Submitted by darksider54 t3_117uv83 in massachusetts
[removed]
Submitted by darksider54 t3_117uv83 in massachusetts
[removed]
Yeah I wasn't sure if this was the subbreddit to ask but since I live in mass I thought this was the 2nd best
You are, in MA you have a duty to retreat.
There is no definite answer, there are a million different scenarios that could take place. With that being said, Mass is a “duty to retreat” state, that means you can only defend yourself if you have no other option. So if you have words with some dude at a bar and he swings at you you’re not supposed to retaliate if you can get away but if he comes after you in a bathroom stall and you can’t get out then you can kick him in the nuts and stick his head in the toilet. Same thing at home, if someone breaks in and threatens you you’re supposed to get out if you can, if you’re cornered and have no other option then you can stab them in the face with a soldering iron.
>Same thing at home, if someone breaks in and threatens you you’re supposed to get out if you can, if you’re cornered and have no other option then you can stab them in the face with a soldering iron.
Most of what you said is correct except this part. The inside of your home is the only place you don't have a duty to retreat before using force against an attacker.
Are you sure about that? I thought your statement only applies in a Stand Your Ground state? Pretty sure I recall incidents where home invaders in MA have sued the home owners successfully for injuries they incurred when the homeowner beat them out of the house. FWIW, I'm no lawyer so I'm not challenging you. Just questioning.
Yeah I think it’s called the Castle Doctrine. Gives you the right to defend your home - MA does not abide. https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/castle-doctrine-states/
There is Castle Doctrine in MA
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted, this is correct. Section 8A says:
Section 8A. 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.
Probably for the same reason you are being downvoted.
It’s complex, the key phrase is “about to inflict great bodily injury…”. Also, castle doctrine is not one specific law it is several laws that states use. In a castle doctrine state, you can shoot someone in your house regardless of whether you believe you’re in immediate danger. What you stated may be considered a piece of castle doctrine, but compared to other states it’s much more restrictive here. If you shoot a burglar on sight in Massachusetts, or beat him, and he was unarmed you are in potentially serious trouble if he is injured enough that he can’t walk away. It would be different in a state with true castle doctrine laws.
We have castle doctrine in Massachusetts, in your house their is no duty to retreat, but Massachusetts is a ass backwards state and though possibly not criminally liable (which is beyond a reasonable doubt) you may be civilly liable (which threshold is much lower to convict as more likely than not)
I was the Foreman on a murder trial here in the Commonwealth back in ‘08. One of the contentious points was that a fight was initiated, and the person who started it swung but missed. According to Massachusetts law, that means that you are actually allowed to defend yourself, even though the person didn’t make contact. In other words, if a person in Massachusetts takes a swing at you, that alone is enough to rightfully, defend yourself. I don’t know if that’s what you’re looking for, but there it is.
That is good to know, but not exactly the reason I ask cuz someone was antagonizing me really aggressively not like you said a mean word. More like come hit me bro, come do it, and when I walked away they kept following me saying to attack them, and just f up stuff, also that if I attack they will get a knife on me. I know they just wanted to get a rise out of me to attack. I just wasn't sure if i would get in trouble or not? Sorry for the stupid question
You wanted to know if you'd get in trouble? It sounds like you'd have gotten a knife in your belly
The answer depends on how good a lawyer you can afford.
Jesus.
Being goaded into a fight and self defense are very different. In the first case, not being able to control your emotions doesn't give you a legal right to assault someone.
Our Subreddit's ( r/Massachusetts ) objective is to discuss topics of interest and awareness concerning the state of Massachusetts in the United States of America. - If you are seeing this message, it means your topic was outside the scope of that objective, and it may not belong in our Subreddit.
pillbinge t1_j9dwa0a wrote
This is the wrong sub to ask. And whatever the law says, take it with a grain of salt. There's still more context. The thing you're looking for are "fighting words". Fighting words might defend you when called to stand for what you've done, but they don't justify anything. Not legally. No one is encouraged to fight.
Bottom line, usually, is that you're responsible for your own actions. You can't batter someone just because they said you were fugly. You might get away with it if they screamed the n-word at you. But these aren't hard-and-fast rules, so the general rule is, don't fight.