Posted on 12/27/2004 4:01:52 PM PST by pabianice
One day in 1994, Doug Burns was leaving an appointment at Mass General Hospital when he was set upon by a thug standing over 6 feet tall and weighing more than 300 pounds.
The criminal first battered Burns and when Burns protested the assault the thug threw a weapon at Burns and then charged Burns.
Burns then drew his licensed handgun and shouted at the attacker to stop and then yelled at everyone nearby to call 911. Many calls were then received by 911, telling of the attack and how the victim was holding the criminal at gunpoint.
When the Mass State Police arrived, they arrested Doug Burns after taking the attacker into custody. Handcuffed and stuffed into a cruiser, Doug was never read his Miranda rights and never allowed to make a phone call. The police told Doug that in Massachusetts, no one has the right to use a gun in self defense unless they are police officers.
At a pre-trial hearing, not a single independent witness supported police charges against Doug. The 911 calls were never entered into the trial record. Not a single independent witness was called to testify.
Nonetheless, the jury voted not guilty on all charges except for one juror who stated that no one had the right to possess a gun. The judge refused to disqualify her and seat an alternate juror.
At the second trial, still with no independent witnesses allowed, Doug was found guilty of assault and battery, fined $19 and given 20 minutes probation. Because of the conviction, his LTC was revoked.
The 300 pound thug went on with his life unscathed. It turns out the guy is a Suffolk County (Boston) Deputy Sheriff who had been out for three years on a disability pension after being involved in a fight in prison.
In 2003 (nine years later), the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled in Bruce Callender v. Suffolk County, 01-P-0983, that thug Callender had lied in his disability application and reversed Callender’s disability pension, ruling that Callender had lied about his injuries. The perjured disability was three years before Callender lied about his assault upon Burns. Yet, during Burns’ trial, Callender was “assisted” into the courtroom by State Police, spoke in a “shakey” voice, and gave the appearance of an elderly, crippled man. The Boston Herald printed a picture of Callender shaking the hand of Johnnie Cochran in 1996, in which Callender looks hale and hearty.
So, the morale of the story is that if you hold at bay with a handgun a perjured Massachusetts deputy sheriff who is trying to kill you, then you, not he, will be prosecuted.
Welcome to the Massachusetts “justice” system, where only some people have the right to defend themselves with a gun, and only some people have the right to be read their Miranda rights, and where not everyone gets to make a phone call after they’re arrested.
--------------------------------------------- (The Outdoor Message is not available online.)
Anyonw who doubts this story didn't grow up in Boston.
glad we put the ass back in Mass.
props go out to Mr.Burns.
Now get back to running that evil nuclear power plant.
Sounds like BS to me. Clearly not correct.
Not so sure, the thug was a deputy sheriff (on disability). Kops in Massachusetts are awfully chummy. And if the arresting officers were Boston P.D. there is an excellent chance there was a racial element to it also. (The thug shook hands with Johnnie Cochran). Add to that an "O. J. (racially blinded) jury and...
...it makes way too much sense to me.
It is just the kind of story that the LSM won't touch with a barge pole. It happens all the time, but it has to be sitting out in the middle of the room, stinking the joint up, like the O. J. case before anyone in the LSM even admits they might just smell something.
"the MA law has to be unconstitutional" uh ah, not in this State, you'd be horrified at what goes on here,,,,
This principle goes back to when all people were property of the King.
Anytime two of his subjects strove, both were punished for injuring or potentially injuring the King's property.
The same held true for slaves.
For the most part, the American people have gleefully given up the rights that our forefathers suffered and died for for the false security of big brother government.
next time shot the SOB in the head and walk away.
Well since most judges started as lawyers, I say start with the lawyers and work our way up.
BLAM, BLAM, BLAM,BLAM, BLAM, BLAM, BLAM, BLAM, BLAM, CLICK, SLAM, BLAM, BLAM, BLAM, BLAM, BLAM, BLAM, BLAM, BLAM, BLAM any questions?
Amen!
Psst! Judges ARE lawyers!
And come to think of it ---- WHO writes these laws? LAWYERS! Many who are illegally holding office in the Legislative Branch (and some Executive Branch) contrary to our Constitution mandates for the SEPERATION of POWERS!
Lawyers are 'officers of the court' - part of the Judicial Branch of govt.
They are traitorously breaking the law of this country as set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America.
LPL Judges in MA do not recognise the COnstitution, of the US or of the Commonwealth of MA.
Crap like this, and activist judges who imposed gay marriage. WHich incidently, isn't legal either.
Every case, and every news report on them, here, is agenda driven. I swer they run from "real" trouble.
Ah,my friend, your comment reminds me of an antidote re: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., one of the great CJ of the SCOTUS.
A fellow SC judge had come to call. When pleasant visit was over the judge, as a parting farewell said, "Don't forget to do justice."
Holmes immediately bolted down his front steps and caught up with the man's carriage as it was slowly pulling away.The carriage stopped.
"No,sir!!" cried Holmes,confronting the startled man. "No,sir! It is not our duty to do justice. It is our duty to up hold the law!"
That is why our courts are referred to as "Courts of Law", not "Courts of Justice". And that, IMHO, is how we have ended up as we are today. Judges have chosen to decree/enforce/decide on the side of "Justice" -- justice as they perceive it, e.g. "civil rights","homosexual rights", et. al.
As to the courts being Courts of Law. Well, apparently "The Law be damned. Let 'Justice' triumph, even though the Heavens should tumble."
And that's why a (failed) suicide got you thrown in the slammer. Or, if successful, stopped your family/heirs from collecting one single penny of your estate. *
*Though it must be said that in many,many cases the crown winked at this esp. when the heirs would be left destitute.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.