Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Justice in America
You may have seen the video of a Pro-Palestinian man who was arguing with some Pro-Israeli protesters in Massachusetts. He charges across the street and jumps one of the men from behind. In the ensuing scuffle, the attacked man pulls his pistol and shoots him in the stomach.
But wait, there’s more. The local DA has decided to charge the man who defended himself with crimes.
They are charging the veteran with:
– Assault and battery with a dangerous weapon
– Violation of a constitutional right causing injuryOn the second: Yes, the man who got tackled while protesting is being accused of "violation of a constitutional right."
What? https://t.co/O0Uq59JB5X
— Kassy Akiva (@KassyAkiva) September 13, 2024
It’s like they want to protect their side and attack the other. One wonders why…
Published in Guns
The veteran had every right to protect himself. Why do they think we have to take their attacks?
Any location with a Soros sponsored DA faces this sort of thing. Even in Texas it took a Governor’s pardon to release the guy convicted in Travis county (Austin) in a similar (IMHO much more clear cut) case.
The man who was shot clearly escalated the verbal conflict by crossing the street to physically attack the shooter. Yet none of the reports mention that he has been charged by the DA. If that doesn’t happen it is a real travesty to charge the victim and not the one who started it.
Does Newton Massachusetts have a published list of which positions are afforded Constitutional protection and which ones aren’t?
Also, if you initiate combat and your intended victim is armed better than you, whose fault is that?
Clearly the veteran’s fault for living in a blue state.
This is difficult. The issue is what happened during the scuffle, who started that, was the shooter in legitimate fear for his life?
Even though I agree with the positions of the Jewish fellow, and very much disagree with the pro-Palestinian, a political disagreement, even if the talk gets ugly (that’s what free speech is all about, folks- we don’t get the vapors when someone is guilty of- da-dum- “hate speech”). Talk is supposed to be just that, talk.
There is no license to pull a gun and shoot someone unless you are in real and legit fear that you are about to suffer serious physical harm, for example, the Travon Martin-Zimmerman case. An argument over Hamas and Israel is not sufficient cause to shoot people in the US. The shooting should all be done by Israel in Gaza in pursuit of Hamas terrorists.
Maybe that can somewhat justify charging the shooter with something, but I don’t see it justifying charging the other guy with NOTHING.
All the shooter knows is that he’s being attacked. He doesn’t know the capabilities or possible weapons of his attacker. He’s had no real opportunity to size up the attacker. He doesn’t even know what the intent of the attack is or if the attacker is acting alone. All in all, he showed more restraint than the guy who launched the attack showed.
It will be the all Palestinian jury that gives the game away. These people pronounce the b in subtle.
This the best report on the incident I’ve found with some new information
https://whdh.com/news/framingham-man-appears-in-court-after-arrest-in-connection-with-shooting-at-newton-pro-israel-protest/
Key information.
The charge against Hayes (the shooter) for violating the constitutional rights of the man who was shot has been dropped. Hayes the shooter still faces assault and battery charges with a deadly weapon.
Gannon the apparent initiator of the physical altercation faces a hearing to determine if he will also be charged with assault and battery. So my concern that he would skate is probably unfounded.
The shooting is still under investigation and may never go to trial.
Sure there is lots we don’t know but given the limited information available, I think if it does go to trial and Hayes pleads self defense I think he should be acquitted. He certainly has my sympathy.
They may have assumed it was safe to charge any shooter, until publicity changed (what passes for) their minds.
Did you see the video? The Pro-Palestinian charged across a street through busy traffic to assault the Pro-Israeli [whos not Jewish, by the way] and take him to the ground. If someone is that intent on assaulting me, yeah, I’m in fear for my life. All it takes is one strike of the head against the pavement and it’s game over.
Damn straight. Don’t start nothing, won’t be nothing. Looking forward to more details, but the video is awfully compelling.
LOL well done.
They talked about this on Howie Carr yesterday. I forget the details, but he wasn’t thrilled with the judge, either. The whole thing is outrageous, obviously.
The shooter fired while on the ground after being tackled from behind by the Hamas supporter. The supporter was on top of him. If I get tackled from behind on a concrete sidewalk, I am going to assume I am in serious danger of bodily harm. Especially if once I roll over the tackler persists in attacking me. That justifies use of deadly force in self-defense.
This is clearly a case of FAFO for the Hamas supporter.
They arraigned Scott Hayes (the shooter) on Friday. He was charged with only assault and battery with a deadly weapon. No attempted murder charge. No civil rights violations. Just assault and battery. Further, the judge set bail at $5000.00. Which is a strong signal the judge does not view it as a serious crime or that the judge does not think the charge will stand up.
I strongly suspect the case will never come to trial as the DA is not going to want to go through the excrement storm that will hit her if she pushes this highly shaky case. Hayes should turn around an sue her for Official Oppression Under Color of Law through deprivation of his civil rights.
When I qualified for my Mass. CWP, we were taught never to shoot except when in imminent danger of death, that Mass. law requires the armed party to retreat until he has no other options. Being pummeled on a cement sidewalk strikes me as leaving no room for further retreat and as facing imminent danger of death. I contributed to the shooter’s go fund me page, which has raised $206k to date.
I’m sure they can find a prosecutor, and/or a civil lawsuit lawyer for the Hamas guy, who will argue that he should have pushed the attacker off him, gotten up, and run away.