CCW Holder in TROUBLE in MA!!!!!!

[Number 6]

Transparent rationalizations

"I'm not willing to pass judgement on whether that was reasonable for someone who had an unknown prognosis after recent prostate cancer surgery, who had just visited a deathly-ill father of a friend, who had trouble walking..."

Gave up on trying to justify your false assertions about Mass. licensing, I see...

On to the new drivel. In what way, shape, manner or form does your little litany of irrelevancies have to do with your hero tossing his gun and running away? Seems to me he'd have been a WHOLE lot better off by reporting the incident.

Victims report crimes; criminals try to hide them.

 

[USP45usp]

and on that note.. good night all.... and everyone wonders what happened in the past.

We are our worse enemies. Not from this thread, it's been proven again and again on every board that I've had the honor to be a part of....

and they are all the same.

sigh....

what a freakin disappointment. Sorry, had to say it. It's been building over the years.... what a freakin disappointment.

Cheers all, and a good night. The flu meds they gave seem to be kicking in...

Wayne

 

[RickD]

When did we get to the point that obeying the law is more important than our lives?

It disappoints me no end when people whom I assume are advocates of the RIGHT of self defense and RKBA (which is supposed to be immune from mere legislative action) come down against someone who exercised that right but happened to do so in a state that is particularly restrictive.

How many of us would have voted to convict if we sat on his jury?

Not only was he prosecuted for the lack of a carry permit, he was also abused with trial over manslaughter and discharge of a firearm.

He saved his own life and rid the CommonWealth of two street thugs and all some of you can do is tally minor statute violations which most, if not all, here, know are unconstitutional statutes.

A pox on your houses.

Rick

 

[rangermonroe]

once again...shoot, shovel and shut up.

LEO are not your friends.

Go home, be quiet.

 

[biere]

State laws vary even in how you are suppossed to operate a motor vehicle. What some states don't really enforce much can often be heavily enforced in another state.

Examples would be tn. law about having headlights on if your wipers are on continuously.

Another one would be in kentucky where the left lane is for passing and not for cruising at high speed.

If this guy had not tried to hide his crime his money spent so far may have been doing a better job.

As it is, complaining that gun owners from other states would make a different decision on the jury means nothing.

Know the state laws for the states around you. Recognize that the jury will be made up of people who live by those laws every day.

Choose accordingly.

 

[RickD]

If this guy had not tried to hide his crime his money spent so far may have been doing a better job.

I don't know that it had any bearing on the prosecution.

As it is, complaining that gun owners from other states would make a different decision on the jury means nothing.

It means everything as a guide to your character and your support of the Right of self defense, RKBA, and your commitment to protecting invidivual rights.

It's an easy question. I would have voted to acquit. You?

Rick

 

[rapier144]

I wonder if he had a jury of his peers meaning other gun owners. I doubt it .

 

[Tamara]

As it is, complaining that gun owners from other states would make a different decision on the jury means nothing.

Know the state laws for the states around you. Recognize that the jury will be made up of people who live by those laws every day.

As those who actually LIVE in the state know, It is EASIER for a NON-resident to get an LTC-A/ALP than it is for many Mass. citizens, especially those within the Route 128 belt. As this individual already held a RI license, getting the Mass. LTC would not have been that difficult.

Note further that he was found not guilty on the charges from his USE of a firearm, which was found justifiable. He did possess the gun illegally under Mass. law, which is the ONLY charge he was convicted of.

Suddenly the crappy gun laws in OH and MA are starting to make a lot more sense...

 

[Number 6]

Poor logic; worse law

"Not only was he prosecuted for the lack of a carry permit, he was also abused with trial over manslaughter and discharge of a firearm."

Get a grip. There was no "abuse" where he shot and killed one man, wounded another, then FLED THE SCENE. Given those facts, there is NOTHING to indicate he acted in self-defense; he could just as easily been a gangbanger in a turf war or a local Son of Sam wanna-be. Unless and until the facts are presented in court, determinations of who did what and why are - like yours - mere rampant speculation.

"He saved his own life and rid the CommonWealth [sic] of two street thugs and all some of you can do is tally minor statute violations which most, if not all, here, know are unconstitutional statutes."

For those of us who actually READ the (old) story, he only killed one. And that was under circumstances far less than stellar and exemplary, despite your desperate efforts to cast him as a Working-Class Hero. Bet you've got the entire "Death Wish" series at home on DVD....

HINT: A license to carry is NOT a "get out of jail free" card. Grasp the concept.

From a similarly enlighted poster, this bit of "advice:"

"shoot, shovel and shut up."

Probably the most cretinous, dangerous and assinine suggestion one could make in these circumstances. :barf:

 

[RickD]

here was no "abuse" where he shot and killed one man, wounded another, then FLED THE SCENE.

