Try as they might, blue cities and states can’t seem to ban their citizens’ guns. They’ve enacted handgun bans, “assault weapons” bans, registration mandates, taxes, and levied confiscatory fees on guns, ammo, and carry permits. As a result, they’ve been challenged at every turn by those who take the Second Amendment at its word. And then Bruen came along and made the job of civilian disarmament even more difficult for aspiring tyrants.
What’s a gun-banner to do then? Simple. Make life hell for anyone who dares to use a gun they own, particularly in self-defense. Look no further for an example than what happened last night in Newton, Massachusetts.
A group of people were holding a peaceful pro-Israel rally when a Hamas supporter began yelling at them from across the street. The Hamasnik, who apparently couldn’t abide free speech being exercised in his presence, ran through traffic and assaulted one of the Israel supporters, jumping on him as his back was turned.
Watch video of the altercation here . . .
WATCH
Yesterday in Newton, Massachusetts, a pro-Palestinian protester attacked a man. In response, the man pulled out a gun and shot him.
County District Attorney Marian Ryan has announced that Scott Hayes (the man defending himself) will face charges after shooting the pro… pic.twitter.com/Ece8bvZ8OP
— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) September 13, 2024
It’s hard to imagine a clearer case of self-defense after the Hamas supporter tackled a man who has been identified at 47-year-old Scott Hayes of Framingham, Massachusetts. It’s been reported that Hayes is a lawful gun owner and permitted carrier, though the police investigation is ongoing.
The attacker has yet to be named. According to Middlesex County District Attorney Marian Ryan, the unnamed Hamas supporter sustained “life-threatening injuries” and was undergoing treatment.
Despite clear video evidence of the attack, Ryan chose to charge Hayes for the crime of defending himself. He’s facing charges of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and — wait for it — violation of a constitutional right causing injury. It isn’t clear which of the attacker’s rights were violated when Hayes shot him.
There’s no word yet as to any charges filed against the still anonymous attacker. Newton Mayor Ruthanne Fuller, however, made a point of announcing that emotional support services are available to the public at large as a result of the defensive gun use, so that’s nice.
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
UPDATE: The attacker who was shot yesterday has been identified and he’s everything you thought he’d be.
Caleb Gannon, the man who tackled Scott Hayes and was shot, has a X history of calling for the destruction of America and says he does not condemn Hamas. pic.twitter.com/t11GcY5eFv
— Kassy Akiva (@KassyAkiva) September 13, 2024
“Despite clear video evidence of the attack…” (by the Hamas supporter)
The good news > “the unnamed Hamas supporter sustained ‘life-threatening injuries'”
The bad news > “… and was undergoing treatment.”
Middlesex County District Attorney Marian Ryan needs to be flooded with phone calls and emails demanding charges be dropped, and if necessary show up at her home to express their outrage at that bu;;shit prosecution.
The ‘protester’ needs to be charged with violent assault…
I’d like to ask that prosecutor if the person who crossed the street, tackled, and assaulted the peaceful citizen will be prosecuted for his assault on the lawful gun owner.
If the answer is no, I want a detailed answer as to EXACTLY why not… 🙁
These incidents and Hamas supporters are instigated and payed for by groups outside the US. Especially what’s going on in our universities. The corrupt US Department of Justice and FBI won’t investigate them because the results will come full circle back to the Democratic Party.
Even while stomping your head into the pavement leftists are always the victim.
It’s only going to get worse.
I feel for those stuck in Leftist Scum ™-controlled jurisdictions, they will reap their full reward for tolerating the fascism their politicians dump on them.
Arm up, and lay low…
The real crime here is that he forgot to pull his mask up before getting closer than six feet to a crowd of people. Hopefully everyone there has their tenth booster that is still being offered under an Emergency Use Authorization.
It is obvious that Hamas-man attacked Israel-man. However, does that attack justify the use of deadly force? Was it reasonable to believe that Hamas-man was a credible and imminent threat of great bodily harm or death to the Israel-man?
I can see where rushing someone (and potentially even tackling them) is not necessarily an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm in general, assuming that both people are of somewhat similar speed, size, and strength. Now, when the attacker strikes someone blindside, that may rise to the level of imminent threat of great bodily harm.
This event is a “gray area”, as far as I can tell, whether it rises to the threshold of a reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm.
All assaults should be repelled with lethal force. Be it a slap or a rush and tackle.
Eventually people will conclude it’s simply ot worth picking fights or all the aggressive personality types will be removed from the gene pool.
The guy with the gun didn’t decide this confrontation was worth shooting somebody over. The guy who tackled him did.
