Sometimes you read a story and think "There HAS TO BE more to the story than this." I really hope that is the case here. Also note they confiscated ALL of his arms. I thought NH was "Life free or die"?
"I didn't think I could handle this guy physically, so I fired into the ground," Fleming told FoxNews.com. 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.
Dennis Fleming, 61, of Farmington, was arrested for reckless conduct after the Saturday incident at his 19th century farmhouse. The single grandfather had returned home to find that his home had been burglarized and spotted Joseph Hebert, 27, climbing out of a window at a neighbor's home. Fleming said he yelled "Freeze!" before firing his gun into the ground, then held Hebert at gunpoint until police arrived.
"I didn't think I could handle this guy physically, so I fired into the ground," Fleming told FoxNews.com. "He stopped. He knew I was serious. I was angry � and I was worried that this guy was going to come after me."
No one was injured in the incident, but when the police arrived, they made two arrests. Hebert was charged with two counts of burglary and drug possession. He faces up to seven years in prison if convicted. Fleming, meanwhile, is scheduled to be arraigned March 20 on a charge of reckless conduct, which could potentially land him a sentence similar to the one Hebert faces.
"I didn't know it was illegal [to fire into the ground], but I had to make that guy realize I was serious," Fleming said. "I've got a clean record. I really don't want to be convicted."
County Attorney Tom Velardi told Foster's Daily Democrat he will review the case and determine if the charge against Fleming is appropriate under the state statutes regarding self-defense and defense of property.
Fleming, meanwhile, is hoping to catch a break.
"I have 14 grandchildren, I don't want to be a felon and go to jail," he said. "I'm kind of wound up about it."
Fleming's collection of seven rifles and a .38-caliber handgun were seized by police. But Fleming said he's not entirely defenseless: "I've got a Louisville Slugger here, but I would call the police," he said.
Calls seeking comment from Farmington Police Department Chief Scott Roberge were not immediately returned.
Penny Dean, a spokeswoman for the Gun Owners of New Hampshire, said her organization is "absolutely outraged" by Fleming's arrest.
"This homeowner fired at the ground, from all accounts, in a safe direction and held a burglar for police and did things correctly," Dean told FoxNews.com. "The fact that this man would be charged is an outrage. Burglars in New Hampshire must know it's open season, since homeowners cannot defend themselves, as evidenced by this case. This is charging the victim."
Rick Pelkey, Fleming's longtime neighbor, said he's now worried how the "straight-forward, working-class guy" will pay legal fees associated with the arrest.
"I think it's outrageous," Pelkey told FoxNews.com. "He did the community a service here. We ought to thank him for it."
They would have taken my guns.....after the gunfight. This confirms a rule I've always believed....in a conflict involving guns, make sure there is only one side of the story being told when it's over.
Thats utter BS! The cop that charged him needs to rethink how he uses discretion what a effing idiot! 61 year old man against a 27 year old burglar with drugs in his possession sounds like a disparity of force to me? Hope it works out for the old man!
What we need is a lawyer or two to file suit after winning such cases against the officer making the arrest, the department he works for and the city/state that allowed legislation that allowed this arrest.
It seems to me that the arrest and following pursecutuon of the man is an obvious violation of his civil rights. This should be done EVERY time a case is lost by THE GOVERNMENT because it IS a violation of those rights.....and is decided by the courts to be so. this should be punishable criminally as well as civil wise.
It also needs to allow procecution of not only the agencies, but the individuals involved. There should be no such thing as "acting in good faith" because as LEO's are fond of telling civilians....."Ignorance of the law is no excuse".
It should cost you to be stupid.....or deliberately criminal.
They would have taken my guns.....after the gunfight. This confirms a rule I've always believed....in a conflict involving guns, make sure there is only one side of the story being told when it's over.
And you would have been dead. For what?
Personally, looking at the situation, based upon the limited info shown at this point, as the responding officer, I would have pulled him to the side and said:
A. Good Job.
B. You messed up here, and this is why, but don't worry, I understand your reasoning, I will write it up to reflect such and I am not charging you, as I see no criminal intent.
C. Now go be with your family.
Situations like this are really not too uncommon. Officer discression plays a huge part. One has to look at the totallity of the circumstances and make a judgement call.
If the homeowner is acting like a hot headed Jackass threatening to shoot it out before he will hand over his gun so an officer can begin to conduct an investigation, or an individual who has just been through an overwhelming experience and is a bit shaken up, these things make a big difference as to how a person is percieved.
The police cannot allow folks to deal with criminals on their own, because that's their only justification for existing, thus they make examples whenever they can of folks who do it.
The police cannot allow folks to deal with criminals on their own, because that's their only justification for existing, thus they make examples whenever they can of folks who do it.
Doesn't read like he was protecting his life or his property, but rather entervening in his neighbors house being buglarized. Thinking the man was the same person that probably burglarized his house is kind of pushing it, if he didn't actually see it. I'd say that it was a good thing that he was able to keep his cool and didn't kill the guy! And while I feel for the guy, I think it was pretty poor judgement on his part, and wouldn't bet on him getting off completely scott free.
unless there's more to the story as reported, it's a gross injustice of the law.
what is the whole point of the 2nd to keep and bear arms? oh I see just for show, don't defend you or your neighbor's property, that'll get you arrested.
what a f'king joke our country has become
the guy will be fined, if nothing else his attorney's fees to ensure he is INDEED a citizen that's allowed to exercise his 2nd ammendment rights.
hope GOA in NH goes hard after the officer or department whomever is at fault be it bad policy or failure to adhere to good policy.
I'm all for good LE, but not dumbazzery LE.
the guy better have been running around ranting that he's gonna blow the guy's head off to have any legal justification for confiscating all his arms.
The police cannot allow folks to deal with criminals on their own, because that's their only justification for existing, thus they make examples whenever they can of folks who do it.