He fled the scene after the act of self defense not because it wasn't a righteous shoot, but because he didn't have a permit for his gun -- something many would argue is a reasonable reaction to an unconstitutional law. Recall the (NYC gent who didn't flee) and was prosecuted after saving his own life in similar circumstances in his own apartment.

Unless and until the facts are presented in court, determinations of who did what and why...

The facts were known to the prosecutor long before the trial, don't you think? Interviews, discovery?

For those of us who actually READ the (old) story, he only killed one.

For those of you who actually read my post, I didn't say he killed two thugs, I said he got "rid" of two thugs.

And that was under circumstances far less than stellar and exemplary

He was operating under a legal framework which was less than stellar and exemplary. He defended himself in a manner anyone here would say is normal and right, but understanding that his having a gun in Mass was illegal, he did what was quite prudent.

Answer the question, NumSix -- You jury vote: guilty or not-guilty?

You actually felt the compelling need to put a [sic] after "CommonWealth"?

Rick

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Amazing, just amazing. We are supposed to come to this criminal's aid because he carries a gun (illegally) as many of us do legally. He was breaking the law before the shooting and you sort of gotta believe something else was up if the guy fled the scene and tried ditching the gun.

You just gotta love the fact that there was no knife ever found and the only claim of it existing is by the shooter. You also gotta love how it was that he fully cooperated with the police AFTER they caught him. Of course, that came after his fled the scene and field stripped the gun, throwing out parts as he drove. It is interesting that it was raining so hard that the guy could see so well the activities of his would be attacker working the car seat, getting the knife etc.

The testimony that the shot guy's wound trajectory was consistent with a person with a knife in assault position. The guy was crouched is all that is supported. Whether or not he had a knife isn't substantiated by the claim.

The whole pity aspect of the article about how bad off Bob is in his wet diaper is stupid horrendously stupid. Whether or not he is embarrassed by his wet diaper isn't even remotely relative to anything. I find such emotional ploys to be insulting to the readership. If the aspect of the diaper is so darned embarrassing, then why the hell did he tell a reporter about it and that his diaper was wet. Did the reporter hope to alleviate said embarrassment by going national with the fact that the guy was wearing a wet diaper? Let's see, that reporter making known the man's pesonal embarrassment was noted gun expert and humanitarian Massad Ayoob. Go figure.

The comparison with the cooperative activities of the shooter with those of the violent activities of the second criminal after arrest isn't relevant either. How the second supposed attacker acted AFTER arrest has no bearing on the shooter's pre-arrest activities.

I am curious about the diaper wearing man's friends. It seems he was virtually a cripple and yet they let him walk all the way up the street in the pouring rain to get the van so that they who were more fleet-footed and diaperless would not have to get wet. They all sound like good folks, no? After all, they watched him attempt to destroy evidence of a crime and yet apparently none reported the crime to the cops.

 

[RickD]

Who, exactly, is the capital-C Criminal?

No knife was ever found. It remains unclear whether he or Bourque disposed of it along the escape route, or whether Dubois' weapon was actually the blood-soaked telescoping baton discovered in the front seat of the Mitsubishi.

Note to self: "blood-soaked telescoping baton."

Elumba also told the jury how Bourque was so hostile and potentially violent when questioned that the detective had requested additional cops for security in the interview room.

Fall River Officer Randy Barboza testified that when he caught Bourque inside the impound lot, the man had grabbed a metal pipe and raised it to club him. The officer drew his issue S&W Model 5946, drew down on Bourque in a Weaver stance, and prepared to shoot him center-mass with 9mm Silvertip if he didn't drop the weapon. Bourque had dropped the weapon, but still fought Barboza and other cops until they subdued him and brought him, still combative, to the PD. I watched the jurors' eyes widen as Barboza spoke. They were realizing, "Tessitore was up against men so violent and dangerous that the cops almost had to shoot one of them that night!"

The man has a way with improvised weapons.

The prosecution took approximately three and a half days. When the state rested, Butts countered with a defense that lasted no more than two hours. Allowed to do so by recent Massachusetts's case law, Butts submitted to the jury the criminal record of the late Kyle Dubois, which included a conviction for armed robbery at knifepoint.

e called Dr. Ronald Ebert, a forensic psychologist who had evaluated the defendant and determined that posttrauma confusion was the reason Tessitore had fled and attempted to dispose of the gun. In a physically and psychologically debilitated state already, the traumatic act of shooting a man and nearly being killed himself had simply been too much for him. "People avoid stimuli that reminds them of trauma," Dr. Ebert explained to the jurors. "Getting rid of the gun is a way to make it not happen, to make it go away."

Massachusetts is not reciprocal with any other state. Bob was prima facie guilty of illegal CCW, and our only chance was a doctrine of competing harms defense, which Judge Garsh would not allow because of unusual Bay State case law that she interpreted to limit that defense to someone who had been specifically threatened beforehand. On the three nights of mercy trips prior to the shooting, Bob had deliberately left his carry gun at home, but on the day in question, he got rushed helping another friend, was picked up there, and didn't remember his gun was still on until he had already crossed the state line.

