A Surprisingly Good Self-Defense Decision From Massachusetts’ Top Court

Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court isn’t exactly known for its support for the Second Amendment. The state’s top court has upheld a number of gun laws, including an onerous process for out-of-state visitors to lawfully bear arms. This week, though, the court decided in favor of a man who was charged with first-degree murder after he unintentionally shot an innocent bystander while defending himself against a legitimate threat against his life. 

In their ruling, the justices on the SJC held that in situations like the one Kenneth Santana-Rodriguez found himself in, the state must prove that the shots fired in self-defense were “wanton or reckless,” and even then a first-degree murder charge is off the table, though prosecutors could still pursue a charge of involuntary manslaughter. From the Gun Owners Action League: 

Attorneys Daniel Hagan, a Board Member of GOAL, Daniel D. Kelly, and Kyle J. DeSousa, who represent Kenneth Rodriguez, are calling today’s ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court a complete and total victory for lawful self-defense in the Commonwealth.

“This decision represents a sea change in Massachusetts self-defense law,” said Attorney Daniel Hagan. “For the first time in 250 years of Commonwealth history, the Court has made clear that those who act lawfully to defend their own lives are not to be treated as murderers for a tragic accident beyond their control.”

Prior to this ruling, a defendant in such a situation could face first-degree murder charges — even when acting lawfully in self-defense. The Court’s opinion now ensures that mere negligence is not enough for criminal liability. Only conduct that rises to the level of wanton or reckless disregard for human life may be punished.

“This is a groundbreaking recognition of the right of self-preservation,” Hagan said. “Gun owners and citizens across Massachusetts can take comfort knowing that if they are ever forced to defend themselves lawfully, they will not be treated as criminals for an unforeseeable tragedy.”

“Thanks to the tireless and superb work of Attorney Dan Hagan and his brilliant legal team, self-defense law in Massachusetts looks completely different today than it did yesterday,” said Jim Wallace, Executive Director of GOAL. “This is a rare instance where the Commonwealth’s highest court has finally stood up and done the right thing and protected the citizens’ civil rights.”

Obviously it’s a tragedy when an innocent bystander is hurt or killed by someone acting to defend themselves, but should those tragic circumstances result in criminal charges? Gun control activists would say yes, of course, because they’ll approve of anything that has a chilling effect on the number of folks lawfully carrying a firearm for self-protection. I can even understand why someone who was accidentally shot (or their family, if they were killed) would want to see charges filed agains the person who injured them, even if that person was acting to protect their own life. 

And honestly, the SJC decision still allows for that, at least if the armed citizen was acting with wanton or reckless disregard for others. If someone’s assaulting you, you can’t just wildly bang away until your magazine is empty, and the SJC’s decision isn’t a “license to murder”, as I’m sure some anti-gunners will claim. This is a common sense decision that hopefully will likely very few opportunities to be applied, since the vast majority of defensive gun uses don’t result in injuries or the deaths of innocent bystanders. 

Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.

Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.