HORSESCHIT Hawkeye,
Explain to me then why I roll out to every single medical and fire call in my jurisdiction if my only reason for existing is to make examples of people who catch their own bad guys!
My last days on I hauled a$$ out to a house on fire. I got there and met the home owner/rancher who was already outside with the wife. It was a chimney fire that caught rafters and attic insulation on fire.
He and his wife had already grabbed a couple of photo albums and some stuff. The fire was really not that bad. Anyways, I told him I would help him get his furniture out and safe outside. Whatever it took.
We went in the back of the house and scouted out what we could get out if things went bad for the firemen.
I know a bunch of cops who do the same thing whenever they get the chance. I figure someone would help me if the roles were reversed.
Wat they need is the Washington State law that mandates those charged with a firearms related self defense and found not guilty have all their legal fees and time loss reimbursed. It stops a DA from trying to make a name for themselves by trying to prosecute those who are not guilty of a crime.
Wat they need is the Washington State law that mandates those charged with a firearms related self defense and found not guilty have all their legal fees and time loss reimbursed. It stops a DA from trying to make a name for themselves by trying to prosecute those who are not guilty of a crime.
The money should come from the DA's bank account, too, not from the general fund.
Should but doesn't. Thais guy was arrested but has not been brought up for trial yet. The OP stated the DA is still looking at the case. I am thinking he will never face a jury.
The police cannot allow folks to deal with criminals on their own, because that's their only justification for existing, thus they make examples whenever they can of folks who do it.
HORSESCHIT Hawkeye,
Explain to me then why I roll out to every single medical and fire call in my jurisdiction if my only reason for existing is to make examples of people who catch their own bad guys!
My last days on I hauled a$$ out to a house on fire. I got there and met the home owner/rancher who was already outside with the wife. It was a chimney fire that caught rafters and attic insulation on fire.
He and his wife had already grabbed a couple of photo albums and some stuff. The fire was really not that bad. Anyways, I told him I would help him get his furniture out and safe outside. Whatever it took.
We went in the back of the house and scouted out what we could get out if things went bad for the firemen.
I know a bunch of cops who do the same thing whenever they get the chance. I figure someone would help me if the roles were reversed.
Med calls every single shift are no different.
Don't hand me that crap.
You don't like the work, get a different job. I wouldn't like work where I was "forced" to arrest people who had committed no real crime. That's why I'm not a cop.
Also, that post where you talked about telling the guy "good job" and then what he did wrong...he don't need your pat on the head.
Originally Posted by Penny Dean, a spokeswoman for the Gun Owners of New Hampshire
"This homeowner fired at the ground, from all accounts, in a safe direction and held a burglar for police and did things correctly," Dean told FoxNews.com. "The fact that this man would be charged is an outrage. Burglars in New Hampshire must know it's open season, since homeowners cannot defend themselves, as evidenced by this case. This is charging the victim."
The police cannot allow folks to deal with criminals on their own, because that's their only justification for existing, thus they make examples whenever they can of folks who do it.
HORSESCHIT Hawkeye,
Explain to me then why I roll out to every single medical and fire call in my jurisdiction if my only reason for existing is to make examples of people who catch their own bad guys!
My last days on I hauled a$$ out to a house on fire. I got there and met the home owner/rancher who was already outside with the wife. It was a chimney fire that caught rafters and attic insulation on fire.
He and his wife had already grabbed a couple of photo albums and some stuff. The fire was really not that bad. Anyways, I told him I would help him get his furniture out and safe outside. Whatever it took.
We went in the back of the house and scouted out what we could get out if things went bad for the firemen.
I know a bunch of cops who do the same thing whenever they get the chance. I figure someone would help me if the roles were reversed.
Med calls every single shift are no different.
Don't hand me that crap.
You don't like the work, get a different job. I wouldn't like work where I was "forced" to arrest people who had committed no real crime. That's why I'm not a cop.
Also, that post where you talked about telling the guy "good job" and then what he did wrong...he don't need your pat on the head.
People discussing a labor field that they have ZERO experience in, as if they know how it really works, is funny.
Should but doesn't. Thais guy was arrested but has not been brought up for trial yet. The OP stated the DA is still looking at the case. I am thinking he will never face a jury.
Time will tell.
Pharmacist in Okie City is in prison...just sayin'.
The police cannot allow folks to deal with criminals on their own, because that's their only justification for existing, thus they make examples whenever they can of folks who do it.
HORSESCHIT Hawkeye,
Explain to me then why I roll out to every single medical and fire call in my jurisdiction if my only reason for existing is to make examples of people who catch their own bad guys!
My last days on I hauled a$$ out to a house on fire. I got there and met the home owner/rancher who was already outside with the wife. It was a chimney fire that caught rafters and attic insulation on fire.
He and his wife had already grabbed a couple of photo albums and some stuff. The fire was really not that bad. Anyways, I told him I would help him get his furniture out and safe outside. Whatever it took.
We went in the back of the house and scouted out what we could get out if things went bad for the firemen.
I know a bunch of cops who do the same thing whenever they get the chance. I figure someone would help me if the roles were reversed.
Med calls every single shift are no different.
Don't hand me that crap.
You don't like the work, get a different job. I wouldn't like work where I was "forced" to arrest people who had committed no real crime. That's why I'm not a cop.
Also, that post where you talked about telling the guy "good job" and then what he did wrong...he don't need your pat on the head.
People discussing a labor field that they have ZERO experience in, as if they know how it really works, is funny.
Please, keep it up!
It's kind of like commentary on the experience of people you don't know. Please keep that up. Or not...
You don't like the work, get a different job. I wouldn't like work where I was "forced" to arrest people who had committed no real crime. That's why I'm not a cop.
Also, that post where you talked about telling the guy "good job" and then what he did wrong...he don't need your pat on the head.
Part of that "lord to serf" attitude so common among cops these days.
