Ace of Spades HQ

April 25, 2013

Shoot or Don't Shoot?
— andy

I'm sure most of you have seen by now the photos of the two Boston marathon bombers taken by Andrew Kitzenberg from his Watertown apartment during the shootout with the police last week. If not, here's one:

Here are the two brothers taking cover behind the black Mercedes SUV and shooting towards Watertown Police officers. (Taken at 12:46:11AM) ~ Andrew Kitzenberg

As a matter of marksmanship, that looks like a pretty easy shot to make on the terrorists. Maybe, maybe 50 yards ... and they're illuminated by the SUV's headlights and focused on the policemen in front of them. Fish, meet barrel.

As a matter of law, though, it's not an easy call at all. Your lawful actions if you find yourself in this type of situation is highly dependent on which state you happen to be located in.

And in Massachusetts, which is a "Castle Doctrine" state, your use of deadly force against a person who isn't in your home will always be at great risk of criminal prosecution and civil liability.

The relevant Massachusetts statute providing a defense for the use of deadly force is M.G.L. c. 278, § 8A (emphasis added):

In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

Outside of that one safe harbor (which is also subject to interpretation on "reasonable means", etc.) in Massachusetts you have a legal duty to retreat when confronted by an assailant, and only when you can retreat no further can deadly force be used for self-defense. And you're going to find yourself in court no matter what.

The right thing to do is to drop those two maggots where they stand. Under the law, though, unless they barge into your home, your only recognized option is to "cower in place" like Watertown did all day.

If you're in that apartment, there's a novel self-defense case to be made because of all the stray bullets whizzing around:

After shooting had stopped my roommate found a bullet hole that penetrated his west-facing wall and continued to pierce through his desk chair. His room is on the 2nd floor corner of the house, closest to the street, with west and south facing walls

But in an anti-gun state like Massachusetts, I'm not sure I'd want to depend on prosecutorial restraint, even in this case, to keep it from going to trial. And I certainly wouldn't want to risk the lightning strike-like odds of finding 12 people who aren't hardcore lefties to give a nod for an acquittal on self-defense. And then there's the potential for civil liability ...

So, sadly, in Massachusetts when a law-abiding gun owner is confronted with a situation like that, the desire to stay out of jail/court/bankruptcy can overrule what otherwise is a no-brainer of a decision.

A bill that might have changed this situation was proposed last year, but the canonization of St. Trayvon put the brakes on it.

Under Brewer's bill, called Senate 661, or an Act Relative to the Common Defense, people could use deadly force, or less than deadly force, in self-defense and in public to defend others any place they have a right to be. There would be no duty to retreat from any place that they have a right to be.

Hopefully that will be reconsidered.
So, knowing the possible legal ramifications of shooting those two terrorists, who at the time that picture was taken had murdered two women, an 8-year old boy and a law enforcement officer, and attempted to murder hundreds of others ...

Posted by: andy at 07:58 AM | Comments (182)
Post contains 708 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Shoot

Posted by: Vic at April 25, 2013 08:00 AM (53z96)

2 This is why the Burning Time will be so liberating. You're threatened? Shoot first, Han.

Posted by: toby928 at April 25, 2013 08:02 AM (evdj2)

3 I am taking the shot with my 7 bullets...

NY New York Penal - Article 35 - Â§ 35.30 Justification

>4. A private person acting on his or her own account may use physical
force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to
the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom
he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in
fact has committed such offense; and may use deadly physical force for
such purpose when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(a) Defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she
reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical
force;<

Posted by: Marcus at April 25, 2013 08:02 AM (GGCsk)

4 Folks in MA supported their laws, so they can live with the consequences whatever they may be. I wish I thought this was going to be a learning experience, but I doubt it.

Posted by: Juan De Hattatime at April 25, 2013 08:05 AM (2tpzp)

Texas.

I imagine the police here would come over and shake your hand if you dropped them.

Posted by: Jollyroger at April 25, 2013 08:05 AM (t06LC)

6 With an AR-15 with no glasses at Mop 4 you can't miss from that range.

Posted by: Knave at April 25, 2013 08:06 AM (cipri)

7 I wondered about this.

Were there gun-owning residents with line of sight to the Brothers Kablamov who actively CHOSE not to take the shot because of their fear of prosecution?

I know in Virginia, I'd get a medal.

Well... I say 'I know,' but really, I'm just pretty sure.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at April 25, 2013 08:06 AM (fwARV)

8 I probably wouldn't have shot, simply out of self-preservation.

Not out of concern that the bombers would return fire, but that the police I was attempting to protect would.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 25, 2013 08:06 AM (SY2Kh)

9 I feel for the poor folks in the Bay State, but I'm sure glad that I don't live in MA.

Posted by: Nighthawk at April 25, 2013 08:07 AM (OtQXp)

10 "Helping out" the cops during an active shootout is going to get you killed even if you're in the reddest state in the union. Forget the minutiae of the laws on self-defense, when the police see a guy hanging out the window with a rifle during a gunfight they're going to shoot at him.

Guns are for self-defense when you're on your own. Once the cops show up, it's their job. And judging by recent events you want to be as far away as possible when they go about doing it.

Posted by: Matt at April 25, 2013 08:07 AM (IUoiJ)

11 Wouldn't this be covered under the he needed killin statute?

Posted by: Knave at April 25, 2013 08:07 AM (cipri)

12 Shoot them, drag the bodies into your car, and then drive like hell to Texas.

Posted by: Waldo Truth at April 25, 2013 08:08 AM (y2XjR)

"Hopefully that will be reconsidered."

Nice wishcasting Andy.

Posted by: maddogg at April 25, 2013 08:08 AM (OlN4e)

14
Which lie is repeated more often?

a) The housing sector is showing signs of recovery.
b) Syria is using chemical weapons.

Answer: A, but B is not too far behind.

Posted by: soothsayer at April 25, 2013 08:08 AM (ZgBZU)

15 In Mass? I wouldn't shoot....I'd move.

Posted by: BignJames at April 25, 2013 08:09 AM (H9MGI)

16 If nobody knows you shot them you don't have a problem.

Posted by: SurferDoc at April 25, 2013 08:09 AM (6H6FZ)

17 In Masshole, I would not shoot. In my home state, I would drop them both.

Posted by: maddogg at April 25, 2013 08:09 AM (OlN4e)

18 Huh. A Phantom Post. (Not this one, Gabe's.)

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at April 25, 2013 08:10 AM (P7hip)

19
The car on the left, is that the older bro's green Honda?

Posted by: soothsayer at April 25, 2013 08:10 AM (FC8Yl)

20 Nice post, yeah a clean shot would be hard...

of course "clean shots" by LE don't wind up in Easy chairs do they?

