Paul Hackett defends property with AR.

[Malum Prohibitum]

From the Article

[Officer] White called for backup. He arrived at a driveway in the 8700 block of Keller Road to find the three men lying face down near their small, black car and Hackett's pickup truck. With a flashlight, White saw a strap on Hackett's right shoulder and "what appeared to be an assault rifle hanging along his right side," White's report said.

White told Hackett to put away the rifle and "not take things into his own hands."

Fee was the only person charged. He is scheduled to plead to the charges Jan. 24, according to court records.

During the investigation, Hackett told police Nov. 30 that he was carrying an AR-15. He said one round was in the chamber and that he usually has 28 rounds in the magazine. He also told police that he did not point the weapon at the three men, the safety was on and he never put his finger on the trigger.

Hackett said he had followed a trail of fluid left by the car, and the vehicle stopped in a driveway. Hackett told police that he hopped out of his truck and that he was armed.

"He told the boys to 'Get the ---- out of the car and get on the ground.' ... He said he did not touch the vehicle with the rifle and maintained his distance. 'I knew they saw I was armed,' he said. He said he had done this about 200 times in Iraq, but this time there was not a translation problem," the Indian Hill police report said.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Ohio Law

Is it illegal in Ohio to have an AR-15 on one's shoulder? I do not know anything about Ohio law.

Assuming it is not (and this is just an assumption), then why would it be illegal to make a citizen's arrest while one is hanging off the shoulder?

Maybe some lawyer in Ohio could let us know.

 

[bouis]

Of course you can arrest someone without using force or the threat of force. Saying you can't is just silly. What kind of citation would you like?

 

[bouis]

Okay, okay. Here goes: an arrest, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is a seizure or physical restraint. So what's a seizure? It's "the act or an instance of taking possession of a person or property by legal right or process."

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

Malum Prohibitum

why do you want to go and quote the facts? if they were interested in facts they woulda read em in the beginning! the facts don't serve in any way to bolster the fantasies and delusons that some folks need to make em happy. you sir are a kill joy .

 

[ssr]

Funny how most the people on DU are supporting his actions, while if he was not a prominent Dem they would be condemning them as the actions of a gun lunatic, redneck, ignoramis.

He may have apprehended them, but as for me, I wouldn't pull a gun into action unless I was going to use it or had no hesitation to use it. Was he really going to shoot them for crashing into his fence? And after chasing them down? I know he was counting on them submitting to him and his AR, but if he is not willing to use it, he shouldn't pull it out.

 

[S&Wfan]

It sounds like the trial lawyers have really gotten to a bunch of you fine people.

Both our honest citizens and our career criminals have become highly educated and trained that the honest folks cannot stop the bad guys from doing whatever they want . . . without the victim going to jail themselves.

Criminals, and potential perps too, have been trained by their peers that a cop can no longer shoot 'em as they run away . . . so run away they do . . .

By the same token, our National Guard troops are required to flee their posts rather than enforce the sanctity of our borders against illegal criminals armed with guns that are illegal in their country.

DOES ANYONE SEE A PROBLEM EVOLVING HERE?

Too many decades of millionaire trial lawyers "serving" us as politicians . . . making laws that only benefit the lawyers in becoming wealthier . . . even if the laws are to the peril of good, honest folks everywhere. Their usual "take" is the first 40% of the judgement winnings off the top . . . and then their client gets the other 60% . . . less all the lawyers "expenses." Hmmmmm.

At this rate, you soon won't need your precious guns at all, for using one will get you locked up. So folks . . . for your own benefit . . . turn your guns in now, and convince your friends to do likewise.

Big Brother will protect you.

 

[ssr]

No, the point is, what was he going to do? Was he going to shoot them for crashing into his fence? If he is not willing to shoot, then he shouldn't pull it out. I have no problem with deadly force when needed. Deadly force for crashing into your fence?