You don't like the work, get a different job. I wouldn't like work where I was "forced" to arrest people who had committed no real crime. That's why I'm not a cop.
Also, that post where you talked about telling the guy "good job" and then what he did wrong...he don't need your pat on the head.
Part of that "lord to serf" attitude so common among cops these days.
You spend a lot of time hanging out with cops these days? Is that were you draw all that expert insight?
Prolly the old man got lippy with the cop. They should have tazed him and beat him down some before they cuffed him. Probably the old bassstard was guilty of something. Probably a diabetic. He's lucky they didn't just administer some righteous street justice right there. Old [bleep].
The police cannot allow folks to deal with criminals on their own, because that's their only justification for existing, thus they make examples whenever they can of folks who do it.
HORSESCHIT Hawkeye,
Explain to me then why I roll out to every single medical and fire call in my jurisdiction if my only reason for existing is to make examples of people who catch their own bad guys!
My last days on I hauled a$$ out to a house on fire. I got there and met the home owner/rancher who was already outside with the wife. It was a chimney fire that caught rafters and attic insulation on fire.
He and his wife had already grabbed a couple of photo albums and some stuff. The fire was really not that bad. Anyways, I told him I would help him get his furniture out and safe outside. Whatever it took.
We went in the back of the house and scouted out what we could get out if things went bad for the firemen.
I know a bunch of cops who do the same thing whenever they get the chance. I figure someone would help me if the roles were reversed.
Med calls every single shift are no different.
Don't hand me that crap.
He doesn't have a clue. He doesn't understand that many LEO's in this country are the first responders in fire and Med. calls. I myself have had three saves due to an AED that my agency provides in each unit since we're many times on scene prior to EMT's. The same with fire, LE is many times on the scene way before FD, especially in a Vol.FD area.
I'm proud to say that I was once able to detect a fire in a subdivision due to smoke in the area, that neither the homeowner knew about or FD, I called it in, awakened the homeowner. It to was a chimney fire the homeowner was able to get water on it prior to FD's arrival, which helped.
He doesn't have a clue, nor wants to acknowledge that LE does more then what he assumes they do. I've challenged him many times to become involved in his county S.O's reserve program, but he won't. He'd rather be blind then open his eyes to what really occurs.
I get to help people on a daily basis. It is a rare week that I do not pull someone from a wrecked car, arrive first at a med call, fire call, arrest some meth head/ burglar, recover someones stolen stuff, etc.
While there is about 10% of the population that takes up 90% of my criminal enforcement time, 90% of the people in my community are great people. They are the reason I run hard and put myself in danger more than I probably should.
Please, educate me. I'm more than capable of manning up and admiting that I'm wrong....
Exactly how much time have you had as a LEO?
lol You can post your resume' here if you want. I couldn't have ever had any LEO experience because I'm posting stuff that is critical. Therefore you don't need to know any more.
If you're a cop, I now understand how you can defend this stuff.
Gimmie a break guy, that is NOT the way it is in the real world.
And Hawk, an encouraging word to someone like Mackay postulated is not talking down to a serf. It is using common sense instead of nonsense being a bad azz.
Please, educate me. I'm more than capable of manning up and admiting that I'm wrong....
Exactly how much time have you had as a LEO?
When a certain group of folks is given power over the remainder of folks, the remainder of folks don't need to first be in the empowered group to be permitted an opinion regarding the conduct of the empowered group, your opinion to the contrary notwithstanding.
I get to help people on a daily basis. It is a rare week that I do not pull someone from a wrecked car, arrive first at a med call, fire call, arrest some meth head/ burglar, recover someones stolen stuff, etc.
While there is about 10% of the population that takes up 90% of my criminal enforcement time, 90% of the people in my community are great people. They are the reason I run hard and put myself in danger more than I probably should.
Well good for you Mackay. IMO a few more of y'all should exhibit a little more righteous anger at this kind of shixt happening. Sooner or later somebody is gonna have to stand up and say enough about all these stupid arrests. I know, I know, in the old days he'd have been like, clubbed or something with blackjack or shot with a throwdown and the internet didn't exist to fire all us peons up but hey, I got nothing better to do whilst I'm waiting on my kids to go home.
Seriously, why do you feel the need to pat the guy's head and then school him on all he did wrong. Just because you shot at the same range that Mas Ayoob shot at in 1972 doesn't mean you need to have a "teaching moment" with him. The guy successfully stopped two robberies and nobody died. Flying [bleep] New Hampshire must have some tea total idiots.
Please, educate me. I'm more than capable of manning up and admiting that I'm wrong....
Exactly how much time have you had as a LEO?
lol You can post your resume' here if you want. I couldn't have ever had any LEO experience because I'm posting stuff that is critical. Therefore you don't need to know any more.
If you're a cop, I now understand how you can defend this stuff.
Not a Cop, have never been a cop.
See how easy that was!?
Now, your turn. I called you out as having not been a LEO. You said I don't know what I'm talking about. So, answer the question and prove me wrong. I'll freely admit to it!
I'm not defending the actions of the officers in the OP's article. Quite the opposite actually.
I'm just not using the broad (ignorant) brush that others are in applying this to ALL cops or even a majority of them.
The police cannot allow folks to deal with criminals on their own, because that's their only justification for existing, thus they make examples whenever they can of folks who do it.
HORSESCHIT Hawkeye,
You mean you didn't get the memo on that from the international banking cartel? Musta come out while you were overseas.
Anyway, I agree with you totally on the correct exercise of discretion that should have been applied in this matter, absent circumstances that are not mentioned in the article.
For the people thinking it was an illegal arrest, think again. I suspect the well-intentioned neighbor's actions probably fall within some crime. It certainly wasn't a bright idea and easily could be viewed as reckless endangerment. Further, the fact that a person does not get convicted does not mean the police were wrong. Police work off a probable cause standard, not a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. I frequently preach here that, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. That applies to the citizen here as well as the police.