You are talking about your own personal belief not the law as it is and has been in the US for hundreds of years. Deadly force is only justified when you are in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. For example multiple unarmed attackers ganging up
on a single person or a large man attacking a small woman.
That may be how it is in less civilized nations like the UK but here it’s:
“A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. ”
Being slammed to the ground where head may meet concrete is plenty enough to justify deadly force.
It is the law for hundreds of years because it is derived from English common law. Why we still follow that 250 years after the War of Independence is beyond me. Override it with a statute.
“The guy with the gun didn’t decide this confrontation was worth shooting somebody over. The guy who tackled him did.”
Bingo, that’s it, in a nutshell.
Don’t want to get your sorry ass shot? Don’t attack someone who said something you don’t like.
When are the protests over the charged guy gonna start?
Israel-man wasn’t justified in using deadly force because at no point was his life in danger. Unfortunately because he’s a tiny hat, pointing this out will get you called an -ist or anti semite as if that’s a bad thing.
I wish Americans would just realize that the world would be better off if we just let both sides kill each other, but boomers have this disturbing love affair with Israel.
“Israel-man wasn’t justified in using deadly force because at no point was his life in danger.”
Are you on drugs?
Getting tackled on a concrete sidewalk risks brain damage or death when you head hits the concrete…
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
Exactly why was my comment moderated?
Walking outside risks brain damage or death. Some faggy Arab lover tackling you doesn’t meet the criteria for “I was in fear of my life.”
“Some faggy Arab lover tackling you doesn’t meet the criteria for “I was in fear of my life.””
With the video evidence presented so far, I would have not have a major problem convincing a jury I was in fear for my life or serious injury…
Your thesis “Israel-man wasn’t justified in using deadly force” is in no way supported by your by your assertion that “at no point was his life in danger”. Additionally, whether or not the attacked individual comports their politics, religion, or just how they spend their free time to whatever warped idea that you deem appropriate is irrelevant to your thesis. Your logical fallacy slip is showing.
How many times would you like your head bounced off of the concrete before you believed is was “great bodily harm”?
Paul,
I agree that someone could suffer permanent injury or death if his/her head hits concrete hard enough (such as falling over from standing-up position). What I am not sure about is whether a jury of my peers would agree that such a possibility constitutes a reasonable belief of imminent great bodily harm or death.
Consider this: a reasonably fit man could punch a victim in the face hard enough to cause permanent injury or death, directly from the punch as well as indirectly if the punch knocks the person to the ground and the victim hits his/her head on concrete. How many juries, however, will agree that a man winding up to throw a punch rises to the threshold of a reasonable belief of imminent great bodily harm or death? My personal opinion is that many juries would not agree and a defender who employed deadly force against an attacker who was winding up to punch the defender would therefore spend some serious time in prison.
Clarification: I don’t like the state of affairs which I described above. The fact of the matter is that any reasonably fit person who suddenly comes at you, with or without a visible object in hand, could easily cause great bodily harm or death. Unfortunately, our justice system does not equate ability (to cause great bodily harm or death) with imminence.
You explained it better than I was willing to. Then again I also like to instigate…
A jury properly acquitted George Zimmerman under somewhat similar circumstances. Trayvon Martin had no weapon but had nearly smashed Zimmerman’s head to his death.
“A jury properly acquitted George Zimmerman under somewhat similar circumstances.”
There were eyewitnesses to the attack that testified that George Zimmerman’s side of the story did in fact happen. The only reason Z. was charged at all was the pressure the professional race instigators put on the prosecutor’s office.
What needs to happen is that we organize the way they do. “Use the enemy’s own rules against them.”
Angry crowds need to raise a huge stink on camera.
Saul Alinski ‘Rules For Radicals’ 101…
How do you know the intentions of the assailant? How do you know his assault is limited?
Gosh, I can’t figure out why so many folks are moving to CA and FL.
Um…I meant TX and FL. 🙄
Be careful where in TX you move: Houston, Austin, San Antonio all have Soros DAs.
To think I went to high school in that commie gulag. 46 years and 3 days later I can still breathe free in Texas. Although I still can’t find “the sonofagun needed killin” in the Texas Penal Code in the chapter on Justifications Excluding Criminal Responsibility.
That’s because it was removed 20+ years ago.
Sure does look like a justified self-defense shooting. Offering first aid speaks to the true victim’s state of mind, too.
Google the prosecutor. Even Wikipedia depicts her as a complete mess.
If this guy has USCCA or similar, it’ll be interesting to see if they perform.
“If this guy has USCCA or similar, it’ll be interesting to see if they perform.”
If they don’t, organize and publicize a crowdfund for his defense…
It’s already happening. There’s a GoFundMe for Hayes that has raised almost a quarter million dollars so far.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-scott-hayes-legal-defense