 

[Glockfan.45]

I think if you are going to pull a gun it should only be if you are willing to use it. I dont think crashing into a fence and driving off is a good reason to shoot a person. So by that logic he was wrong.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

i guess its easier

to not read the article or other posts before you make assesments. keeps those pesky facts from getting in the way

 

[QuestionEverything]

I think if you are going to pull a gun it should only be if you are willing to use it.

The rifle was hanging from its strap with the safety on the whole time. Sounds like he just wanted to be proactive in defending his neighborhood and armed himself with the weapon he was most accustomed to.

 

[bouis]

Some more facts:

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070110/NEWS01/701100339/-1/CINCI

I haven't read them all but this one has a great line:

http://news.cincinnati.com/assets/AB56675110.PDF

"I'll be damned if someone is going to go through my fence. They could have knocked on the door."

http://news.cincinnati.com/assets/AB56681110.PDF

"He said they were in the vehicle when [Hackett] approached the vehicle, tapped the gun on the driver's side window, and ordered them out of the vehicle, to lay on the ground, and the cops are on the way. When asked about the rifle, [the BG] stated the rifle was never pointed at him."

"[T]he vehicle was flashing his lights and honking his horn. He stated they were still in the car [in the driveway after pulling over] when [Hackett] ordered them out of the car and to lay on the ground. He said [the third BG] was the only one standing at first, and eventually he went to the ground after [Hackett] was yelling at him to get on the ground and quit being a smartass. [The second BG] stated that in his opinion, the rifle was not pointed at any of them."[/QUOTE]

 

[Glockfan.45]

A CCW in a holster and a AR15 hanging from your shoulder are not the same thing at all. If the people in the car had told him to go pound sand and continued fleeing what do you think he may have done? If he had shot them then I would say charge him with murder. His having a rifle out shows intent and was way out of line and uncalled for.

Sounds like he just wanted to be proactive in defending his neighborhood

Yes I am sure all his neighbors can sleep soundly at night knowing their fences are safe.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

really?

A CCW in a holster and a AR15 hanging from your shoulder are not the same thing at all. why not?why a ccw? you can't open carry? is he in a no open carry state?

 

[Glockfan.45]

Its not the same thing because he had no reason to produce a weapon in the first place. Chasing down somebody with a loaded weapon for hitting your fence and driving away isnt within reason. Honestly to me the guy just sounds plain nutty. If one of the passengers of the car had a CCW and saw a guy comming at them with a AR, and draws his weapon now this man has created a situation that didnt exist before. As I said I am all for self defence. I am not however for vigilante justice.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

is that

ohio law your citing? or illinois law? i think it was the possibility the other guys might be armed that motivated him to be

 

[Glockfan.45]

is that ohio law your citing? or illinois law? i think it was the possibility the other guys might be armed that motivated him to be

Ohio law says open carry is legal FWIW. The guy should have got a plate number off the car and called the police. There was no reason for him to make an armed confrontation. If the other guys were armed then it was a dangerous situation that he put himself into willingly. Having a weapon to defend yourself and looking for trouble (as this man was doing) are not one and the same.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

so he was legal?

whats thre beef then?

 

[Glockfan.45]

The beef is he was looking to cause trouble. There was no reason for him to chase after them armed. Getting the plate number off the car and calling the police would have been sufficient. If things had gone wrong and this guy had fired shots then odds are somebody would have died over a fence, and a shoot out would have occured in a suburban area that would have otherwise never happened. Then the next thing you know the media climbs all over it and reports a "gun loony with a big bad assault weapon" shot some kids because they ran into his fence. You know how the media spin machine works after that it would become another reason for antis to say that guns in private hands for self defence is a bad idea all over a fence :banghead: .

 

[Cosmoline]

Wasn't Hackett well known for CRITICIZING the D's on gun control?

I'm for limiting government. I'm for fiscal responsibility. I'm for a strong national defense. I'm for fair trade. This means I don't need Washington to tell me how to live my personal life or worship my God. And I don't need Washington to dictate what decisions my wife can make with her doctor any more than I need Washington to tell me what guns I keep in my gun safe. I fought for Iraq's freedom, not to come back and have a government tell me I can't have my freedom because the world is too dangerous. Our freedoms are what make America great and desirable to the rest of the world and any government that wants to take away its people's freedoms under the pretense of national security is what makes the world more dangerous.