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at April 25, 2013 08:10 AM (LRFds)

21 Ok, who brokedeblog?

Posted by: Jess1 at April 25, 2013 08:10 AM (lbiWb)

22 >> Not out of concern that the bombers would return fire, but that the police I was attempting to protect would. If you shoot, you definitely have to do it from way back in the room, sniper-style, so they can't see the muzzle flash. Odds are that the round that pierced the wall came from one of the cops' guns.

Posted by: Andy at April 25, 2013 08:10 AM (IyqD/)

23 To bad the guy wasn't sitting in the chair, one less dem voter.

Posted by: Attila at April 25, 2013 08:11 AM (Cs2tJ)

24 So I live in the great Commonwealth of Virgina where we ( currently) are "pro-gun" and "pro-self-defense" yet lack a codified Castle Doctrine. I asked a friend of mine who happens to be a Fairfax County cop what I should do if should shoot a burglar in my house. This is the gist of what he told me:

1. Make sure he is indeed dead. If not shoot him again.
2. If he manages to get outside, drag him inside then make sure he is dead ( see #1)
3. If he does not have a weapon, make sure he has a weapon.
4. Confirm he is in fact....dead.
5. Call police.

Posted by: Chairman Mow at April 25, 2013 08:11 AM (RGDtb)

25 when the police see a guy hanging out the window with a rifle during a gunfight they're going to shoot at him.

Mildly surprised they didn't shoot the guy hanging out the window with a camera during the gunfight.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at April 25, 2013 08:11 AM (/kI1Q)

26 Not out of concern that the bombers would return fire, but that the police I was attempting to protect would.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 25, 2013 12:06 PM (SY2Kh)

==========

I hadn't thought about that, but it's a good point. I'm not second guessing the cops use of force, but judging from things like the day after photos of the guy's boat it seems to me that they did a LOT of shooting during the course of the manhunt. Do cops still have to account for every round they fire and where it went?

Posted by: Nighthawk at April 25, 2013 08:11 AM (OtQXp)

You can act in self defense... of yourself OR OTHERS...

If someone ELSE is in immediate danger... it ALSO falls under the self defense statutes...

and others here were clearly in danger.

Posted by: Romeo13 at April 25, 2013 08:11 AM (lZBBB)

1. Make sure target is actual terrorist.

2. Shoot him.

3. Make sure you are arrested and not shot in this process.

4. Plead self defense of another.

5. Ask for jury trial.

6. Watch jury nullify any legal problems.

Posted by: Beagle at April 25, 2013 08:11 AM (sOtz/)

29 >> Nice wishcasting Andy. Don't crush my dreams!

Posted by: Andy at April 25, 2013 08:11 AM (IyqD/)

30 I didn't realize that the People's Republic recognized the Castle Doctrine. "Duty to retreat", fuck me running. Actually, I can't run, so I won't.

Posted by: fluffy, Masshole at April 25, 2013 08:12 AM (z9HTb)

31 19 The car on the left, is that the older bro's green Honda? Posted by: soothsayer a I heard it describes as a green sedan that they were transferring explosives from to the suv they had hijacked. So, probably...

Posted by: Waldo Truth at April 25, 2013 08:12 AM (y2XjR)

32 10 "Helping out" the cops during an active shootout is going to get you killed even if you're in the reddest state in the union. Forget the minutiae of the laws on self-defense, when the police see a guy hanging out the window with a rifle during a gunfight they're going to shoot at him. Guns are for self-defense when you're on your own. Once the cops show up, it's their job. And judging by recent events you want to be as far away as possible when they go about doing it. Posted by: Matt at April 25, 2013 12:07 PM (IUoiJ) I agree. Also don't firget about undercover police officers. I don't think civilians need to insert themselves into situations they don't really know what is happening. It would be interesting if one of these people got on 911 and said they have the subjects in sight and they could drop them. What would teh police have said?

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr at April 25, 2013 08:13 AM (VN4R8)

33 6. Watch jury nullify any legal problems.

Posted by: Beagle at April 25, 2013 12:11 PM (sOtz/)

I wouldn't bet my life on that in the same city whose paper is asking readers if they empathize with the terrorists.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at April 25, 2013 08:13 AM (fwARV)

Kitzenberg????

JOOOOOOOO

Posted by: Bigby's Dyke-Plugging Finger at April 25, 2013 08:13 AM (3ZtZW)

35 Anyone trying to "help" the police by firing on the two bombers in the street would be met with return fire from 100 cops. It's a foolish thing to do in THIS situation. The cops are already on edge, so I wouldn't give them a reason to shift their fire onto me and my house.

Posted by: EC at April 25, 2013 08:13 AM (GQ8sn)

the canonization of St. Trayvon

***

Reminds me of a new slogan for CNN. "We distort, you decide."

Posted by: WalrusRex at April 25, 2013 08:13 AM (XUKZU)

37 27 Romeo13,

Uh not in most states unless you are contract bound as a licensed personal protection agent.

Should it be so?

Yes can it be always be so?

Not thanks to Prosecutorial Asshattery

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at April 25, 2013 08:13 AM (LRFds)

38 Posted by: Attila at April 25, 2013 12:11 PM (Cs2tJ)

Can we bounce this guy Andy? Look at #23

Posted by: BCochran1981 at April 25, 2013 08:13 AM (da5Wo)

Mildly surprised they didn't shoot the guy hanging out the window with a camera during the gunfight.

Posted by: HeatherRadishÂ™ needs a beer at April 25, 2013 12:11 PM (/kI1Q)

There were lights on the street... if guy had his lights off in his apartment (no silouete) it would have been almost impossible to see him.

Also, in a firefight... you look at the guys shooting at you... it takes a REALLY well trained combat team (which these cops apparently were not) to overcome that instinctive reflex.

Posted by: Romeo13 at April 25, 2013 08:14 AM (lZBBB)

40 Posted by: Attila at April 25, 2013 12:11 PM (Cs2tJ)

Can we bounce this guy Andy? Look at #23

Posted by: BCochran1981 at April 25, 2013 12:13 PM (da5Wo)

Oh, hell yes. Hammer time.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at April 25, 2013 08:14 AM (fwARV)

41 The way most "trained cops" shoot, I'm surprised half the neighborhood isn't shot.

Posted by: maddogg at April 25, 2013 08:14 AM (OlN4e)

42 Shoot. Twice.

Posted by: Gromulin at April 25, 2013 08:14 AM (SNjPs)

43 If nobody knows you shot them you don't have a problem.

Posted by: SurferDoc

Indeed. Considering my location that's about the only safe option.

"Honey, can you grab me the shovel?"

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at April 25, 2013 08:15 AM (NF2Bf)

44 Between this and Dorner, it seems like the safest place to be is in the police's sights.

Posted by: zsasz at April 25, 2013 08:15 AM (MMC8r)

45 Shoot. The. Glass.

Posted by: EC at April 25, 2013 08:15 AM (GQ8sn)

1. Make sure target is actual terrorist.
2. Shoot him.
3. Make sure you are arrested and not shot in this process.
4. Plead self defense of another.
5. Ask for jury trial.
6. Watch jury nullify any legal problems.

