MA Intifada Self-Defense Case – Right Of Israel Supporters To Defend Themselves On Trial
When they say to “Globalize the Inifada” what happened in Newton, MA, is what they mean. The knee-jerk reaction was to arrest and charge the victim: “if you defend yourself, if you’re a pro-Israel supporter, whether you’re Jewish or not, and you are viciously attacked by these hoodlums, you are going to be charged.”
When the anti-Israel psychopaths march on campuses and in cities chanting “Globalize the Intifada” and “There is Only One Solution, Intifada Revolution,” we all know what that means.
It means the sort of violence and intimidation we have seen in the United States since October 7, and which they are threatening to escalate. It means what just happened in Newton, MA, a suburb of Boston, where an anti-Israel lunatic viciously attacked a peaceful pro-Israel protester, Iraq war veteran Scott Hayes.
🚨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
Mike covered the initial incident, and Andrew Branca covered the legal self-defense issues and concerns.
I think this is a case we’re going to stick with along with the dozen of more self-defense cases we’ve covered over the years.
Now you get my Hot Take:
TRANSCRIPT (Auto-generated, may contain transcription errors)
The case of Scott Hayes, the Boston veteran who shot an anti-Israel protester who viciously attacked him, has the makings of the single most important self-defense case we’re going to see this year, and probably this decade, or at least in the last decade.
We have covered many high-profile self-defense cases at Legal Insurrection, dating back to the George Zimmerman case and the shooter at the gas station. We’ve probably covered a dozen of them, and they’re all important in their own way.
But I think this one is more important because we’re on the precipice in this country of a wave of violence by anti-Israel fanatics who have run amok on campuses and in cities with really no law enforcement response to speak of.
Here we have a case where we have on video this anti-Israel protester running full speed across the street and plowing into this pro-Israel demonstrator. He may have thought the demonstrator was Jewish, but it turns out he wasn’t, though he was carrying an Israeli flag. The protester tackles him, throws him to the ground, and they start scuffling. In the middle of that scuffle, the veteran fired a handgun—I believe once. He didn’t kill the perpetrator but wounded him.
So, what do the police do?
This is everybody’s nightmare—what we all fear on campuses. Someone is going to lose it. In prior interviews, I have said that at places like Cornell and elsewhere, there is a real possibility of someone snapping.
And what happens? The police and the prosecutors’ immediate reaction, without any investigation, is to arrest the veteran, not the person who attacked him.
Now, what is it about the video, which was available right away, and the witness testimony right away, that on its face is a crime? Nothing. It might be that after more information is gathered—maybe there are videos from other angles that will show that the use of force was legally unreasonable. But on its face, there was no reason to arrest this person.
In fact, the district attorney, that night when she gave her public statement, said there’s still a lot to be learned about this—the investigation is ongoing. So, why did you arrest him? If you wanted to investigate, and after investigation, after forensic checks, after other things, charge him with a crime, okay, fine. But why was the knee-jerk reaction to arrest the pro-Israel demonstrator who we know for a fact was viciously attacked?
Not only did they do that, but they did not immediately arrest and charge the perpetrator. Now, he was wounded, so presumably taken to the hospital, but he could have been charged right away. Why not?
So what message is this sending to the public? It’s sending the message that if you defend yourself, if you’re a pro-Israel supporter, whether you’re Jewish or not, and you are viciously attacked by these hoodlums, you are going to be charged.
That sends a very chilling message that goes far beyond this case. I think it goes far beyond any of the cases we’ve seen so far in the many we’ve covered at Legal Insurrection. This sends a message to the community that you can’t defend yourself or you’re going to be charged.
It also sends a message to the anti-Israel community that you are going to be the one to get the benefit of the doubt. Everybody is entitled to a presumption of innocence, but when you have a clear videotaped perpetrator committing a violent crime against somebody who defends themselves, why are you giving the benefit of the doubt to the perpetrator and not to the victim? That sends a terrible message.
That’s why I think this is the single most important case we’re likely to have because it will set the tone for the upcoming demonstrations and the upcoming violence that we know has been promised. They promise an Intifada. This, in many ways, is the Intifada self-defense shooting case, and it’s going to take on a lot of importance as it moves through the legal system.
We will, of course, be covering it at Legal Insurrection as we always do.
