This is an example of how stupidly ridiculous anti gun States have become

Status
Not open for further replies.
IMTHDUKE

IMTHDUKE

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,022
Location
Sweet Home Alabama
New Hampshire man arrested for firing gun into ground while catching suspected burglar
By Joshua Rhett Miller



A New Hampshire man who fired his handgun into the ground to scare an alleged burglar he caught crawling out of a neighbor's window is now facing a felony charge -- and the same potential prison sentence as the man he stopped.

...<COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL REMOVED>...

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/2...g-gun-into-ground-near-burglar/#ixzz1n2tTcnWc
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Once more we see that it pays to understand what happens when you pull that trigger.

He fired a weapon even though his own story shows that he had no reasonable belief that death or grievous injury were imminent -- a gross misunderstanding of use of force laws. Yelling "freeze" and wanting to show the guy that you are "serious" are not sufficient to justify the act of firing the weapon. In fact, depending on state law, even brandishing the gun might not have been justifiable under the circumstances.

You cannot use lethal force to defend property (except in TX, at night, yadda yadda :rolleyes:) and if you aren't IN your home, and the intruder is leaving your home, "castle doctrine" laws probably don't apply either ... especially as it wasn't even HIS home!

Unless the man was actively presenting a threat to the Mr. Fleming's LIFE -- which involves more than just being caught in the act of leaving -- deadly force isn't warranted.

If deadly force isn't warranted, discharging a firearm in a threatening manner, and in a town, is unlawful, generally speaking.
 
Last edited:
It is not at all accurate to characterize New Hampshire as an anti gun state.

As Sam points out, the man showed great ignorance of the law and very poor judgment.

Pointing a gun at an alleged burglar who was departing? Just what did he intend to do with his firearm? He could not lawfully shoot the man if he decided to leave. Nor could a sworn officer, for that matter.

Firing to show that he was "serious"? Good heavens.
 
Remember the guy in the news last week....Guy #1 saw his neighbor robbed, the neighbor grabbed the robber's gun, the robber was running away (toward an elderly neighbor's house) and so Guy #1, in his boxers, with a Desert Eagle, fires into the ground to show "he's serious" and finally ran the robber down and stiff-armed him.
He claimed to be worried that the robber would hole up in the elderly neighbor's house, but I don't think he really had cause to discharge his hand-cannon either. I didn't hear if he got in trouble for it though.
I think that in both the OP's case and the one I just wrote about, warning shots were pretty inappropriate.
 
Let's hope this wakes up New Hampshire that being ridiculous doesn't help and actually makes things worse.

That being said, "Warning shots are for the Navy/Coast Guard."
 
What about the police taking all seven of his long guns as well as the revolver he fired into the ground? How is that justified?
 
What about the police taking all seven of his long guns as well as the revolver he fired into the ground? How is that justified?
Click to expand...
Well, I don't know all the rules in NH, but he's looking at a felony charge. If it sticks he'd lose them anyway, though I believe in many cases the conviced is allowed to sell or give them away rather than simply forfeit them to the department.
 
It would be much the same in Ohio.

A firearm is not a signalling device. It's a survival tool. If life/serious bodily harm is not immediately threatened, pointing the firearm at the departing criminal is felony assault. Discharge in any direction could be viewed as reckless endangerment; attempted murder if in the general direction of the escaping burglar.

Observe. Record. Report.
 
Once more we see that it pays to understand what happens when you pull that trigger.

He fired a weapon even though his own story shows that he had no reasonable belief that death or grievous injury were imminent -- a gross misunderstanding of use of force laws. Yelling "freeze" and wanting to show the guy that you are "serious" are not sufficient to justify the act of firing the weapon. In fact, depending on state law, even brandishing the gun might not have been justifiable under the circumstances.

You cannot use lethal force to defend property (except in TX, at night, yadda yadda ) and if you aren't IN your home, and the intruder is leaving your home, "castle doctrine" laws probably don't apply either ... especially as it wasn't even HIS home!

Unless the man was actively presenting a threat to the Mr. Fleming's LIFE -- which involves more than just being caught in the act of leaving -- deadly force isn't warranted.

If deadly force isn't warranted, discharging a firearm in a threatening manner, and in a town, is unlawful, generally speaking.
__________________
Click to expand...


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ + 1000

Outdoorsman1
 
Well, I don't know all the rules in NH, but he's looking at a felony charge. If it sticks he'd lose them anyway, though I believe in many cases the conviced is allowed to sell or give them away rather than simply forfeit them to the department.
Click to expand...

OK, I'm not defending what he did, but confiscate all of a mans weapons before he is convicted? So much for innocent until proven guilty.
 
Gentlemen...

Your must remember that criminals are now a protected class, who must not be hindered while they take the property of others. No matter how much you, or someone else is about to lose it appears that they have a right to take whatever they want. :what:

If you are going to stay out of the slammer yourself you must limit your actions to calling 911, and observing the departing robber so that you can give the poiice a description when they eventually arrive.