***

7. Spend eighteen months in jail.

8. Lose job and family

9. Get $100,000 legal bill.

10. Declare bankruptcy.

Posted by: WalrusRex at April 25, 2013 08:15 AM (XUKZU)

47 There's a lot of risk involved, whether criminal, civil or the chance the cops would turn your house into swiss cheese....but it would be really really hard not to take the shot.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at April 25, 2013 08:15 AM (da5Wo)

48
well, if that's their green Honda, when and where did they acquire the Mercedes?

Posted by: soothsayer at April 25, 2013 08:16 AM (FC8Yl)

49 Some castle doctrine states leave you wide open for prosecution as the burden of proof is on you to prove it was self defense. Other states make the prosecutor have to prove it WASN'T self defense. It pays to know the law by heart in your state.

Posted by: Up with people! at April 25, 2013 08:16 AM (FmFB3)

50 That roommate (who wasn't in the shot up chair) was lucky not to be there. It's his computer, where many people (not pointing fingers!) are online for hours at a time... Especially during a crisis, when you can get instant info. Lucky guy.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at April 25, 2013 08:16 AM (XYSwB)

51 They are going to need billions of rounds the way they shoot.

Posted by: Knave at April 25, 2013 08:16 AM (cipri)

52 44 zsasz,

We aim to please....no really the script writer usually.

//The TK-421 Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at April 25, 2013 08:16 AM (LRFds)

53 From 50 yards, shooting at an illuminated target, even with my heart pounding out of my chest I could probably hit a knee or an ankle. And with a 180 grain 30-06, that would do some damage, and probably incapacitate him.

Not something I would relish doing however.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 25, 2013 08:16 AM (/WLC3)

Can we bounce this guy Andy?

Being boring is not a banning offense.

Posted by: toby928 at April 25, 2013 08:16 AM (evdj2)

55 49 Up With Poeple!,

or a nice CCW lawyer on speeddial if you are in the business.

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at April 25, 2013 08:17 AM (LRFds)

56 6. Watch jury nullify any legal problems.

Posted by: Beagle at April 25, 2013 12:11 PM (sOtz/)

I would not count on that in MA, especially in Boston.

Posted by: Vic at April 25, 2013 08:18 AM (53z96)

57 Not something I would relish doing however.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 25, 2013 12:16 PM (/WLC3)

Really? Cause I would.

You've got two terrorists who killed 3, maimed over a hundred with bombs, murdered a cop and are now involved in a shootout with cops.

I'd gladly take the shot.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at April 25, 2013 08:18 AM (da5Wo)

All the negative consequences are true.

But,

11. Become folk hero with real Americans.

I wouldn't bet my life on that in the same city whose paper is asking readers if they empathize with the terrorists.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at April 25, 2013 12:13 PM (fwARV)

--------

12. Pick a good jury.

Posted by: Beagle at April 25, 2013 08:18 AM (sOtz/)

59 >> Can we bounce this guy Andy? Look at #23 I nuked the comment. Shit like that is why I debated posting this at all.

Posted by: Andy at April 25, 2013 08:18 AM (OAEPo)

60 44 Between this and Dorner, it seems like the safest place to be is in the police's sights. HA, Yeah. No disrespect intended, but those cops seem to have been trained in marksmanship by Imperial storm troopers.

Posted by: Gromulin at April 25, 2013 08:18 AM (SNjPs)

61 cleanup 23

Posted by: Grey Fox at April 25, 2013 08:18 AM (BVq31)

62 Not something I would relish doing however.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 25, 2013 12:16 PM (/WLC3)

This. I think that's the part the left misses. None of us WANT to shoot another person. Hell, even under fire, nobody WANTS to kill. We do because we MUST.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at April 25, 2013 08:19 AM (fwARV)

63 Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there laws to prevent civilians from becoming actively involved in a matter like this? I mean, by trying to bring their own weapons into a shootout, thereby introducing a completely uncontrolled variable (armed civilian) into the mix. It would be fucking chaos if every neighbour on that street got their weapon and started taking shots at the two bombers. Yeah, some of them would definitely get some hits on them but then the police wouldn't have any control of the situation. It would be making a bad situation worse.

Posted by: EC at April 25, 2013 08:19 AM (GQ8sn)

64 They are going to need billions of rounds the way they shoot.

Posted by: Knave at April 25, 2013 12:16 PM (cipri)

See? All those massive ammo purchases I'm making are perfectly innocent.

Posted by: Janet Napoleanitano at April 25, 2013 08:19 AM (ggRof)

65 It's already gone.

Posted by: Knave at April 25, 2013 08:19 AM (cipri)

66 Being boring is not a banning offense.

Posted by: toby928 at April 25, 2013 12:16 PM (evdj2)

So actively wishing that the guy whose wall and chair took a bullet was sitting in that chair so there would be one less Dem voter in Mass is "boring"?

We must have different dictionaries.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at April 25, 2013 08:19 AM (da5Wo)

67 Posted by: Chairman Mow at April 25, 2013 12:11 PM (RGDtb)

That is some monumentally bad advice.

A smart and sleazy lawyer from whom I got some excellent advice once told me:

"You're thinking fast, but you're not thinking smart."

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 25, 2013 08:19 AM (/WLC3)

68 Which lie is repeated more often? a) The housing sector is showing signs of recovery. b) Syria is using chemical weapons. Answer: A, but B is not too far behind. Posted by: soothsayer at April 25, 2013 12:08 PM (ZgBZU) Just got my property tax appraisal in the mail and I'm going to have to go with: A.

Posted by: lindafell at April 25, 2013 08:19 AM (PGO8C)

69 This is why we can't have dead things.

Posted by: Bigby's Dyke-Plugging Finger at April 25, 2013 08:20 AM (3ZtZW)

70 44 Between this and Dorner, it seems like the safest place to be is in the police's sights.

The NYPD actually posted a study praising the department for raising their marksmanship scores to 29% in 2010.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at April 25, 2013 08:20 AM (fwARV)

71
Remember after 9/11 when the Democrats decided they could no longer bite their tongues and questioned Bush and Rice on why they could not "imagine" terrorists flying airliners into the WTC?

Well, how much imagination does it take to guess that terrorists would bomb a crowded venue like, say, a marathon's finish line in Boston?

This successful terrorist bombing is all on Obama.

Posted by: soothsayer at April 25, 2013 08:20 AM (vyPsz)

72 attilla it helps if you think before you type

Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 25, 2013 08:20 AM (GVxQo)

73 I nuked the comment.

Shit like that is why I debated posting this at all.

