or whether or not I carry one with me on a regular basis.
“Does this make sense? Does it seem fair? Is it just?”
The entire original rationale for a jury was to moderate government overreach.
If we still had a judicial culture that honored (or was at least bound by) nullification, this would work.
But our “justice system” neutered that in the pursuit of power.
Add that to juries whose first and only criterion is whether or not they velieve the defendant belongs to “their team,” and we’re to the point where the only real way to achieve justice in the US is going to be the 3-S method.
what I’ve been reading in the comments now for the past hour is that lawyers, politicians, and judges have purloined and perverted the common sense on which our laws were originally based – what a shame
If this had happened in my corner of Missouri, and keep in mind that we have a very good self-defense and castle doctrine here. The victim would have been invited to make a statement voluntarily at the police department and he’d be allowed to go there under his own power. He also be allowed to leave at the end of that interview with his firearm and with no expectation that he would be facing any charges whatsoever. During all of that he would probably be offered the opportunity to press charges against his attacker.
I carry a gun every day. The self-defense rule I go by is this:
1. I can shoot if I have a reasonable fear or imminent grievous injury or death, or the same to someone near me.
2. “Reasonable” will be defined by “ability” (is the bad guy able to grievously harm or kill me), “opportunity” (does he have the opportunity to use his ability), “jeopardy” (has he put you in jeopardy of grave injury or death).
In the real world, if the assailant shows a gun or a knife and can use it, A O J are satisfied.
—–
In this case, while I think the shooter was in danger and that self defense was justified (and, given the facts as we have them I would vote to acquit if I were a juror), if I were a demonstrator of any kind, I doubt I would carry a gun. I would be far more likely to carry a can of Counter Assault bear spray, a few zip ties, and a sturdy leather glove for my right hand.
I would do so because I would worry about the possibility of an altercation. As a juror, I wouldn’t make my decision on this basis, but as a citizen it is probably what I would do.
The “proportionality” idea, to me, in the real world is another way of asking whether the attack has generated a reasonable fear of death or grave injury. However it is stated, the shooter must reasonably fear that he will die or be maimed; if so, he can shoot. If not, he can’t shoot.
Lawyers will insist on their wording, but that’s how I see it.
In this case, “proportionality” / “reasonable fear” is a tough one, tougher than I originally thought. After all, Hayes wasn’t alone. Other men were helping defend him. If I’m on the jury, I probably still acquit him because of my attitude toward assault, but I can see the contrary argument.
He shouldn’t have brought a gun there. It was too risky given the issue and volatility. Just as Kyle Rittenhouse never should have gone to downtown Kenosha. But they weren’t “wrong” in either case, only taking a risk that I wouldn’t take. I think Rittenhouse was open & shut self defense, whereas Hayes is a closer call.
Again, as a juror I’d be on his side, but as a citizen I would have been armed with bear spray only. Had that been the case, this shooting wouldn’t have happened. And once again, do NOT interpret this as my being on the side of the assailant. Not even close.
At this point we don’t have enough information to draw any valid legal conclusions. Not clear to me from the video how the gun was deployed. Did it accidentally discharge during the scuffle? If so was Hayes in any way reckless in how it discharged? Did Hayes deploy the gun to resist the attack? Does Hayes have an infirmity that puts him at risk of serious bodily injury? We don’t know what Hayes knows and given his state of knowledge would a reasonable personable act in the same way. Hayes is clearly not the aggressor. A lot depends on what an unedited tape might reveal. We can’t trust either the media, the police or the prosecutor not withhold exculpatory evidence or even tamper with the evidence.
I’m sure Andrew Branca will cover this story and provide us with a good legal analysis. I have his book and have taken his course. This incident will likely get a high level of attention given the hypercharged political atmosphere of the day. It has all the elements of a major controversy. Israel, guns, self defense etc.
Why has the attacker not been charged with a battery? Or has he? If not then the whole incident reeks of official corruption.
All this could happen in most Texas cities. Austin is as blue as Berkeley. The media and the prosecutors are just as bad. But we have a better AG and governor. I think every Jew should always be armed, and stay out of most red states. I won’t set foot in NY, MASS, DC, NJ, MN, and even CA unless I have a pressing need. It might get so bad here, that Jews should simply leave America.
I think every Jew should always be armed, and stay out of most red states. I won’t set foot in NY, MASS, DC, NJ, MN, and even CA unless I have a pressing need.
I think you meant Blue states here.
An excellent comment, though.
Yes that’s typo. I did mean blue states. I had just cut my finger and my of off.
if jews leave america then we will be left with the 9 11 crew winning ,,as they are showing they can overtake america with little resistance to their movement
Yes. Then America should treat its Jews better. What are we to make of “Jew free zones” at UCLA? Professors and college administrations are joining in.