"Call me out", "cower from the question"...lol Dude, seriously, this is an internet message board. Do you think anybody cares? I've been on here five [bleep] years longer than you and am friends with some of these guys who are cops. Most here who have been here any length of time know what I do for a living and could care less about my life history. If you do, well...make something up 'cause I ain't sharing. Nah, nah, nahnah, nah.
Please, educate me. I'm more than capable of manning up and admiting that I'm wrong....
Exactly how much time have you had as a LEO?
When a certain group of folks is given power over the remainder of folks, the remainder of folks don't need to first be in the empowered group to be permitted an opinion regarding the conduct of the empowered group, your opinion to the contrary notwithstanding.
So, me saying that all teachers are child molesters is perfectly ok then? Or, more to the point you like to make: The teaching profession is a bastion and home to child molesters. It draws them, and they all like it. They will stop at nothing to preserve it. None of them do anything to curb it.
I am more than qualified to make these claims even though I have never worked in the education system, simply because I'm entitled to an opion.
Fair enough, the rest of the sane world is entitled to the opinion that those who do are hilariously ignorant!
Gimmie a break guy, that is NOT the way it is in the real world.
And Hawk, an encouraging word to someone like Mackay postulated is not talking down to a serf. It is using common sense instead of nonsense being a bad azz.
Terry you know that neither Hawk or I are talking to or about you. We both got only respect for you. Plus, you got them cool pics of you with the shotgun after that hurricane...
"Call me out", "cower from the question"...lol Dude, seriously, this is an internet message board. Do you think anybody cares? I've been on here five [bleep] years longer than you and am friends with some of these guys who are cops. Most here who have been here any length of time know what I do for a living and could care less about my life history. If you do, well...make something up 'cause I ain't sharing. Nah, nah, nahnah, nah.
Cole, the funny thing is you have already said you weren't a LEO.....
So, back to the comment you made about my ignorance. Epic Fail.
My comment remains. You don't walk in these guys shoes and when you make the outlandish comments you do, it's comically ignorant.
HAJ, that doesn't bother me a bit. You have my permission to hold any opinion you like about teachers. But teachers aren't forced into your life, or those of your children. You can choose to home school, and I'll stand right by you in any efforts you'd like to make to eliminate forced public funding of education at any level. You and I can march together on that.
"Call me out", "cower from the question"...lol Dude, seriously, this is an internet message board. Do you think anybody cares? I've been on here five [bleep] years longer than you and am friends with some of these guys who are cops. Most here who have been here any length of time know what I do for a living and could care less about my life history. If you do, well...make something up 'cause I ain't sharing. Nah, nah, nahnah, nah.
Cole, the funny thing is you have already said you weren't a LEO.....
So, back to the comment you made about my ignorance. Epic Fail.
My comment remains. You don't walk in these guys shoes and when you make the outlandish comments you do, it's comically ignorant.
You take a lot for granted and miss a lot. What you are basically saying is incredibly ignorant. Only LE can have an opinion about issues like this because those who are not have never walked in their shoes. You shouldn't be commenting then.
HAJ, that doesn't bother me a bit. You have my permission to hold any opinion you like about teachers. But teachers aren't forced into your life, or those of your children. You can choose to home school, and I'll stand right by you in any efforts you'd like to make to eliminate forced public funding of education at any level. You and I can march together on that.
TRH, you know full well that the comment was pure baffoonery! Anyone that would take the stance on teachers that I put out there would clearly be ignorant. For them to paint with such broad brushes about a field they know nothing about (experience wise) is just plain stupid.
If I was to take the argument in the direction you are, then I would add that the public has always requested the presence of LEO's....
You take a lot for granted and miss a lot. What you are basically saying is incredibly ignorant. Only LE can have an opinion about issues like this because those who are not have never walked in their shoes. You shouldn't be commenting then.
Imagine if that rule applied to the Founding Fathers? They had a lot of nerve complaining about those Red Coats, not ever themselves having served in said capacity.
I just get REAL tired of the broad brush bashing. As you are aware I did the job for 26 years as a Deputy and 4 as an MP in the Army.
My daughter is a district commander and rides herd on the folks working for her to make sure they treat those they serve properly with respect and to bag the bad guys effectively. I associate with too many damn fine cops to not take umbrage when anybody paints them all bad.
'Sides what if I had killed a looter after painting that sign? Don't get me wrong, I WOULD HAVE, damn the torpedo's full speed ahead!
When I took the required course to get my FL concealed weapon permit, the instructor told the class that it was against Florida law to discharge a weapon as a warning. Can you confirm if this is true? The instructor's advice was not to pull the weapon unless you are justified to use it, and if you pull it, use it to eliminate the threat.
HAJ, that doesn't bother me a bit. You have my permission to hold any opinion you like about teachers. But teachers aren't forced into your life, or those of your children. You can choose to home school, and I'll stand right by you in any efforts you'd like to make to eliminate forced public funding of education at any level. You and I can march together on that.
The hell they are not Hawk, if you can not afford private schools or have the resources to home school your kids are FORCED into the public education system, period.
I just get REAL tired of the broad brush bashing. As you are aware I did the job for 26 years as a Deputy and 4 as an MP in the Army.
My daughter is a district commander and rides herd on the folks working for her to make sure they treat those they serve properly with respect and to bag the bad guys effectively. I associate with too many damn fine cops to not take umbrage when anybody paints them all bad.
'Sides what if I had killed a looter after painting that sign? Don't get me wrong, I WOULD HAVE, damn the torpedo's full speed ahead!
OK rant off.
I'd forgot you'd been an MP. Just remembered your tenure as a door gunner. I wish you and your daughter's dept was up here in our county seat. Y'all probably wouldn't like the cold though.
If I was to take the argument in the direction you are, then I would add that the public has always requested the presence of LEO's....
It wasn't forced, it was requested.
