brownie0486
Member
I can agree that the circumstances are always different and certainly different jurisdictions across the country will prosecute or perhaps file a lesser charge of manslaughter.
There is no question Massachusetts DA's are very aggressive in their prosecutions, and certainly not as forgiving as others have stated.
Scott Evans: I don't expect many will be practiced in the art of reverse grip defense with a knife.
Having the training through the academy does help with issues on the streets as I have been in the position to arrest in similiar circumstances of defense.
As a layperson myself now, I have the advantage [ if you want to call it that ] of both views. That of the layperson/civilian and that of LE. They are different mindsets without question.
It does help to know how you will be viewed by the DA's, LE's upon their arrival at the scene and what facts they will need to exonerate or charge you with at that time.
The knife had to be at least 3 1/2" long to reach the heart and probably longer would be my guess here. Most pocket knives [ nailnicks types ] don't have a blade that long.
We have not even covered the area of escalating the scenario by pulling the knife out on two unarmed assailants. The article said he was being beaten pretty badly but the photo of him in the paper this morning doesn't show any tell tale signs of violence in or about his facial area from the picture.
There is perceived threat and there is actual threats to your person. I have no data on the size of the two in the car [1 deceased now ] but the Harvard boy is no slouch. Looks to be about 6'0" and 250-270 from the picture.
Disparity of numbers does not necessarily automatically equate to using deadly force against them. This was a fist fight with some disparity of force/numbers [maybe, depending on the size of the other two ].
The point being if you are attacked by superior numbers you do not gain a right to kill someone from that fact alone [ disparity of numbers]. Of course if the numbers were 5 to 1 or even more the courts may look more favorably.
What the courts and LE's don't want is for someone to get the idea if they are outnumbered by unarmed assaillants that you may stand your ground and automatically may defend [ escalate ]with lethal force of your own.
The Harvard kid did not try to evade or escape and apparently had the opportunity to do so. He chose to stand and fight [ ego, drink ? ] these two and that goes to mindset. The admission he was under the influence of alcohol will play into the sceanrio when it comes to trial as well. If he had not been drinking he may have chose to leave/retreat but due to the alcohol he had consumed his judgement had been inpaired in determining he was about to suffer death or great bodily injuries for the self defense doctrine to kick in here.
Lets ask this question as get some comments and thoughts from others here on this subject while we are visiting this scenario.
If you are threatened with bodily injury through actions or verbal threats by two apparently unarmed people on the street do you have the right to escalate that situation to deadly force continuum by producing a knife or other weapon?
When do you think you would be right in escalating this situation?
In Massachusetts you have the right to defend yourself if you meet these criterias.
1. You have been threatened with death or great bodily harm.
2. They have the visible means to carry out that threat.
3. They are within a distance that dictates they are close enough to be capable of carrying out the threat immediately.
In other terms:
2. The means [numbers diparity/weapons ]
1. The motive [the threatening of harm/death to you ]
3. The opportunity [ the threat stated is capable of being carried out immediately do to the proximity at the time of the threat].
If any three of these are not met, no self defense can be a defense in this state. Seems simple enough really. If you are being threatened with physical harm through verbal communication you need to be able to articulate he had the means to carry out the threat [ a weapon , numbers disparity, etc ] and that the distance between you and the threat would allow a prudent person to feel the threat could be carried out immediately.
And then there will be the question, did you have the opportunity to exit the area? If the means to escape were there and you chose to stand your ground would your subsequent actions be justified in using lethal force?
Lets here what others have to say about the sceanrio and what they believe to be lawful, not what their ego would do but what a prudentand reasonale person would likely do in the same circumstances.
This will get interesting I'm sure and something we should all be clear on one way or the other.
Brownie
There is no question Massachusetts DA's are very aggressive in their prosecutions, and certainly not as forgiving as others have stated.
Scott Evans: I don't expect many will be practiced in the art of reverse grip defense with a knife.
Having the training through the academy does help with issues on the streets as I have been in the position to arrest in similiar circumstances of defense.
As a layperson myself now, I have the advantage [ if you want to call it that ] of both views. That of the layperson/civilian and that of LE. They are different mindsets without question.
It does help to know how you will be viewed by the DA's, LE's upon their arrival at the scene and what facts they will need to exonerate or charge you with at that time.
The knife had to be at least 3 1/2" long to reach the heart and probably longer would be my guess here. Most pocket knives [ nailnicks types ] don't have a blade that long.
We have not even covered the area of escalating the scenario by pulling the knife out on two unarmed assailants. The article said he was being beaten pretty badly but the photo of him in the paper this morning doesn't show any tell tale signs of violence in or about his facial area from the picture.
There is perceived threat and there is actual threats to your person. I have no data on the size of the two in the car [1 deceased now ] but the Harvard boy is no slouch. Looks to be about 6'0" and 250-270 from the picture.
Disparity of numbers does not necessarily automatically equate to using deadly force against them. This was a fist fight with some disparity of force/numbers [maybe, depending on the size of the other two ].
The point being if you are attacked by superior numbers you do not gain a right to kill someone from that fact alone [ disparity of numbers]. Of course if the numbers were 5 to 1 or even more the courts may look more favorably.
What the courts and LE's don't want is for someone to get the idea if they are outnumbered by unarmed assaillants that you may stand your ground and automatically may defend [ escalate ]with lethal force of your own.
The Harvard kid did not try to evade or escape and apparently had the opportunity to do so. He chose to stand and fight [ ego, drink ? ] these two and that goes to mindset. The admission he was under the influence of alcohol will play into the sceanrio when it comes to trial as well. If he had not been drinking he may have chose to leave/retreat but due to the alcohol he had consumed his judgement had been inpaired in determining he was about to suffer death or great bodily injuries for the self defense doctrine to kick in here.
Lets ask this question as get some comments and thoughts from others here on this subject while we are visiting this scenario.
If you are threatened with bodily injury through actions or verbal threats by two apparently unarmed people on the street do you have the right to escalate that situation to deadly force continuum by producing a knife or other weapon?
When do you think you would be right in escalating this situation?
In Massachusetts you have the right to defend yourself if you meet these criterias.
1. You have been threatened with death or great bodily harm.
2. They have the visible means to carry out that threat.
3. They are within a distance that dictates they are close enough to be capable of carrying out the threat immediately.
In other terms:
2. The means [numbers diparity/weapons ]
1. The motive [the threatening of harm/death to you ]
3. The opportunity [ the threat stated is capable of being carried out immediately do to the proximity at the time of the threat].
If any three of these are not met, no self defense can be a defense in this state. Seems simple enough really. If you are being threatened with physical harm through verbal communication you need to be able to articulate he had the means to carry out the threat [ a weapon , numbers disparity, etc ] and that the distance between you and the threat would allow a prudent person to feel the threat could be carried out immediately.
And then there will be the question, did you have the opportunity to exit the area? If the means to escape were there and you chose to stand your ground would your subsequent actions be justified in using lethal force?
Lets here what others have to say about the sceanrio and what they believe to be lawful, not what their ego would do but what a prudentand reasonale person would likely do in the same circumstances.
This will get interesting I'm sure and something we should all be clear on one way or the other.
Brownie