While you may be upset about all this, remember that the statutes that let this come about were written and enacted by the various office holders that we elect. :uhoh:

An election is coming up this fall, and before it arrives you might give this some thought. :mad:
 
No wonder this nation is going down the tubes. There are so many ways to commit a felony today without even thinking about it. I guess that is the point. If you are going to own a gun today, you truly have to think about every single thing you do. Doesn't bode well for this man. Fifty years ago, that would have been a good nab and accolades by the police and mayor. If you can't look out for yourself or your neighbors, the police certainly won't. They will only provide written report, nothing more.

He should have kept called the cops and written a letter to his neighbor with pictures of course as the man stole their house blind and state, I am sorry, this is America today. I hope your insurance covers your losses. Wild, what kind of nation is this any longer?
 
I'll chime and say New Hampshire, like Vermont and Maine, get D- grades from the anti-gun Brady Campaign for having "lax" gun laws. Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts are the New England states known as anti-gun.

Tennessee is considered a pro-gun state but warning shots are not allowed in self-defense. Use of lethal force requires an imminent threat of death or greivous bodily harm.

Locally, we have had cases where people have detained burglars at gun point for arrest by responding officers without repercussions. But no warning shots.

We even had a case of a man attempting to detain a burglar, who tried to grab the gun, there was a struggle over the gun with shot fired, and the burglar swerved at the man with his getaway vehicle. The man shot and wounded the burglar as he was driving away. The man had 911 on his cellphone so there was an audio recording of the whole incident. The grand jury returned "no bill".
 
This isn't about certain states being "anti-gun" or about criminals being a "protected class". It comes down to understanding the laws regarding use of force BEFORE one is put into a situation where they may come into play. Warning shots are for idiots, as we've concluded here in the forums many a time. You've GOT to FULLY understand the ramifications of pulling the trigger in the applicable circumstance. Some shots are justified....others, not nearly so much.
 
Actually, by the word of the law, they are both criminals. One's behavior may seem more criminal than the other, but when the word of the law is followed, both are in violation of the law
 
Ignorance of the law is no defense. If you are going to carry a gun, the LEAST one dcan do is familiarize himself or herself with the laws regarding such a choice. The law is black and white, and debating on whether "grandpa" is a hazard and needs to be locked up is pointless. He used a firearm to violate the law, a very serious offense. My personal opinion is moot....My opinion doesn't affect the law or how its carried out....which, I believe, was sort of the intent....to take personal feelings out and codify certain actions as either criminal or not. His actions, under the law, were criminal, and how I feel about that is largely irrelevant.
 
If you are going to stay out of the slammer yourself you must limit your actions to calling 911, and observing the departing robber so that you can give the poiice a description when they eventually arrive.

While you may be upset about all this, remember that the statutes that let this come about were written and enacted by the various office holders that we elect.
Click to expand...
However, let's carry this a bit further.

As Kleanbore pointed out, even if he was enacting a "citizen's arrest" and even if he could use "force" (brandishing a gun at the thief) to effect his arrest (not sure what NH's laws say about that) -- there is NO way he could have KILLED the man for theft, nor killed him to prevent him resisting arrest or attempting to flee the scene.

That has been part of most of "western" jurisprudence since long before most of our ancestors even arrived on this continent.

Even a police officer couldn't shoot him for attempting to flee.

Even if the man is arrested, tried, and convicted -- he cannot lawfully be KILLED for theft, even by the State. Let alone by someone standing in his neighbor's yard, making an on-the-spot judgment.

So... WHAT was he going to do? Fire a warning shot to show that he was "serious" ... but "serious" about what? That he wanted the man to stop? Sure. But "serious" that he would KILL him if he didn't? That's murder.

So YES, you MUST understand the law and think clearly about when you may and may not draw, brandish, or FIRE a deadly weapon.

As others have said, it is a LIFE-SAVER, not a signaling device. Use it only if you earnestly believe you are going to DIE, right now, if you don't.
 
Too bad he didn't fire the gun into the ground, then beat the living crap outta the burglar with his Louisville slugger, hand the trespasser the bat then hold the BG at gunpoint until the police arrived. Then he could have claimed like Dirty Harry "In all the excitement, I can't remember which came first" Hindsight is 20-20
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
CA: Man Who Shoots Burglar Goes To Jail - VOTE IN POLL!
Replies
21
Views
990
stv
S
U
  • Locked
7 year prison sentence for legal purchases of firearms
2 3
Replies
68
Views
5K
wraenking
W
U
  • Locked
Update: Manhattan millionaire who used gun to protect home is sentenced to 3 years
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Al Thompson
A
D
  • Locked
(MI) Armed store owner catches burglar
Replies
2
Views
424
Standing Wolf
S
G
  • Locked
MD: Man beats/burns burglar to death
Replies
11
Views
669
Standing Wolf
S
Back
Top