So, when you're driving down the highway and suddenly notice a police car in your rear view mirror, are you more likely to be filled with the warm and fuzzies or to suddenly feel a little apprehensive?
The police cannot allow folks to deal with criminals on their own, because that's their only justification for existing, thus they make examples whenever they can of folks who do it.
HORSESCHIT Hawkeye,
You mean you didn't get the memo on that from the international banking cartel? Musta come out while you were overseas.
Anyway, I agree with you totally on the correct exercise of discretion that should have been applied in this matter, absent circumstances that are not mentioned in the article.
For the people thinking it was an illegal arrest, think again. I suspect the well-intentioned neighbor's actions probably fall within some crime. It certainly wasn't a bright idea and easily could be viewed as reckless endangerment. Further, the fact that a person does not get convicted does not mean the police were wrong. Police work off a probable cause standard, not a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. I frequently preach here that, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. That applies to the citizen here as well as the police.
If I was to take the argument in the direction you are, then I would add that the public has always requested the presence of LEO's....
It wasn't forced, it was requested.
So, when you're driving down the highway and suddenly notice a police car in your rear view mirror, are you more likely to be filled with the warm and fuzzies or to suddenly feel a little apprehensive?
Why do you feel apprehensive?? Are you paranoid?? How many times in the last two years have you been stopped by LE??
HAJ, that doesn't bother me a bit. You have my permission to hold any opinion you like about teachers. But teachers aren't forced into your life, or those of your children. You can choose to home school, and I'll stand right by you in any efforts you'd like to make to eliminate forced public funding of education at any level. You and I can march together on that.
TRH, you know full well that the comment was pure baffoonery! Anyone that would take the stance on teachers that I put out there would clearly be ignorant. For them to paint with such broad brushes about a field they know nothing about (experience wise) is just plain stupid.
If I was to take the argument in the direction you are, then I would add that the public has always requested the presence of LEO's....
It wasn't forced, it was requested.
Dude, when I saw your avatar and that you'd made a comment, I can't speak for Hawk, but I already knew it was pure "baffonery" before I read it.
Sorry, but it had to be said. Y'all have fun with this topic.
You take a lot for granted and miss a lot. What you are basically saying is incredibly ignorant. Only LE can have an opinion about issues like this because those who are not have never walked in their shoes. You shouldn't be commenting then.
Maybe I do take a lot for granted, and I'll freely admit that I miss a lot. My wife would confirm that I can be absolutely oblivious to her signals at times.
You think I haven't been adversly affected by LE?
I have a family member who will never be able to hunt again, because of an overzealous LEO. This family member will probably never get to hold his son, visit his parents, or enjoy an adult beverage ever again, because a LEO abused his power.
I know full well, and all too intimately the evils a man with a badge can muster. I will not, however, ever lower myself to such a place as to where I will paint the whole LE system with the same brush that needs to be applied to that man.
HAJ, that doesn't bother me a bit. You have my permission to hold any opinion you like about teachers. But teachers aren't forced into your life, or those of your children. You can choose to home school, and I'll stand right by you in any efforts you'd like to make to eliminate forced public funding of education at any level. You and I can march together on that.
The hell they are not Hawk, if you can not afford private schools or have the resources to home school your kids are FORCED into the public education system, period.
To the extent that's true, I will join you in any march you'd like to organize in opposition to such a law.
If I was to take the argument in the direction you are, then I would add that the public has always requested the presence of LEO's....
It wasn't forced, it was requested.
So, when you're driving down the highway and suddenly notice a police car in your rear view mirror, are you more likely to be filled with the warm and fuzzies or to suddenly feel a little apprehensive?
I don't blame the cop for that. I immediately look at my spedometer to see that I'm not breaking any laws. When I'm not, then I relax and am glad that he's there.
HAJ, that doesn't bother me a bit. You have my permission to hold any opinion you like about teachers. But teachers aren't forced into your life, or those of your children. You can choose to home school, and I'll stand right by you in any efforts you'd like to make to eliminate forced public funding of education at any level. You and I can march together on that.
The hell they are not Hawk, if you can not afford private schools or have the resources to home school your kids are FORCED into the public education system, period.
To the extent that's true, I will join you in any march you'd like to organize in opposition to such a law.
Meanwhile, we can say TRH and his ilk like to touch little children, and it not be seen as incitefully ignorant....
The police cannot allow folks to deal with criminals on their own, because that's their only justification for existing, thus they make examples whenever they can of folks who do it.
Generalities are stupid. Don't be stupid.
Leave it to TRH to draw an absurd Barakian conclusion from a police overreach.
I don't blame the cop for that. I immediately look at my spedometer to see that I'm not breaking any laws. When I'm not, then I relax and am glad that he's there.
So, the answer (after digging through all the BS) is apprehensive, then.
When I took the required course to get my FL concealed weapon permit, the instructor told the class that it was against Florida law to discharge a weapon as a warning. Can you confirm if this is true? The instructor's advice was not to pull the weapon unless you are justified to use it, and if you pull it, use it to eliminate the threat.
Rick
Yessir, it is in FLA. statute that threatening is a form of aggravated assault. Firing a warning shot can be a chargeable offense here if it can in anyway be construed as posing a danger to another. You instructor was correct in advising in never presenting a weapon as a threat. Only time you should pull a weapon (gun, knife, bludgeon or less than lethal) is to immediately use it for LAWFUL self defense against IMMINENT death or great bodily harm to yourself or another. From the state site
If I was to take the argument in the direction you are, then I would add that the public has always requested the presence of LEO's....
It wasn't forced, it was requested.
So, when you're driving down the highway and suddenly notice a police car in your rear view mirror, are you more likely to be filled with the warm and fuzzies or to suddenly feel a little apprehensive?
If you have done nothing wrong why would it bother you. Only a guilty conscience would be bothered by IMHO. Hell, if they are going below the posted limit in good road conditions I will pass them where it is safe to do so. They ain't your enemy, they are just folks doing a job they are hired to do, kinda like teachers, firemen, EMS, Etc.