Posted by: Andy at April 25, 2013 12:18 PM (OAEPo)

Good work. There's always a retard.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at April 25, 2013 08:20 AM (da5Wo)

74 whoa...I was on another post and then I wasn't. Like being in a wormhole

Posted by: Thunderb at April 25, 2013 08:20 AM (nH8jP)

75 The hell? I was just commenting on another disappeared thread.

Huh.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at April 25, 2013 08:20 AM (lVPtV)

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at April 25, 2013 12:13 PM (LRFds)

Hmmm... in California, you can plead 'Defense of others', with the stipulation that THEY would have been covered under other self defense guidelines...

ie... if THEY would have been legaly able to plead self defense, but you are the one with the gun.... you CAN use it to stop the perp...

At least, thats what we used to teach Military guys coming back from deployments... to get their heads back into the Rules here...

Posted by: Romeo13 at April 25, 2013 08:21 AM (lZBBB)

77 Know what I love most about this place? The disappearing posts because no one seems to check and see if anyone has posted before they stompy stomp.

Posted by: DangerGirl at April 25, 2013 08:21 AM (lTph4)

78 Don't shoot.
You would be charged with obstructing ..

Don't shoot
The police, not knowing who you were would shoot at you (possibly to little effect since it sounds like they were patrol officers armed with pistols 'way outside a pistol's effective range)

Don't shoot
It would be suggested that you were shooting the bomber brothers to prevent them from being captured alive by the police.

Don't shoot
Chances are you wouldn't have a permit for the weapon and if true would have other contraband in the house which is why you had the weapon in the first place.

Don't shoot, since there are significant numbers of citizens in Boston who believe the best way you can help the police is to do nothing.

Posted by: Skandia Recluse at April 25, 2013 08:21 AM (2ZO3P)

79 Being boring is not a banning offense.

Posted by: toby928 at April 25, 2013 12:16 PM (evdj2)

It should be. Or at least a yellow card.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 25, 2013 08:21 AM (/WLC3)

80 The NYPD actually posted a study praising the department for raising their marksmanship scores to 29% in 2010.

*golf clap for the NYPD*

Posted by: EC at April 25, 2013 08:21 AM (GQ8sn)

81 70 That's pretty good in baseball.

Posted by: Knave at April 25, 2013 08:21 AM (cipri)

82 Mildly surprised they didn't shoot the guy hanging out the window with a camera during the gunfight.
Posted by: HeatherRadishÂ™ needs a beer at April 25, 2013 12:11 PM
-------------------

No kidding.

Posted by: L.A.P.D. at April 25, 2013 08:21 AM (ay6+/)

>>>The hell? I was just commenting on another disappeared thread.

NOTHING TO SEE HERE, CITIZEN

Posted by: NSA at April 25, 2013 08:22 AM (3ZtZW)

84 I came back from a big, crappy grocery store run, thinking there would be a bright and shiny Ace past, but I was wrong. haha His hours are good for my workload in the mornings. Let it ride.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at April 25, 2013 08:22 AM (XYSwB)

85 *post

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at April 25, 2013 08:22 AM (XYSwB)

86 was I in the Iranian time machine??

Posted by: Thunderb at April 25, 2013 08:22 AM (nH8jP)

87 Good work. There's always a retard.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at April 25, 2013 12:20 PM (da5Wo)

Bannion's not here!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 25, 2013 08:22 AM (/WLC3)

88 Someone commie made a soccer reference. Unbelievable.

Posted by: Knave at April 25, 2013 08:22 AM (cipri)

89 thunderb do you still have your head? if yes, then no

Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 25, 2013 08:23 AM (GVxQo)

Hahaha, Ace had a great Miranda post up, hopefully we'll see it later.

Yes, Stand Your Ground laws should be in every state.

Posted by: Prescient11 at April 25, 2013 08:23 AM (tVTLU)

91 81 70 That's pretty good in baseball. Posted by: Knave at April 25, 2013 12:21 PM (cipri) !0 mil a year....maybe hof.

Posted by: BignJames at April 25, 2013 08:23 AM (H9MGI)

Posted by: EC at April 25, 2013 12:19 PM (GQ8sn)

Yes.... those Dam Militias are such a problem!

Posted by: Gen. William Howe, 5th Viscount Howe, KB, PC at April 25, 2013 08:23 AM (lZBBB)

93 Everyone is taking turns trying to stomp on Andy this morning I see.

Posted by: Lemmenkainen, Freelance Warlord at April 25, 2013 08:23 AM (ZWvOb)

94 Multiple threads being stomped. Are we in the final days?

Posted by: Captain Hate at April 25, 2013 08:24 AM (4pFVG)

95 I could have made that shot easily. Twice.

Posted by: BlearyTruth at April 25, 2013 08:24 AM (sYLzD)

96 74 whoa...I was on another post and then I wasn't. Like being in a wormhole Ace hates lawyers.

Posted by: fluffy at April 25, 2013 08:24 AM (z9HTb)

97 Only a fool inserts himself into a fight that doesn't involve him. You've got a street full of cops shooting at two shadowy figures you don't know from Adam, and you're going to play sniper? How do you know the cops are chasing the right guy? Not to mention that the cops will quite rightly conclude that an armed nutcase shooting from a balcony is indistinguishable from the terrorists they were chasing in the first place. A much better idea is to hole up in a basement and make sure that nobody breaks in to hide from the cops when the firefight breaks up.

Posted by: Zach at April 25, 2013 08:24 AM (aYn0O)

98 During The Daily Rundown, host Chuck Todd introduced a segment on the former president with a spew of Bush Â“gaffes." He then mocked, "I miss this part of Bush because Obama never does this stuff."

From Newsbusters.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at April 25, 2013 08:24 AM (lVPtV)

99 Yeah, I commented into the Miranda Abyssal as well.

Posted by: [/i]akula51 at April 25, 2013 08:24 AM (Vgn84)

100
toby, you should demand a recount

I'm pretty sure you deserve the #3 spot.

Posted by: soothsayer at April 25, 2013 08:24 AM (vzLhi)

101 Does he get compensated for his chair?

Posted by: Knave at April 25, 2013 08:25 AM (cipri)

102 In that situation, if I were to take a shot, the cops might take me out as a sniper. Things were a bit tense during that firefight, after all. Here in Utah, maybe. In Mass? No good deed goes unpunished.

Posted by: Brent Glines at April 25, 2013 08:25 AM (OJn3e)

103 I am at my local SSA office, second time, trying to get a SSN for my 14 month old. And, no shit, they call for a Mi T Ho. "Is anybody here a Mi T Ho?"

Posted by: assault flounder at April 25, 2013 08:26 AM (imNEz)

104

Yeah, some of them would definitely get some hits on them but then the police wouldn't have any control of the situation. It would be making a bad situation worse.

Not to fuss too much, but given what we know about this incident, the police didn't have much going in the way of control: The Djoker got away and ran over his brother in the process. City on lockdown, perp later caught by a citizen.