Here’s a calculation I did a few years ago. I calculated the number of Americans with an IQ exceeding 160 (Nobel Prize territory) with working age between 20 and 65 I used a mixture model because the different groups have different IQs as well ad different populations. We have about 11,000 compared to the over 100,000 for China. About half of our working age high IQ people are Jews. Suppose Germany had not expelled and murdered its Jews? German Jews were fully assimilated and very loyal having fought in WWI. Look at all the Jews who worked on the Manhattan Project: Von Neumann, Teller, Fermi, Feynman, Hans Bethe (his mother was Jewish, Leo Szilard, Oppenheimer, Ulam. The core contributors. Without Von Neuman they couldn’t have done the lens design. So go ahead America screw over your Jews and see what happens.
It’s not ‘America’ doing the discrimination and mistreatment of Jews. It is being done by lefty wokiesta ideologues nearly exclusively confined to Blue enclaves.
This vile crap doesn’t occur in Red States outside a very few Blue enclave Cities within those Red States. There’s little to zero anti Semitic behavior in most places in Red States. Lots of opportunities for anyone to relocate to someplace in the US where they will welcomed.
There was that bit last year about “Hey, Jews, come to the South to go to college. We don’t treat you that way.”
Though they might someplace like Atlanta or Austin.
Sure, if one shows up to a Blue Enclave within a Red State then the local policies and local culture is run by the wokiesta/leftists who had a majority. They are still constrained by the State though as some political subdivisions and Univ in Florida are finding out.
The pro ‘Palestinian’/anti Israeli/anti USA protesters on SEC campus (- TX) simply didn’t have the # or the freedom to spiral into a mob occupation. I think it is very fair to say that one is safer at Bama than an Ivy if the fear is anti Semitic mobs.
I don’t think any of that matters at all. The man was attacked and he defended himself p e r i o d.
The self defense laws in Mass. are pretty clear
https://www.mass.gov/doc/9260-self-defense-defense-of-another-defense-of-property/download
A person is allowed to act in self-defense. If evidence of self-defense
is present, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. In other words, if you have a
reasonable doubt whether or not the defendant acted in self-defense, your verdict must be not guilty.
To prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense, the
Commonwealth must prove one of the following things beyond a
reasonable doubt:
First, that the defendant did not reasonably believe he (she) was
being attacked or immediately about to be attacked, and that his (her)
safety was in immediate danger; or
Second, that the defendant did not do everything reasonable in the
circumstances to avoid physical combat before resorting to force; or
Third, that the defendant used more force to defend himself (herself)
than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
If the defendant (used deadly force, which is force intended or likely
to cause death or great bodily harm) (or) (used a dangerous weapon in a
manner intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm), the
Commonwealth must prove one of the following three things beyond a
reasonable doubt:
First, that the defendant did not reasonably and actually believe that
he (she) was in immediate danger of great bodily harm or death; or
Second, that the defendant did not do everything reasonable in the
circumstances to avoid physical combat before resorting to force; or
Third, that the defendant used more force to defend himself (herself)
than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances
In conclusion, to obtain a conviction for the offense(s) of
, the Commonwealth must prove each element of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is evidence of self-defense,
the Commonwealth also has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
If each element of the crime has been proved beyond a reasonable
doubt and it has also been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant did not act in self-defense, you should return a verdict of guilty.
If any element of the crime has not been proved beyond a reasonable
doubt, or the Commonwealth did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense, you must find the defendant not guilty
buck61, your reading of the law is wrong. The law states:
“To prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense, the Commonwealth must prove ONE of the following things beyond a reasonable doubt:”
Read that again, they only need to prove ONE of the three things you list to send you to jail. Not all three. And they aren’t proving it to you, but to a jury of your peers (or the grand jury before them).
except for the very first line that I wrote, everything below the link I posted is a direct copy and paste, If there is any confusion it lies with the state, not me
this is why I am very choosy about
going to some states. I skipped a
friends wedding because it was in
MD. I use to babysit him.
told him I can’t .. sorry…;
he said he understood.
the trial is the punishment …
try to bankrup the vet and destroy
his name ….
And that DA is probably thinking this way, regardless of any evidence he has seen of a valid claim for self-defense.
100%
As soon as they set up a GoFundMe, everyone on this forum should donate immediately! If ever there has been a case of David fighting Goliath, this it!
Again, everybody. Please watch this lecture ALL the way to the end, and take it to heart.
https://youtu.be/a9VhVEd6ti4?si=pwQYYaeVO5rtNqMf
Remember it’s not yourself you have to convince your life was in danger, it’s a jury of your peers. That means your average person. If I knew my self-defense actions would be judged by 12 average people, I’d want to be sure I stayed WAY inside “the line” of legality that is the law, so no reasonable person would have any leeway to say I wasn’t justified. In this case, that means were I the veteran, I’d have avoided shooting this guy at almost all costs, unless he was going for my gun and I could tell he intended and could use it against me at any moment, or he had me pinned and was ground pounding me.
Small quibble. You don’t have to prove your life was in danger. You have to prove you reasonably believed your life to be in danger. This is why when someone points a BB-gun or even faux-gun at a cop and the cop shoots them, the cops is rarely, if ever, prosecuted. The police had a reasonable belief it was a real gun and is protected from conviction even though the faux-gun posed no threat to him at all.
another good one, usually from a Karen to a cop: “I just can’t understand why you didn’t shoot the gun out of his hand.”