I don't blame the cop for that. I immediately look at my spedometer to see that I'm not breaking any laws. When I'm not, then I relax and am glad that he's there.
So, the answer (after digging through all the BS) is apprehensive, then.
Rightfully so!
Though, not as apprehensive as I feel every day that my kid attends public school. Seeing him get on that bus gives me shivers to the core....
If I was to take the argument in the direction you are, then I would add that the public has always requested the presence of LEO's....
It wasn't forced, it was requested.
So, when you're driving down the highway and suddenly notice a police car in your rear view mirror, are you more likely to be filled with the warm and fuzzies or to suddenly feel a little apprehensive?
If you have done nothing wrong why would it bother you. Only a guilty conscience would be bothered by IMHO. Hell, if they are going below the posted limit in good road conditions I will pass them where it is safe to do so. They ain't your enemy, they are just folks doing a job they are hired to do, kinda like teachers, firemen, EMS, Etc.
Exactly!
I look at the spedometer because I know I like to push the legal limits!
Cole, I know you know the difference between a rogue butt hole of a cop (or even a rogue precint), and LEO's as a whole.
It's the way you and TRH attempt to paint ALL of the LEO community that is the problem.
Granted, you don't normally take it as far as TRH does.
It would just be good to see you guys attack the individual rather than the whole for a change.....
It's the position itself, in the modern context, that creates the problems. It's human nature. Any armed organization of men with the legal authority to patrol public spaces enforcing the will of the state is going to routinely violate rights and threaten liberty. It cannot help but to. The Founders learned to hate such an arrangement in their time (based on their experience with Red Coats), and not only warned posterity against all such arrangements, but even prohibited it in the Constitution under the term "standing armies." The Red Coats constituted a standing army in our midst, exercising the sorts of powers we today take for granted by men we call police officers.
The police cannot allow folks to deal with criminals on their own, because that's their only justification for existing, thus they make examples whenever they can of folks who do it.
HORSESCHIT Hawkeye,
You mean you didn't get the memo on that from the international banking cartel? Musta come out while you were overseas.
Anyway, I agree with you totally on the correct exercise of discretion that should have been applied in this matter, absent circumstances that are not mentioned in the article.
For the people thinking it was an illegal arrest, think again. I suspect the well-intentioned neighbor's actions probably fall within some crime. It certainly wasn't a bright idea and easily could be viewed as reckless endangerment. Further, the fact that a person does not get convicted does not mean the police were wrong. Police work off a probable cause standard, not a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. I frequently preach here that, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. That applies to the citizen here as well as the police.
A well thought out reply Cheyenne.
Sadly no, I was left out of that particular conspiracy. I was too busy polishing my black helicopter.
All that being said, I truly hope things go well for this man.
If I was to take the argument in the direction you are, then I would add that the public has always requested the presence of LEO's....
It wasn't forced, it was requested.
So, when you're driving down the highway and suddenly notice a police car in your rear view mirror, are you more likely to be filled with the warm and fuzzies or to suddenly feel a little apprehensive?
If you have done nothing wrong why would it bother you. Only a guilty conscience would be bothered by IMHO. Hell, if they are going below the posted limit in good road conditions I will pass them where it is safe to do so. They ain't your enemy, they are just folks doing a job they are hired to do, kinda like teachers, firemen, EMS, Etc.
Exactly!
I look at the spedometer because I know I like to push the legal limits!
If I get caught, it's my fault, not theirs!
That's why we run unmarked cars, it doesn't make people nervous till the blues come on, no preliminary jitters of LE being in the rearview mirror.
Cole, I know you know the difference between a rogue butt hole of a cop (or even a rogue precint), and LEO's as a whole.
It's the way you and TRH attempt to paint ALL of the LEO community that is the problem.
Granted, you don't normally take it as far as TRH does.
It would just be good to see you guys attack the individual rather than the whole for a change.....
It's the position itself, in the modern context, that creates the problems. It's human nature. Any armed organization of men with the legal authority to patrol public spaces enforcing the will of the state is going to routinely violate rights and threaten liberty. It cannot help but to. The Founders learned to hate such an arrangement in their time (based on their experience with Red Coats), and not only warned posterity against all such arrangements, but even prohibited it in the Constitution under the term "standing armies." The Red Coats constituted a standing army in our midst, exercising the sorts of powers we today take for granted by men we call police officers.
Should but doesn't. Thais guy was arrested but has not been brought up for trial yet. The OP stated the DA is still looking at the case. I am thinking he will never face a jury.
Time will tell.
Pharmacist in Okie City is in prison...just sayin'.
You mean you didn't get the memo on that from the international banking cartel? Musta come out while you were overseas.
Anyway, I agree with you totally on the correct exercise of discretion that should have been applied in this matter, absent circumstances that are not mentioned in the article.
For the people thinking it was an illegal arrest, think again. I suspect the well-intentioned neighbor's actions probably fall within some crime. It certainly wasn't a bright idea and easily could be viewed as reckless endangerment. Further, the fact that a person does not get convicted does not mean the police were wrong. Police work off a probable cause standard, not a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. I frequently preach here that, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. That applies to the citizen here as well as the police.
A well thought out reply Cheyenne.
Sadly no, I was left out of that particular conspiracy. I was too busy polishing my black helicopter.
All that being said, I truly hope things go well for this man.
Oh wait, can I say that as a jack booted thug?
Only if you're wishing the other jack-booted thugs well. Besides, you're in violation for polishing your black helicopter. They're supposed to be flat black, not jet black.
The Red Coats constituted a standing army in our midst, exercising the sorts of powers we today take for granted by men we call police officers.
as usual, Hawkeye, you "don't know much about history", as the song says.