Chaos seems to have been the order of that day.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at April 25, 2013 08:26 AM (+z4pE)

105

Posted by: Brent Glines at April 25, 2013 12:25 PM (OJn3e)

Which is why your name will never be remembered....

Posted by: Achilles at April 25, 2013 08:26 AM (lZBBB)

106 Maybe the Morons who have hunted can chime in...every time I have taken a shot while hunting, my heart rate has increased significantly.

This shit is not an easy thing to do. Let's not fool ourselves.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 25, 2013 08:26 AM (/WLC3)

107 In Florida, a person does not have to enter your home for you to fire on them. For instance, if they are outside your window attempting to break in. The assumption is that they aren't doing so to deliver muffins and lemonade so you do not have to wait until they are on top of you to defend yourself. That might be extrapolated to someone in the street if you feel at risk from their actions.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at April 25, 2013 08:26 AM (piMMO)

108

Fish Child Killer Meet Barrett .50 Cal. Rifle Barrel

Really? They might prosecute me for shooting those two pieces of shit, even if they never looked at me and no stray bullets came my way?

I'd shoot the fuckers without hesitation for two reasons: 1. They needed killin', and 2. No jury, not even the most insane one, would ever convict.

Some things just have to be done regardless of the personal consequences. Sorry to offend, but shooting those two is one of those things.

Posted by: Sharkman at April 25, 2013 08:27 AM (03IDC)

109 I actually thought about this earlier. I tend to agree with those who say you donÂ’t know whatÂ’s going on to the extent necessary to take a shotÂ—but depending on circumstances I might have called the police to let them know I have a window with a clear shot that they can use if they want.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at April 25, 2013 08:27 AM (QF8uk)

110 Brick houses are a good place to be during shootouts.

Posted by: Up with people! at April 25, 2013 08:27 AM (FmFB3)

111

sure

ask George Zimmerman

Posted by: Thunderb at April 25, 2013 08:27 AM (nH8jP)

112 76 Romeo 13,

That is about the "on the book norm" working state by state.....

Ohio is similar where it gets complicated is proscutorial discretion and "prevailing sense of the law"....

trust me I did armed personal protection and thanked God every day I never had to clear leather...

well scratch that there was ONE time I drew my gun on the job I almost shot a drugged up or drunk hobo who was wielding a umbrella or ballbat like it was a gun.....

Partner and I were guarding a site and this hobo started bumrushing us waving his stickish thing wildly.....

We wound up busting him for criminal trespass....

it's not a topic I take much levity in....

That weapon is a tool a very useful tool but if you misuse it it is a tool aimed at your own head legally

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at April 25, 2013 08:27 AM (LRFds)

113 I'd shoot. And then claim I was radicalized into gun loving by Tamerlan Tsarnaev's love for guns.

Posted by: Laura Walker at April 25, 2013 08:28 AM (UdWas)

114 It would be fucking chaos if every neighbour on that street got their weapon and started taking shots at the two bombers. Yeah, some of them would definitely get some hits on them but then the police wouldn't have any control of the situation. It would be making a bad situation worse. Posted by: EC at April 25, 2013 12:19 PM (GQ8sn) You should have seen Nashville after the flood. "You loot. We shoot." - actual signs in the hands of armed, patrolling citizens. I'm proud to report there wasn't any looting. Or cannibalism. (Eat that NOLA.) The local 50 didn't seem to have any problem with it or inclination to play the confiscation game. Not sure why that was...but...that's how it was. Of course, the majority of citizens here are armed, right down to the soccer moms. Could have something to do with it.

Posted by: JQP at April 25, 2013 08:28 AM (GVL0g)

115

@63

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there laws to prevent civilians from becoming actively involved in a matter like this?"

-----

If not laws exactly on this, dozens of laws potentially implicated. Everything in this area depends on facts in the totality of the circumstances. Let's say you fired, but only after two mystery bullets came through your window. Could change things. And ultimately a reasonable fear for your life or of bodily harm does not define itself.

Posted by: Beagle at April 25, 2013 08:28 AM (sOtz/)

116 Since ace has gone all frenchy, shouldn't it be: Tirer ou ne pas tirer?

Posted by: Waldo Truth at April 25, 2013 08:28 AM (y2XjR)

117 Just claim you hit your head.

Posted by: Knave at April 25, 2013 08:29 AM (cipri)

118 How about the citizen's arrest provisions. I found this in http://preview.tinyurl.com/bawnaj6 instruction 9.620.

A person may use deadly force to make a citizenÂ’s arrest only if:
First
He (she) believes that such force is necessary to
make a lawful arrest;
Second
The arrest is for a felony;
Third
Either he (she) announces the purpose of the arrest
or believes it is already known to the person being arrested or
believes it cannot reasonably be made known to the person
being arrested;
Fourth,Either he (she) is assisting a person whom he (she)
believes is a peace officer; or he (she) is a peace officer;
Fifth
He (she) believes there is no substantial risk of injury
to innocent persons;
Sixth
He (she) believes that the person being arrested
used or threatened to use
force in committing the felony;
Seventh
He (she) believes that there is a substantial risk
that the person being arrested will cause death or serious bodily
harm to someone if he (she) is not immediately arrested.
(
If made pursuant to a warrant:
and
Eighth
That the warrant was valid or was believed
by the citizen to be valid.

The only problem I see there is the fifth clause.

Posted by: bonhomme at April 25, 2013 08:29 AM (45N4D)

119
people still use leather holsters?

Posted by: soothsayer at April 25, 2013 08:30 AM (LPRBM)

120 A much better idea is to hole up in a basement and make sure that nobody breaks in to hide from the cops when the firefight breaks up.

You should be there hiding from the cops before that thought can cross your mind. If you're within range in any direction, on any trajectory, clear or blind, they're shooting at you.

Posted by: oblig. at April 25, 2013 08:30 AM (cePv8)

121 i'd shoot.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 25, 2013 08:30 AM (GVxQo)

122 I shot in the sink. Seriously. Honest injun.

Posted by: Bill Clinton, zipping up his pants at April 25, 2013 08:30 AM (R18D0)

123 Misssisippi resident here.

You couldn't find a prosecutor to lay charges or a jury that would convict you here.

In fact, the only question I have is whether I'd be able to get the shot off before one of the neighbors.

