Herr Walther
New member
You never ever, ever, talk to the police without an attorney.
Man arrested after firing warning shot at burglar in N.H.
- Thread starter Patriot86
- Start date
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
MTT TL said:
Actually, in the other report I read, he did indeed go looking. He came home to find his house had been burglarized and then saw the suspect walking down the street. He went inside and got a gun and went looking for the suspect with neighbors but couldn't find him initially. While they were looking, they heard a noise - the man had thrown down a sack and jumped from the second story window of a nearby house. That is when the confrontation occurred.
"County Attorney Tom Velardi said Monday that he will be reviewing the case and will work to determine if the charge against Fleming is appropriate. "
Arraignment is scheduled for March 20 if it gets that far.
"You never ever, ever, talk to the police without an attorney."
How do you report a crime? You going to call an attorney first? Ha.
Arraignment is scheduled for March 20 if it gets that far.
"You never ever, ever, talk to the police without an attorney."
How do you report a crime? You going to call an attorney first? Ha.
MTT TL said:
Really? I don't think so.
Skans said:
I'm in the camp that every situation is unique and dynamic and that you have to respond to the circumstances as they unfold. A preset script is a recipe for disaster.
You can correct me if I'm wrong, but here's a continuum of action/force:
Threatening to use a gun,
unholstering and pointing a gun at a person,
actually shooting the gun,
hitting the target, and finally
if the target dies from the hit.
Each of these acts can get you charges; each more serious as you go up the continuum. You only need justification for the force that you used.
In this situation the shooter only needs to justify the threat of use, pointing the gun, and discharging a "warning shot." Which is much better than if he had actually shot the burglar. Was he justified, I believe so. Was it the smartest option probably not, but we weren't there. Nobody got hurt or killed, the burglar was arrested, all seems well unless the DA wants to send a message about doing your own "police work."
That said, if the perp doesn't respond to verbal cues and a weapon pointed at him, then it's probably time to be COM. In MOST cases a warning shot is usually a waste of good ammo; ammo that you might have an urgent need for later.
Depends. In NC, merely presenting a gun (warning shot or no) is considered a threat of deadly force.
However, in this case I think he would have been covered under castle doctrine if he only drew the gun. Firing the warning shot still might have gotten him charged with recklessness, negligence, etc, depending on the exact circumstances.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Okay, you are wrong. I have never seen a continuum of force where one stage is whether or not the target dies. That isn't a continuum of force as the force was already applied and no additional force applied to change the result. You have confused force with results.
Since discharging a firearm is considered lethal force and since the burglar posed no immediate threat to anybody and since NH law does not allow for lethal force use in that sort of situation, the shooter is in the wrong.
From the article...
So Fleming shot because he didn't think that he could otherwise handle the guy. He was no in harm's way and he could have let the guy run away. I can't see any reason he could justify the shot given those circumstance.
He had over 40 years during which he could have learned the law before he decided to start enforcing it. There is nothing wrong with being proactive, but doing it illegally really doesn't make you any better off than the criminals you are trying to stop.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/2...d-near-burglar/?test=latestnews#ixzz1nA12YVnq
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
That was my thought too... except I figure maybe he was just trying to explain the shot without looking too much like a jackass for doing it by accident and didn't realize the legal implications of his "revised" explanation.
Thats ok. Won't change a thing however. As noted presentation of a firearm is often considered deadly force under the law depending upon where you are. Certainly it is assault just about everywhere. It may be defensible assault but that is up to prosecutors, judges and juries to work out.
In IL for example warning shots are allowed under the law, although widely banned in law enforcement as bad things happen when people start firing guns in a stressful situation.
In Bell v. City of Milwaukee the court ruled that they would not make per se rules on what constituted deadly or excessive force but instead consider each case and the facts of each.
The Model Penal Code holds that shots directed away from a person deliberately are not in of themselves deadly force. While this does not have any force of law it is highly influential.
The US Military holds that warning shots are deadly force.
Different places, different systems, different rules.
youngunz4life
New member
The courts better take care of this guy(and I mean in a good way). In my opinion, they have a moral obligation to look out for him in some form or another.