The British army was not used for ordinary civil policing in the colonies, that was the function of sheriffs and constables. In fact, British officers were extremely wary of touching on colonial civil affairs because they and their men were subject to arrest by colonial sheriffs, and to ruinous judgments by vengeful American juries.
That's why John Adams had to defend the British soldiers accused in the Boston massacre in a Massachusetts civilian court.....there was no SOFA in place for British forces in the colonies.
The Red Coats constituted a standing army in our midst, exercising the sorts of powers we today take for granted by men we call police officers.
as usual, Hawkeye, you "don't know much about history", as the song says.
The British army was not used for ordinary civil policing in the colonies, that was the function of sheriffs and constables. In fact, British officers were extremely wary of touching on colonial civil affairs because they and their men were subject to arrest by colonial sheriffs, and to ruinous judgments by vengeful American juries.
That's why John Adams had to defend the British soldiers accused in the Boston massacre in a Massachusetts civilian court.....there was no SOFA in place for British forces in the colonies.
Dang it, Steve! There you go, interrupting TRH with facts again! How can he possibly continue his rant if you keep putting the truth in front of him?!?
You mean you didn't get the memo on that from the international banking cartel? Musta come out while you were overseas.
Anyway, I agree with you totally on the correct exercise of discretion that should have been applied in this matter, absent circumstances that are not mentioned in the article.
For the people thinking it was an illegal arrest, think again. I suspect the well-intentioned neighbor's actions probably fall within some crime. It certainly wasn't a bright idea and easily could be viewed as reckless endangerment. Further, the fact that a person does not get convicted does not mean the police were wrong. Police work off a probable cause standard, not a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. I frequently preach here that, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. That applies to the citizen here as well as the police.
A well thought out reply Cheyenne.
Sadly no, I was left out of that particular conspiracy. I was too busy polishing my black helicopter.
All that being said, I truly hope things go well for this man.
Oh wait, can I say that as a jack booted thug?
Only if you're wishing the other jack-booted thugs well. Besides, you're in violation for polishing your black helicopter. They're supposed to be flat black, not jet black.
Ed
Aww CRAP!
Its the JACK BOOTS that get polished and the helicopters that are supposed to be flat black! Dang it! I get those backwards sometimes!
Thanks Ed!
I would have ended up with my nose (and my jack boots) in the corner again if I screwed that one up one more time!
Much of our Constitution and Bill of Rights comes directly from the experience of the Founding Fathers with the folks who've since been termed "Redcoats," (British regulars) that is to say, a reaction to the abuses suffered under their performance of various police and patrol functions in our latter colonial experience.
Perhaps if so many 'cops' didn't defend and excuse their idiot brothers the broad brush wouldn't apply. But when so many cops become defensive at the stupid, even criminal actions of their blue brothers it confirms what many presume.
Perhaps if so many 'cops' didn't defend and excuse their idiot brothers the broad brush wouldn't apply. But when so many cops become defensive at the stupid, even criminal actions of their blue brothers it confirms what many presume.
Perhaps if so many 'cops' didn't defend and excuse their idiot brothers the broad brush wouldn't apply. But when so many cops become defensive at the stupid, even criminal actions of their blue brothers it confirms what many presume.
Who here in LE defended this particular incident in NH. as hooray for LE??
Much of our Constitution and Bill of Rights comes directly from the experience of the Founding Fathers with the folks who've since been termed "Redcoats," (British regulars) that is to say, a reaction to the abuses suffered under their performance of various police and patrol functions in our latter colonial experience.
you're confusing military action after the colonies were in rebellion with police work. occupied territory after the revolution began was subject to martial law....because there was, like, a war going on.
during the pre-war colonial period, troops did not do police work. they had no authority to do so, and were afraid of colonial legal authorities.
Perhaps if so many 'cops' didn't defend and excuse their idiot brothers the broad brush wouldn't apply. But when so many cops become defensive at the stupid, even criminal actions of their blue brothers it confirms what many presume.
Try reading the responses we made at the beginning of this thread Sir.
We get defensive at the "broad brush" approach, not the fact that there are some idiot cops out there and some idiot laws on the books. We admit there are some bad cops on the streets and don't agree with them. Also some laws need changing but we don't make them, elected representatives of the "people" pass them and we (cops) do not have the power to change them, just use a bit of discretion in enforcing them. Which BTW can bite us in the azz if we ain't REAL careful.
Much of our Constitution and Bill of Rights comes directly from the experience of the Founding Fathers with the folks who've since been termed "Redcoats," (British regulars) that is to say, a reaction to the abuses suffered under their performance of various police and patrol functions in our latter colonial experience.
you're confusing military action after the colonies were in rebellion with police work. occupied territory after the revolution began was subject to martial law....because there was, like, a war going on.
during the pre-war colonial period, troops did not do police work. they had no authority to do so, and were afraid of colonial legal authorities.
There were military patrol, investigative, and arrest responses to rebellious activity prior to the Declaration. Stop picking nits. You know very well that such experience forms much of the basis for parts of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Don't make me quote the Declaration.
I did TLee and I stand by my response. Getting defensive because "civilians" are critical doesn't help your cause, it just makes you look bad.
I usually ignore your fellow blue brother hunter1960 but I'll indulge his question.
Originally Posted by Cheyenne
For the people thinking it was an illegal arrest, think again. I suspect the well-intentioned neighbor's actions probably fall within some crime. It certainly wasn't a bright idea and easily could be viewed as reckless endangerment. Further, the fact that a person does not get convicted does not mean the police were wrong. Police work off a probable cause standard, not a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
No we did not jump to the defense of the officer involved or actions taken, still don't but respond to the bashing of an entire group due to the actions of the very few.
T---Perhaps it's YOU who should re-read the posts at the beginning of the thread. Paying particularly close attention to Cheyenne defendiing what should be condemned.
I know y'all get your panties wadded up when us "civillians" (aka as those that pay your salaries and pensions) are critical of the abuse of power exhibited by the police. Also it's a lot more than "the very few"...."the very few" are merely the myriads everyday that make the paper.