Posted by: Andrew at April 25, 2013 08:30 AM (cq0FO)

124 Other than the one dickhead at 23, this is exactly the conversation I was hoping would occur. Well done, Morons and Moronettes. *looks over shoulder at Ace's and Gabe's posts breathing down neck*

Posted by: Andy at April 25, 2013 08:30 AM (DXnKM)

125 If I had time to think about it, I wouldn't shoot. If I didn't have time to think about, I would. So I didn't vote.

Posted by: jwb7605 ([i][u]Let it Burn[/u][/i])[/s][/b] at April 25, 2013 08:30 AM (Qxe/p)

126 105 I am at my local SSA office, second time, trying to get a SSN for my 14 month old. And, no shit, they call for a Mi T Ho. "Is anybody here a Mi T Ho?" Posted by: assault flounder at April 25, 2013 12:26 PM (imNEz) LOL

Posted by: lindafell at April 25, 2013 08:31 AM (PGO8C)

127 During The Daily Rundown, host Chuck Todd introduced a segment
on the former president with a spew of Bush Â“gaffes." He then mocked,
"I miss this part of Bush because Obama never does this stuff."

From Newsbusters.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at April 25, 2013 12:24 PM (lVPtV)

F Chuck is embarrassing even by clueless turd standards

Posted by: Captain Hate at April 25, 2013 08:31 AM (4pFVG)

128

toby, you should demand a recount

I'm pretty sure you deserve the #3 spot.

I've always thought those stats were bogus anyway. I was last year's Sven.

Posted by: toby928 at April 25, 2013 08:32 AM (evdj2)

129 No shoot. Cops are not infallible and have been known to pepper the wrong people or under questionable necessity. Let them do their job, poorly, if that be the case.

Posted by: assault flounder at April 25, 2013 08:32 AM (imNEz)

130 There would be no duty to retreat from any place that they have a right to be. I was thinking about this in connection with the crime spree by all those "youths" a few weeks ago in Chicago. To whom does the public space belong? Is it those who are law abiding or those who are not? Because, at the moment, it most certainly appears that the law favors those who are not law abiding. If you are caught up in some youthful exuberance over the dawning of spring, you are the one who will be found to be in the wrong if you fight back. It is of a piece with zero tolerance school policies where the bully and the kid who is trying to protect him/herself are deemed to be equally wrong. At some point, a recognition of the fact that I have a right to defend myself must return to the law. If not? Then I fear that we will reach, if we have not already surpassed, a tipping point where the public at large believes the law to be a joke. The consequences from there are not positive.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Please? at April 25, 2013 08:32 AM (VtjlW)

131 The Daily Rundown?

Posted by: Knave at April 25, 2013 08:32 AM (cipri)

132 Much as I wouldn't have minded putting a bullet to two into the jihidists, I would not have taken the shot from my own home into the street at night.

Posted by: Regular Moron [/i] at April 25, 2013 08:32 AM (feFL6)

133 131 Toby 928th,

I salute you.....want your old job back?

heh

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at April 25, 2013 08:32 AM (LRFds)

134 I'm confident I can make the shots. But even though it sucks, I'm not going to take the shots. I'm not indemnified by virtue of my job as a police officer is.

Posted by: deathweezel at April 25, 2013 08:32 AM (zSp5c)

135 in a place like mass or ny you have no right to self defense. also who'd stick there necks out for cops? your libel to get run through the ringer

Posted by: vote Lord Humungus 2016 at April 25, 2013 08:32 AM (7kW5n)

136 I read a story a few years back about a Highway Patrolman who stopped a car that happened to contain an escaped convict. When the cop got near the window the convict shot him in the chest. Then the convict got out of the car to administer the coup but as he pointed his pistol at the cop's head, a 30-06 bullet passed through the convicts head. Then the hunter who witnessed the whole event (and popped the convict) called for an ambulence on the cop's car radio. Charges were never mentioned, and the wounded cop survived. But in Mass, he should have just minded his own business, lest he find himself in the pen chewing his pillow.

Posted by: maddogg at April 25, 2013 08:33 AM (OlN4e)

137 Sounds like the most feasible option is to own an illegal gun, move to a different angle outside your home, fire, retreat to home, hide evidence, become folk hero.

Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at April 25, 2013 08:33 AM (oBhEo)

138

remember the cops that got into a shoot out in broad daylight and did not shoot the perp but did hit like 8 bystander

Posted by: Thunderb at April 25, 2013 08:33 AM (nH8jP)

139 I might have called the police to let them know I have a window with a clear shot that they can use if they want.

Stephen Price Blair

And the next day, your house would be crawling with cops as they looked for illegal weapons, contraband and Conservative literature.

The tragedy is this: Had anyone dropped these two bags of smashed, bleeding goat ass, they would become the focal point for every conspiracy-minded loony fuck on earth. Additionally, they would be subject to the most intensive investigation we've seen in awhile.

I wouldn't have taken the shot in MA, and that's to my shame. I'd fear the consequences of doing the right thing.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at April 25, 2013 08:33 AM (fwARV)

140 The way most "trained cops" shoot, I'm surprised half the neighborhood isn't shot.

Did you see all of the pictures? I think half the neighborhood was shot. The person taking the pictures documented his room mate's car which had been shot at least three times.

Posted by: bonhomme at April 25, 2013 08:33 AM (45N4D)

141 Honestly, the thing that would stop me from shooting is hardware. I own a SW .40 and a Mossberg 500. Those aren't exactly what you'd need to confidently get the job done.

AR in hand? I'm almost certain I'm taking the shot.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at April 25, 2013 08:33 AM (da5Wo)

142 remember the cops that got into a shoot out in broad daylight and did not shoot the perp but did hit like 8 bystander Posted by: Thunderb at April 25, 2013 12:33 PM (nH8jP) Wasn't that NYC or LAPD recently?

Posted by: lindafell at April 25, 2013 08:35 AM (PGO8C)

143 @101 Interesting question. Brings up whether the highjacked SUV's owner gets a new "Coexist" sticker, too. Had federal authorities officially identified this attack as being from a "foreign power," a clever claims man could get out of paying. Acts of War, an exemption in almost every policy.

I reckon soon we'll all need federally-funded terror insurance.

Posted by: comatus at April 25, 2013 08:36 AM (qaVK+)

144 Also, the converse of "police" is not "civilian". Police are civilians.

Posted by: Matt at April 25, 2013 08:36 AM (IUoiJ)

145 146 New York. LA just gunned down women delivering newspapers.

Posted by: Knave at April 25, 2013 08:36 AM (cipri)

146 Bring back the concept of outlawry. Have the governor go on TV and announce, "These men are wanted in connection with such and such. They are considered armed and dangerous. To the suspects, I strongly urge you to contact law enforcement and surrender immediately. Everything will be done to insure that you remain unharmed if you cooperate. To all other citizens, The suspects are to be considered operating outside of the law. Any contact with the suspects should be considered life threatening and any citizen who attempts to subdue or incapacitate the suspects will receive my personal pardon and immunity from any state laws or ordinances. Thank you, and good hunting."

Posted by: supercore23 at April 25, 2013 08:37 AM (bwV72)

147 #67 CBD

Cop advice not lawyer advice.