Not to sound wrong but if he could tell he couldn't take the perons complection,weight,height.ect on his own maybe he should have called the cops then told them how he looked no harm no foul.With the time he took to get his gun he could have been giving details of the theft to 911 one might think
youngunz4life
New member
Edavis456,
I disagree with you one hundred percent. This man was in a possible life threatening situation. I can't knock him for this either because he is potentially saving other people's lives(there are numerous possibilities not being my main point). This burglar had conducted multiple home invasions by this point. He was a danger to children, women, men, and families. If this Grandfather had taken no action, somebody could've been hurt. Also, this Grandfather isn't a tactical expert. The guy is in a very high adrenalized situation and had the balls to do something. He shouldn't be held accountable for non-mailiciously shooting his firearm into the ground in a non-dangerous manner to stop the perp.
I disagree with you one hundred percent. This man was in a possible life threatening situation. I can't knock him for this either because he is potentially saving other people's lives(there are numerous possibilities not being my main point). This burglar had conducted multiple home invasions by this point. He was a danger to children, women, men, and families. If this Grandfather had taken no action, somebody could've been hurt. Also, this Grandfather isn't a tactical expert. The guy is in a very high adrenalized situation and had the balls to do something. He shouldn't be held accountable for non-mailiciously shooting his firearm into the ground in a non-dangerous manner to stop the perp.
Lee McNelly
Moderator
SO
What good is having a ccp doesnt stop prosecution
What good is having a ccp doesnt stop prosecution
Actually, I believe he did not do good at all. I don't believe he understood the current state of gun laws whether we like them or not, they are what they are.
For him to present a loaded weapon in this situation, since he was outside of his house and the thief was in another house, he would have had to have some reasonable evidence that his life was in danger. At the time he fired, that was not present. That makes his legal case a very difficult sell.
Discharging weapons in almost every city in this nation is against the law. Since he is NOT in a self defense situation at the moment he fired, he is in a whole world of hurt and will have a difficult time getting out of this if they decide to push forward with the case.
His best hope is that political pressure is applied to the DA or that a grand jury no bills this case. Otherwise, he doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.
Plain and simple, this is a bad shoot. Thankfully, he didn't kill anyone to make it a worse situation. Not a smart use of firearms and no one should emulate his example. I hope he gets out of this, but he is up a creek right now. Just one more reason to never use warning shots.
For him to present a loaded weapon in this situation, since he was outside of his house and the thief was in another house, he would have had to have some reasonable evidence that his life was in danger. At the time he fired, that was not present. That makes his legal case a very difficult sell.
Discharging weapons in almost every city in this nation is against the law. Since he is NOT in a self defense situation at the moment he fired, he is in a whole world of hurt and will have a difficult time getting out of this if they decide to push forward with the case.
His best hope is that political pressure is applied to the DA or that a grand jury no bills this case. Otherwise, he doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.
Plain and simple, this is a bad shoot. Thankfully, he didn't kill anyone to make it a worse situation. Not a smart use of firearms and no one should emulate his example. I hope he gets out of this, but he is up a creek right now. Just one more reason to never use warning shots.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Have your digitalis ready, A444, you and I are in agreement.
No, he was not. He had no knowledge of anybody being in danger at the time he fired. You can't claim his action is justified as self defense if nobody was known to be endangered at the time.
So you are advocating pre-emptive shooting based on the possibility that the burglar might hurt somebody in the future? This is not a valid legal argument.
Not relevant. Being a tactical expert or not isn't a valid basis to justify his shooting.
By your own admission, he didn't know what he was doing. By his admission, he didn't know what laws applied to this situation. Being wrongfully proactive doesn't make his actions okay.
While I am pleased at the charges being dropped, I dislike the last line of the article:
"Ultimately, citizens should forgo direct involvement in the apprehension or detainment of suspected criminals," Velardi said in the release.
Pretty sure if I had seen someone coming out a window, I'd have asked them to wait for the police...
As for my earlier post about having a call in to a friend on that side of the river (State Rep), he has not responded, and I am wondering if he is alright...
"Ultimately, citizens should forgo direct involvement in the apprehension or detainment of suspected criminals," Velardi said in the release.
Pretty sure if I had seen someone coming out a window, I'd have asked them to wait for the police...
As for my earlier post about having a call in to a friend on that side of the river (State Rep), he has not responded, and I am wondering if he is alright...