==============
If our discussion resonated with you, we would greatly appreciate it if you could visit Apple Podcasts to leave us a rating and a review. Your feedback helps us improve and reach a wider audience.SUBSCRIBE: APPLE PODCASTS | SPOTIFY | IHEART RADIO
Plus, most podcasting apps. Let us know if you can’t find us on your app.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I’m right there with you Professor
Trayvon Martin comes to mind
I agree with you 100%. This case is terribly important. Even if Hayes gets acquitted we all lose. The process is the punishment and unless Hayes has use of force insurance his legal expenses will be devastating. I remember the Zimmerman case as I followed all the proceedings on LI. I was in bed recovering from surgery. That was when I lost all trust in the MSM and the criminal justice system. NBC doctored the dispatcher recording. I downloaded the original and still have it. The judge was biased. Zimmerman should never have been charged. Most disappointing were conversations I had with intelligent people who bought into the whole false narrative.
Jews will continue to come under attack especially on campus egged on by cases like this one. I have to ask: do Jews have a future in America? Certainly not in Europe except for Hungary thanks to Viktor Orban. But he’s under attack. The US is attempting a color revolution there as it has done in other countries.
So keep up the good work. I’m with you. I hope I don’t need my plan B should this country get even more hostile for Jews.
We have to fight so these monsters don’t win.
This country was founded on Judaism – Christian values
Not atheism, Islam insanity
We stand and fight
High profile lawyers who support Israel should be lining up to take this case pro bono
You have to wonder if the terrorists supporter had shot the Israel supporter, would they have charged him? I doubt it
While not a federal case ( yet) this transpired on the same day that Garland made very public statements defending the behavior of the DOJ. It is quite obvious that the local officials did not pay much attention to Garland’s message..
When I heard the statement that just one of the two parties was being charged at the first press conference the bias was obvious and will cloud this case until its conclusion.
Actions speak much louder than words..
Charging Hayes is a move to pacify the anti Israel crowd. If they didn’t charge him the anti Israel crowd would have another reason to protest and possibly attack others or destroy property.
This is also the same town that let a illegal migrant escape an ICE detention order by letting the person to escape out the back door of the courthouse.
Some details from that case
In a statement of facts that was filed in court, Joseph agreed she knew an immigration official was waiting to take custody of the defendant at the courthouse. The statement says Joseph instructed the court clerk to turn off the recording device while the defense attorney, prosecutor and judge were having a sidebar conversation about the defendant.
During that conversation, the defense attorney asked Joseph to allow his client to go back downstairs, the statement said. When the judge went back on the court record, the defense lawyer asked if he and his client could go downstairs with an interpreter so they could talk, and Joseph agreed, according to the statement.
Shortly after they went downstairs, the court officer opened the door, allowing the man to escape, the statement said.
“So, why did you arrest him? If you wanted to investigate, and after investigation, after forensic checks, after other things, charge him with a crime, okay, fine. But why was the knee-jerk reaction to arrest the pro-Israel demonstrator who we know for a fact was viciously attacked?”
I’ve explained this elsewhere. The answer is that in Massachusetts, if you kill or injure someone with a gunshot, you are immediately arrested. It’s a case of “arrest him now, sort it out later.” It’s the way they’ve done things for decades. You could be Audie Murphy shooting John Dillinger as he was raping Betsy Ross, you’re going to get arrested.
“That sends a very chilling message that goes far beyond this case. I think it goes far beyond any of the cases we’ve seen so far in the many we’ve covered at Legal Insurrection. This sends a message to the community that you can’t defend yourself or you’re going to be charged.”
Every Massachusetts gun owner knows this. The Israel thing is irrelevant.
And to think, Whitey Bulger ran free in Massachusetts for all those years, terrorizing thousands, while everyone and his brother knew what he was doing – most especially his actual brother in the Mass Senate and everyone in the local FBI office …
You can’t protest and you can’t defend yourself
Harris is the red queen
This is not new. We had this exact sort of case – even worse, actually – with the bodega clerk who was arrested and charged by Bragg in New York. In that case, there was also clear video and it was without any doubt, whatsoever, that the clerk was fighting for his life. And in the bodega case, it wasn’t even a gun but hand-to-hand with a knife against a savage and his dirtbag girlfriend.
The move to disallow American citizens (and particularly white Americans) from defending themselves has been going on for a long time in America. The push for all of the retarded “duty to retreat” laws and the rest just made circumstances under which common sense self-defense was no longer recognized and the criminal were given carte blanche, essentially in the streets (since the criminals don’t really care about prison or consequences while law abiding citizens cannot afford to even have to fight these sorts of bogus, frivolous charges and most certainly do not want to have to go to prison).
This is not new. America has been going down this road for a long time. The argument in the other thread related to “proportionality” is the same. These are unrealistic, contrived rules about fighting that people who never have to worry about such fights impose on other people (and then laugh about the consequences, usually).
On the larger scale, we see the same stupidity in the demented notion of universal, mega-galactic “war crimes”, which is sheer silliness. Modern day idiots would declare every winning tactic of WWII to be a war crime. It is sheer stupidity.
Leave a Comment