Posted by: Chairman Mow at April 25, 2013 08:37 AM (RGDtb)

148 144 VC981,

Uh....Your Mossy 500 at the range the shot would have been under the stress of not being a combat trained and trained up shooter(and I am no longer combat trained or trained up BC)I'd prefer the Mossy bud....

especially if you had a #5 shot #)) mix going

even shooting the shotgun downward would have suppressed Tspeedbump and Tflashbang in all likelihood

Food for thought...the main reason to be very guarded in your shot in your scenario is legal not physical.

No offense meant

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at April 25, 2013 08:37 AM (LRFds)

149 @5 Jollyroger "Texas.

I imagine the police here would come over and shake your hand if you dropped them."

I knew of a guy in southern Africa who stopped a robbery in progress of a restaurant, shot 2 of the perps inside and chased the 3rd down the street and shot him. All 3 died.

A week later the (all black officers) police dropped off a case a beer at his house as a "thank you."

Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at April 25, 2013 08:38 AM (f+TdG)

150 LA just gunned down women delivering newspapers.
Posted by: Knave

That's called "littering".

Posted by: Dang at April 25, 2013 08:38 AM (R18D0)

151 In furtherance to my comment about living in a brick house. That would also have to weigh on the choice to fire on them, since vinyl siding, insulation, and drywal is pretty much like firing from a raised platform.

Posted by: Up with people! at April 25, 2013 08:38 AM (FmFB3)

152 146 Lindafell,

NYC...I wrote at length about it because "Bloomberg"

The NYPD shot 8 times the number of people the perp did.....

"OnlyCopsCanHandleGuns"

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at April 25, 2013 08:39 AM (LRFds)

153 "If you want a vision of the future, imagine ~~a boot stamping on a human face~~ Boston on lockdown - forever."

Posted by: Regular Moron [/i] at April 25, 2013 08:39 AM (feFL6)

154 At the very least shoot out the vehicle's tires. Put a few rounds through the engine block.

Posted by: jd at April 25, 2013 08:42 AM (MXyBs)

155

6. Beagle

"Watch jury nullify any legal problems."

Good luck with that.

Posted by: Bernie Goetz at April 25, 2013 08:42 AM (f+TdG)

156 Food for thought...the main reason to be very guarded in your shot in your scenario is legal not physical.

No offense meant

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at April 25, 2013 12:37 PM (LRFds)

No offense at all. I have #00 and slugs for my 500.

Like I said, I just wouldn't be comfortable with my ability to be accurate with those weapons at that range. A rifle? Giddyup.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at April 25, 2013 08:42 AM (da5Wo)

157 I must be psychic! I knew what the vote results were going to look like, and I knew that the moron horde is smarter than yer average bear!

Posted by: and irresolute at April 25, 2013 08:42 AM (DBH1h)

158 new one up

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at April 25, 2013 08:43 AM (piMMO)

159 Weekly range time should be mandatory for LEO, and if it is deemed they are not particularly good with their weapons they should be subject to remediation.

Posted by: The Third Horseman Of The Apocalypse at April 25, 2013 12:41 PM (vbh31)

I'd support sending my tax dollars to this specific enterprise.

You carry a weapon, and may be expected to use it in performance of your job. Get fucking good at it, because the only time you'll need it is to save life.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at April 25, 2013 08:43 AM (fwARV)

160 This thread's getting kind of stale.

Posted by: assault flounder at April 25, 2013 08:43 AM (imNEz)

161
Cute dilemma. I WOULD take the shot IF there were no danger of giving away my position. Wouldn't want to draw fire from some adrenalin filled cop.

Here in NY, it would be allowed, with the same caveats as I outlined.

Posted by: irongrampa at April 25, 2013 08:47 AM (SAMxH)

162 One other reason I wouldn't take the shot is I could distract police from the perps and then one of the police could spin around, take his weapon off the actual bad guy, and end up getting shot.

Posted by: Regular Moron [/i] at April 25, 2013 08:51 AM (feFL6)

163 No shoot here. Especially in MA. Plus a SWAT team out there armed up and 'guessing' that there are only two perps.

Posted by: RWC at April 25, 2013 08:54 AM (fWAjv)

164 That Rachel Maddow is one ugly man.

Posted by: Knave at April 25, 2013 08:56 AM (cipri)

165 We need a new thread. Wormtongue's does not count.

Posted by: Knave at April 25, 2013 08:57 AM (cipri)

166 I think I will stay in Texas, less than a year ago a guys stepped out of his house and shoot a bad guy who had a cop pinned down about to do him in. The civilian shoot the bad guy and took him down with a 100 yard plus piston shot. Everyone praised him and the cops were happy with the outcome. http://www.guns.com/2012/08/01/texas-gun-owner-shoot-out/ a link to the shooting with some video.

Posted by: OldTean at April 25, 2013 08:59 AM (WZYdx)

167 I wouldn't take the shot for 2 reasons: 1) It's almost a dead certainty that the police would start firing in the general direction of my window if I did. I'm not too concerned that they'd hit me, but I don't even like the idea of rounds coming in my general direction. 2) I'm not at all confident that the police ever have the right guy. What if this was just another 2 guys in a similar car who, when the cops started shooting at them, decided if they were going to die anyway they might as well go out with a bang? I wouldn't lose a second of sleep over killing a couple of terrorists, I'm not sure I can say the same about a couple of random dumbasses who picked the wrong response to dealing with police idiocy.

Posted by: AndyN at April 25, 2013 09:00 AM (EuKk6)

168 Re: 174: Yes. If this whole bomber thing had happened in Texas -- and maybe even certain parts of Loozyana (e.g., anywhere outside The Pesthole that is NO) -- the cops would have lit 'em up in a hurry.

Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius (just back from We Made It) at April 25, 2013 09:17 AM (BDU/a)

169 1. Make sure he is indeed dead. If not shoot him again. 2. If he manages to get outside, drag him inside then make sure he is dead ( see #1) 3. If he does not have a weapon, make sure he has a weapon. 4. Confirm he is in fact....dead. 5. Call police. Posted by: Chairman Mow at April 25, 2013 12:11 PM (RGDtb) Prosecutors usually don't look to kindly on tampering with evidence/crime scene. Then you also put the question in the jurors minds - 'if it was legit, why did you drag him inside.' Fairfax sometimes doesn't have the brightest bulbs on the force.

Posted by: RWC at April 25, 2013 09:25 AM (fWAjv)

170 172 That Rachel Maddow is one ugly man. Posted by: Knave at April 25, 2013 12:56 PM (cipri) I don't know what guys see in that Jason Biggs gal. She is not sexy, no matter what she does with pie.

Posted by: RWC at April 25, 2013 09:26 AM (fWAjv)

171 Shoot every time. Would you want to be the prosecutor who went after a guy who helped take down the two most wanted men in America and then stood for re-election?

Posted by: Zombie John Gotti at April 25, 2013 09:27 AM (Gkhxf)

172 That's called "littering". Posted by: Dang at April 25, 2013 12:38 PM (R18D0) And the city just gave them $4.2 million of our tax dollars for their F up.

