As a proud Arlingtonian, born and bred in (still) the largest town in America, the home of “Uncle Sam,” and mentioned (as Menotomy, its former name) in “Paul Revere’s Ride,” I am obligated to report this story.
You can’t get more gentrified, liberal, suburban Boston than Middlesex County, which includes such famous locales as Cambridge, Lexington and Concord. But Betar USA, Magen Herut Canada, and Shields of David all say that until all charges are dropped against Scott Hayes, Americans, and especially American Jews and supporters of Israel, should stay away themselves and take their business elsewhere. This is because Hayes, who is not Jewish but who has attended pro-Isreal rallies, was charged with shooting a pro-Hamas activist who charged across the street and attacked Hayes during a pro-Israel demonstration in Newton. (Ah, Newton! My chess club played matches against both Newton high schools, regarded as among the best schools in the county…) A GoFundMe set up to support Hayes has raised nearly $250,000 with more than 3,500 people donating.
Hayes was released on bail after his arraignment on Friday.
Michael Sinensky, Executive Director of Betar USA said, “These are dangerous times in America for those who stand with Israel. When a decorated Iraq War veteran and American citizen is prosecuted for defending himself against an individual who attacked him and openly supports a terrorist organization, it sends a chilling message: Middlesex County is not a safe place for anyone who values liberty, justice, and security.
He continued, “District Attorney Marian Ryan must know and understand this case is much larger than Scott Hayes. This case sends a chilling message to all Americans they cannot protect themselves in Massachusetts if attacked. We urge all Americans to stand with us, refuse to visit, and withhold their spending in all towns in Middlesex county, including Newton, Massachusetts, until this gross miscarriage of justice is corrected….We expect other organizations to join our call to action and will commence an advertising and marketing campaign calling on Americans to avoid visiting until charges against Hayes are dropped.”
Yes, it’s come to this.
Sarcasm Alert! Gee, what a terrific job the political Left has done unifying the country and not stoking hate and division.
I’m sure there won’t be any violence emerging from this segment of the population if Republicans and Donald Trump deliver the crushing defeat these aspiring totalitarians deserve. I wonder how long it will take for the media in my old home state to declare that Trump’s “hateful rhetoric” is responsible for the shooting of Hayes’ attacker, just as the former President is clearly responsible for the second attempt at taking his life, according to the mainstream media.
“This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we will be lucky to live through it.”
Ethics Alarms 
I’m not sure how that’s going to work. Some of the wealthiest Jews in MA live in Middlesex county. The Leventhal-Sidman Jewish Community Center is in Needham. There are numerous synagogues, Jewish day schools, Jewish bookstores, kosher bakeries, butchers etc. in the Newton/Needham/Wellesley/Brookline area.
Oh, I’m sure that the attempted boycott will fail. The issue is that I have difficulty imagining the community I grew up in getting to this point.
Incidentally, the video shows a situation almost identical to how Trayvon Martin was shot. One can argue that it’s excessive force, but Mass. law says that a victim doesn’t have to submit to a beating, and can shoot if he feels it’s necessary.
I believe Massachusetts is really strict with self-defense. I think you are required to flee and can only defend yourself if there is no place to flee to. Years ago, a woman was convicted of murder because a home invader chased her into the basement and she shot him as he had her cornered. Because she hadn’t tried to escape through the window well, she couldn’t claim self-defense.
If someone attacks you in the open, I don’t think you can claim self defense even if they are shooting at you.
If that’s accurate, it’s a recent change. I handled an appeal in Mass. of a man convicted of murder when a bully who had beaten him up before was “after him,” and the guy went to his apartment, got his gun, and shot the bully when he came at him. There was a lot of state court precedent supporting that kind of action as self-defense. When you’ve been tackled and being ounched while on your back, you may not be aware of whether anyone’s helping you or not.
I looked it up now. Yes, Massachusetts requires a duty to retreat. You have no right to defend yourself until you have exhausted ALL other options. So, your ability to claim self-defense outside your home is minimal to nonexistent. The self-defense also has to be ‘reasonable’. So, even if you tried to run, tried to hide, and the guy is coming after you with an axe, if the DA believes that shooting him was excessive, you are toast.
Remember, Massachusetts is the state that banned firearms because ‘they were specifically designed to comply with the law’.
My guess is that Hayes’ GoFundMe will be shut down and the money returned or seized. GoFundMe shut down and in some cases seized money for numerous Free Speech cases after allowing cases for BLM-type rioting. They seized and tried to redistribute the Canadian Convoy funds to charities that THEY liked better. They currently claim that they will not support legal defense funds unless they meet certain requirements (GoFundMe approves of the cause).
How can someone on his back being pummeled retreat?
“There is space. If he had any opportunity to run before this happened, it is his own fault for not retreating earlier. ” That is what I expect the DA to state. Look at what happened to Kyle Rittenhouse. He fled for quite some distance, was knocked down numerous times, was shot at, and he was denied self-defense even when he fired on a man who shot at him and was currently (and admittedly) trying to kill him. It doesn’t matter. Look at what they did to Donald Trump, convicting him in state court on federal charges that don’t even specify the crime in some cases. They charged his lawyers with crimes for giving him legal advice. His lawyers’ offices were raided and the files taken. They planned on shooting Trump’s Secret Service detail. If they do that to a billionaire and former president, what do you think they are going to do to this guy?
I am not saying it should be this way. I am just being realistic here. Hayes was on the wrong side of a political issue. As such, he has no rights and he will be destroyed by the justice system. In the immortal words of Dan Muessig “Laws are arbitrary”. The lawyers and judges in this country have allowed the court systems to become so politicized that laws no longer have meaning. Laws mean whatever the people in power say they mean and almost all the people in power in the legal system are Democrats.
First, Rittenhouse was acquitted (justifiably so), so it’s not like everyone who crossed the Left is inevitably doomed. Second, “they planned on shooting Trump’s Secret Service Detail”? What exactly is that referring to?
Go to any gun show in Upstate New York and assemble a dozen people in the building at random. They will tend to all agree that they dislike many of the gun laws in New York State, but they will assert that they are genuinely grateful not to be living in Massachusetts.
Those of us in Great Upstate may not actually know the specifics of the MA laws, but people here have heard of the “duty to retreat” in Massachusetts. People here discuss it the way small children tell ghost stories at sleep-overs.
Enough people in New York State are murdered in their own homes by burglars, housebreakers, rapists, etc. that the red-blooded citizenry prize what legal rights we still struggle valiantly to maintain.
Every case arguably has repercussions beyond its principals. When justice is not done, public faith in the rule of law is damaged, bad actors are emboldened. But the law doesn’t change because of political consequences, and I find it irresponsible to suggest a prosecutor ought to consider political ramifications in their charging decisions.
Here, there appear to be legitimate questions over whether the use of deadly force was proportionate to the threat. In the Trayvon Martin case, Martin had Zimmerman pinned and was pounding him. Zimmerman’s attempts to resist were ineffectual, and nobody was coming to his aid. The beating was clearly only going to end if Martin chose to end it or if Zimmerman escalated his use of force.
In the present case multiple bystanders intervened and helped to pull the assailant off. There’s probably going to be an issue about a struggle for control of the pistol. These are issues that an honest prosecutor could find deserving of a hearing in court.