I think y'all should withdraw before your reputations suffer further damage here at TFL.

Rick

 

[Al Norris]

On the three nights of mercy trips prior to the shooting, Bob had deliberately left his carry gun at home, but on the day in question, he got rushed helping another friend, was picked up there, and didn't remember his gun was still on until he had already crossed the state line.

Ya see, what I don't get is that the defendant knew what the laws were. When he realized he was still carrying, he should have secured his gun for safe travel. If he didn't know the safe travel laws, he shouldn't have been carrying in the first place.

Should I point out that if your carry method is so comfortable as to forget you are carrying... Well, simply put, you shouldn't be carrying. The gun is supposed to be comforting, not comfortable to the point of forgetfullness.

I don't want to belabor this point, but if this was a LEO who had done this, we would be all over him. In after-action discussions, I would think we would all take the objective view of what the defendant did right and what he did wrong. This so that whatever went wrong, we could learn from it.

It's not so much that the man had a right to defend his life, but that he broke the law(s) in doing so.

1) He was unaware of his carry weapon and crossed a state line where his CL was invalid.
2) After the shoot, he did not report it to the authorities.
3) He fled the scene.
4) He tried to destroy evidence.

No's. 2, 3 and 4 paint a bad picture.

If this guy had reported and waited for the police to arrive, he may have had a better chance at trial. No. 1 may have then been allowed to be admitted in defense as the law of compeating harms. I'd just about bet that the Judge wouldn't allow that because of No's. 2, 3 and 4. (does anyone know what the prior precedent involved, that Ayoob mentioned in the article?)

What we can't say at this point in time, is what would have happened in court, with the jury, had this guy followed reasonable procedures, instead of acting like a crook. Having been on a jury, I can tell you that perceptions of the actions taken, mean as much or more than the explanation of why they did what they did.

 

[RickD]

When he realized he was still carrying, he should have secured his gun for safe travel.

Had he taken your sage advice would have gotten the **** beat out of him.

Do we support RKBA and self defense or not? I ask this simple question again -- How would you have voted had you been on the jury?

ut if this was a LEO who had done this, we would be all over him.

Speak for yourself. I would have voted to acquit. You?

so comfortable as to forget you are carrying.

Nonsense.

It's not so much that the man had a right to defend his life, but that he broke the law(s) in doing so.

You have that exactly backward.

he may have had a better chance at trial.

Thank you for your speculation. Any reason to think this prosecutor would have done as you say?

No. 1 may have then been allowed to be admitted in defense as the law of compeating harms

Doesn't look like it.

Having been on a jury, I can tell you that perceptions of the actions taken, mean as much or more than the explanation of why they did what they did

Would you have voted to convict or acquit him?

Rick

 

[USP45usp]

Choose accordingly

Life or death... that really shouldn't be that hard of a choice, with some of us anyway.

Wayne

 

[RickD]

That's what I'm thinkin'.

Others appear to be beholding to mere Acts enacted by a corrupt government rather than the concept of Natural Rights.

Separates the wheat from the flaky crap on the outside. They can't even answer a frickin' simple question.

Rick

 

[Al Norris]

Since this is the first time you have directly asked me (and incidently, the first I posted on this thread), I'll answer in the only way I know.... I don't have all the facts.

While I would lean towards nullification on the one charge of unlawful possesion, without knowing all the facts, I would be speculating. As is everyone else here that didn't sit on that jury.

 

[RickD]

I was unaware that I *just* directly asked you. One would think that you being on the opposite side of my argument would have taken the hint in page one.

But, nice dodge, anyway.

For the record, then, you're going with, "it depends" ----> ?

This from a guy who thinks death by beating by thug(s) is preferable to violating a gun prohibition law which created the safe working environment for Thug A and his buddy, Dead-Thug-B. Kind of like the rape-victim-panyhose analogy, si'?

Rick

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Who, exactly, is the capital-C Criminal?

As near as I can tell, two younger drunk stupid criminals with a history of crime and getting caught that attacked the older one who apparently committed a felony on a regular basis by carrying illegally, but managed to be smart enough to evade the law until the time of the shooting where he then attempted to hide the fact that he was involved in criminal activity by trying to dispose of his gun in parts.

I do appreciate that he cooperated so well with authorities ... AFTER he was caught.

 

[RickD]

A "felony" that most here think is unconstitutional and should not be supported with a jury vote or a boot-licking post such as yours.

Which of the three would you want living next to you? The two thugs or the guy who lived peaceably until his life was threatened?

That man is in prison for violating an unconstitutional law.

I'd wager that you wouldn't have the character or the stones to acquit him.

Rick