Posted by: RWC at April 25, 2013 09:29 AM (fWAjv)

173 The fact that we're even having this discussion is pathetic. Look up what happened to the James Gang when they tried to rob the bank in Northfield, Mn. "Get your gun, they're robbing the bank!". Only, IIRC, 2 robbers made it out of town, both wounded. How many would be alive today if that was the instinctive reaction of free people to something like Sandy Hook, or Aurora, or Va. Tech, or_______? Free, independent self-reliant citizens wouldn't even think twice. So sad what we've lost.

Posted by: Weirddave at April 25, 2013 09:42 AM (aH+zP)

174 Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there laws to prevent civilians from becoming actively involved in a matter like this? I mean, by trying to bring their own weapons into a shootout, thereby introducing a completely uncontrolled variable (armed civilian) into the mix. It would be fucking chaos if every neighbour on that street got their weapon and started taking shots at the two bombers. Yeah, some of them would definitely get some hits on them but then the police wouldn't have any control of the situation. It would be making a bad situation worse.

Posted by: EC at April 25, 2013 12:19 PM (GQ8sn)

In 1966 when Charles Whitman was at the top of the University of Texas tower, many, many people went home and got their rifles and came back and shot at him right along side the police.

Posted by: Zombie John Gotti at April 25, 2013 09:46 AM (Gkhxf)

175

As others have noted, there is a "Defense of Another" defense in Massachusetts.

MA standard criminal jury instructions (Instruction no. 9.260) provides that:

If there is any evidence in this case that the defendant may have been coming to the aid of another person, you must find the defendant not guilty unless the Commonwealth proves beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the following two things:

First: That a reasonable person in the defendantÂ’s position would not have believed that his (her) use of force was necessary in order to protect [third party] ; or

Second: That to a reasonable person in the defendantÂ’s position would not have believed that [third party] was justified in using such force in his (her) own self-defense.

Here instruct on self-defense.

Defense of another is a complete defense. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 412 Mass. 368, 589 N.E.2d 311 (1992). The legal principles regarding defense of another Â“are not unlike those which control the use of self-defense.Â” As with self-defense, in determining whether there is sufficient evidence to raise the issue of defense of another, all reasonable inferences should be resolved in favor of the defendant. Commonwealth v. Green, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 376, 379, 770 N.E.2d 995 (2002). Where defense of another has been properly raised, the Commonwealth has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.; Commonwealth v. Monico, 373 Mass. 298, 302-304, 366 N.E.2d 1241, 1244 (1977) (defense not limited to persons related to defendant); Commonwealth v. Martin, 369 Mass. at 649, 341 N.E.2d at 891; Commonwealth v. Montes, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 789, 794-796, 733 N.E.2d 1068 (2000) (absent excessive force by police, defendant cannot assist another in resisting even an unlawful arrest; doubtful that common-law right to resist an unlawful arrest, now abolished in Massachusetts, ever permitted third parties to assist another in resisting an unlawful arrest); Commonwealth v. McClendon, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 122, 125-126, 653 N.E.2d 1138 (1995) (use of force justified only in response to immediate danger to third person). Where defense of others is relied on by the defendant and the evidence is sufficient to raise the issue, an instruction is required, even absent a request by the defendant. Commonwealth v. Kivlehan, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 793, 795-796, 786 N.E.2d 431 (2003).

Posted by: Alex at April 25, 2013 09:58 AM (/yzYn)

176 Shouldn't cops also be required to read a suspect their 2nd Amendment rights if they are arrested with a firearm? Something like "you have the right to bear arms, this right extends to all individuals and is not limited only to militias"

I mean, why do some Constitutional amendments have to be read aloud to citizens, but others don't?

Posted by: McAdams at April 25, 2013 11:08 AM (34IYz)

177 "How do you know the cops are chasing the right guy?" Well, the facts that a) they were shooting at the cops at the time, and b) they were throwing *bombs* at the cops when two terrorist *bombers* were the most wanted people in America would have been a good clue. In MA I might not shoot, but in free America there's a good chance I would have - especially considering that with everybody's positions I would have already been in more danger from the police than from the terrorists (if his roommate had been sitting at the computer, he'd probably be dead right now, from what is probably a police officer's bullet). I would, however, have stood back from the window, where the cops couldn't see me and the bad guys were less likely to see me, when I did it.

Posted by: Jake at April 25, 2013 11:12 AM (zKPMH)

178

If I were in MA, even if it was a certainty that the cops were going to die, I don't think I'd help. The government made their choice with the laws they passed, so their willing minions can pay the price for that.

In my state, I'd pop both of those bastards right in the noggin, especially at that distance.

Posted by: Laughingdog at April 25, 2013 11:33 AM (BuYeH)

179 I'm a wimp. I'm afraid my fire would be misconstrued by the police as hostile fire.

Posted by: WannabeAnglican at April 25, 2013 03:49 PM (F1wnk)

180 24 So I live in the great Commonwealth of Virgina where we ( currently) are "pro-gun" and "pro-self-defense" yet lack a codified Castle Doctrine. I asked a friend of mine who happens to be a Fairfax County cop what I should do if should shoot a burglar in my house. This is the gist of what he told me:

1. Make sure he is indeed dead. If not shoot him again.
2. If he manages to get outside, drag him inside then make sure he is dead ( see #1)
3. If he does not have a weapon, make sure he has a weapon.
4. Confirm he is in fact....dead.
5. Call police.

That advice will get you prosecuted for murder. You shot a man who was down and not resisting, you tampered with evidence and a crime scene, you planted evidence. No way forensics doesn't catch ALL of that. You would NEVER get out of jail and the scumbag's "family" would own your home and your kids' financial future.

Your cop friend is trying to fuck you up.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at April 26, 2013 07:09 AM (qvify)

181 182 Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there laws to
prevent civilians from becoming actively involved in a matter like this?
I mean, by trying to bring their own weapons into a shootout, thereby
introducing a completely uncontrolled variable (armed civilian) into the
mix. It would be fucking chaos if every neighbour on that street got
their weapon and started taking shots at the two bombers. Yeah, some of
them would definitely get some hits on them but then the police wouldn't
have any control of the situation. It would be making a bad situation
worse.

Canada boy by the spelling. Please define how you make a situation where cops and bomb-throwing terrorists are already firing wildly "worse?"

Posted by: richard mcenroe at April 26, 2013 07:12 AM (qvify)

182 179 Shoot every time. Would you want to be the prosecutor who went after a guy who helped take down the two most wanted men in America and then stood for re-election?

In Massachusetts? He'd be Governor next election.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at April 26, 2013 07:13 AM (qvify)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

167kb generated in CPU 0.0728, elapsed 0.2489 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.1948 seconds, 310 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.