As far as his reaction, if you've intruded violently onto a man's property, he is within his rights to point a rifle at you. I've done it myself several times. YOU DO NOT TRESPASS!! And if you have to, you keep your hands in sight and state your purpose very clearly.

 

[Glockfan.45]

As far as his reaction, if you've intruded violently onto a man's property, he is within his rights to point a rifle at you. I've done it myself several times. YOU DO NOT TRESPASS!! And if you have to, you keep your hands in sight and state your purpose very clearly.

Cosmoline I would agree with you on this except for one thing, this didnt happen on his property. This happened down the street from his home. If they were hanging out on his lawn then by all means point a rifle at them while you instruct them to get off your property if you wish, but dont chase them down the street with a gun. Thats the sort of nonsense that makes gun owners look bad.

 

[ssr]

It was just a stupid thing to do. Who knows what the deal was with the guys in the car. They could be carrying and have drugs in the car and under parole vioplation. Who knows. There could be all kinds of reasons why they would not want the police involved. Next thing you know, as they're getting out to the car they shoot at him. Or maybe Hackett gets them. Then what. He chased them down the road and shoots them with an "assault rifle" for crashing into his fence and running. Odds are they are just punks who swerved off the road and crashed and split, true, but, you don't know.

So, for those who think he did OK, if someone were to crash into your mailbax and take off, would you chase them down the street with an AR or AK and get them off the road and hold them down on the ground? Rather than just easily get their plate number?

 

[S&Wfan]

I've read the article.

Things go bump in the night.

Alarmed homeowner arms himself and goes outside to protect his home and property.

Trails the perps and holds them at bay and requests for law enforcement to come get 'em.

Law enforcement arrives, discovers a felony violation, as well as some misdemeanor violations and arrests the perp who did them.

The armed citizen, having done his duty, returns to his home.

Sounds like America before the trial lawyers started looking for perps wanting to make them some money in civil court.

Folks . . . seriously . . . if he'd reported that fence damage in the morning, what is the likelyhood of the cops investigating a broken fence the next day? Slim to none . . . and Slim left town.

In the end, the homeowner's actions got a bad guy off the streets temporarily, who was crusing the town at 4AM with a pair of brass knuckles in his pocket who also had a criminal record. Him and his buddies were no angels. And, just like the cops do, the BGs respected the gun the man carried, and this kept the peace.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

WOW! I hope I never get somebody like Glockfan.45 on my jury. If I go to arrest criminals after witnessing a crime, I am "looking to cause trouble" or "looking for trouble" and engaging in "vigilante justice" if I arm myself first, even if I comply with all applicable laws.


Statements like this:

If the people in the car had told him to go pound sand and continued fleeing what do you think he may have done?

just sound like the usual speculative anti-gun hysteria.

Did you ever consider that he brought it for self defense and the "what would he do" answer is simple, what he did before - chase!

But, oh, no, he would mow down those angelic children with his deadly "assault weapon!" Spray the neighborhood with hot lead raining through the backs of fleeing, scared children who pulled a prank.

Uh, yeah.

If that was the case, then why didn't this "nutty" guy (all the quotes are your words) start pumping rounds into the back car?

I mean, really, give me a break and drop the hysteria.

We all know how much more superior and civilized your Glock is compared to an AR-15.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

funny in a sad way

that the bad guys in the car allege no wrong doing but he gets dumped on by folks here. maybe folks live so long in cower and hide states that it becomes a permenant mode. i'd hesitate to judge him based on that article and my own fears. i'd wanna give him a chance to explain what he thought. i've got a couple enemyss sometyhing like that i might wann check em out to make sure it wasn't some guy who mhas an old beef with me. i don't like loose ends and looking over my shoulder