In any case I have no doubt y'all will continue to take our criticism of the abuse personally and that's your perogative. Just as it's mine to call horsechit on them and those that defend them.
BTW, I don't call non LE civilians, I call em by name or by Sir or Ma'am. I also hold doors for women, the old & infirm and try my very best to be polite in my daily life, but that is just me.
Doesn't read like he was protecting his life or his property, but rather entervening in his neighbors house being buglarized. Thinking the man was the same person that probably burglarized his house is kind of pushing it, if he didn't actually see it. I'd say that it was a good thing that he was able to keep his cool and didn't kill the guy! And while I feel for the guy, I think it was pretty poor judgement on his part, and wouldn't bet on him getting off completely scott free.
Phil
So please tell us what you would have done, besides walk away and pretend it didn't happen?
I put dumbazes who think its okay to fire warning shots into the same category with guys who buy their wives a puny gun and then don't teach em how to shoot. "All she has to do is point at him and the bad guy will stop bein bad"...
Sometimes you read a story and think "There HAS TO BE more to the story than this." I really hope that is the case here. Also note they confiscated ALL of his arms. I thought NH was "Life free or die"?
There is, based on what I'm reading in that article. The coverage, even in the local papers, isn't great (the Town I live in borders Farmington and know the town well). I work in Strafford County as well.
I'm perplexed as to why he was charged at all, but I'm confident that CA Velardi will do the right thing. I'll update as our local paper does.
Pizz poor reporting plays a part in the perception. For instance...
Quote
No one was injured in the incident, but when the police arrived, they made two arrests.
That's from the OP, based on the Fox report. Based on that statement (and the entire article in the OP) you folks tell me when the victim was arrested.
I have my own theory about how/why it went down like this based on the time-frame from burglary (Saturday BTW) to the victim turning himself in (Monday FWIW). I can't/won't share it at this time, for obvious reasons but I'm gonna confirm it with the guys I know who were at the scene.
You pull a gun you use it, you don't talk about it, and you don't go looking for trouble where there is none, and none of your business anyway... this wasn't at his house, it wasn't his property, but he say's he was scarred of the guy enough to try to scare him into submission... when all he had to do was call law enforcement...
In FL they are prohibited by law. Don't mean I wouldn't let a guy walk if the circumstances warranted it. But that could come back and bite me in the azz bad if I made a mistake or the SAO had a hard on for me.
II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person: (a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person; (b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary; (c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or (d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor's dwelling or its curtilage. II-a. A person who responds to a threat which would be considered by a reasonable person as likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to the person or to another by displaying a firearm or other means of self-defense with the intent to warn away the person making the threat shall not have committed a criminal act.
It is also worth noting that there is no duty to retreat in NH.
If the facts hold as in the PO then it looks like (b) might be justifiable cause.
Playing Devil's Advocate :
Man comes out of window, bang....don't [bleep] move....How does "b" apply?
George
Now, OTOH and IIRC, the victim is in his 60s and has had some work done on his heart. He states that he "didn't think he could handle him physically". Any movement in his direction.....
If the facts hold as in the PO then it looks like (b) might be justifiable cause.
Playing Devil's Advocate :
Man comes out of window, bang....don't [bleep] move....How does "b" apply?
George
(b) would apply as the guy coming out the window was committing a burglary. That said it would be hard to prove he knew he was committing a crime. That is why I said might.
I might have done this differently. The warning shot sounds like it might be the problem causer in this one. But I was not there and my second guessing any part of this is not needed. Facts and truth would be what is needed in this case just like all others.
b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
Let's concede the burg....it's the bold that might be the kicker (again, simply playing Devil's Advocate in this case..though I hate doing so).
George
BTW....next time the headline reads "Cop Fires Warning Shot to Deter Burglar from Running" I'll expect the "usual suspects" to back him based on their comments in this thread.
T---Perhaps it's YOU who should re-read the posts at the beginning of the thread. Paying particularly close attention to Cheyenne defendiing what should be condemned.
Uh, my post agreed with Mackay that it sounded like an inappropriate use of discretion. Unfortunately, there sometimes is a disconnect between what is legal/illegal and what is appropriate under the circumstances. The law should be in harmony with right and wrong, but sometimes it is not, because the law is a "one size fits all" codification. As long as the officer is acting within the bounds of the law, the penalty for an officer applying discretion inappropriately is disciplinary and/or administrative, not through civil redress by the "victim" or criminal action against the officer. If you read my body of work on this forum, you will see that I absolutely believe that officers must act within the bounds of law, and I don't mean stepping within a millimeter of the line, and I also believe that the judicious use of discretion is the hallmark of a good police officer. But, if someone says something is "illegal" and violative of rights because discretion is used inappropriately, s/he just doesn't understand the law.
Geeze do any of you bother to read. He wasn't being threatend, no one was in harms way, NO ONE WAS BEING RAPED, and it wasn't his property.
Phil
Did you not bother to read that he had just returned home & his own house had been burglarized too.......& a guy is crawling out of his neighbor's house????
Guess I wouldn't need a brick to fall on me to be able to wonder if it could have been the same perp.
A 'warning shot' is considered 'deadly force'? I realize a gun can be but how is an intentional warning shot deadly force?
It might have something to do with where the warning shot was placed. Which piece of ground was it fired into?
Disclaimer: At this point I am not only playing Devil's Advocate but working outside the known facts of the case. I am not, and would not, post anything other than what I have read in the papers.
A 'warning shot' is considered 'deadly force'? I realize a gun can be but how is an intentional warning shot deadly force?
Also, most people in this thread it appears would be good to have as neighbors. A select few however, are apparently as useful as a burnt match.
My LEO days were over in '75 and I am not any kind of expert of NH law. But, I am suspicious there would be a case for menacing in the warning shot especially if the bad guy coming out the window was not showing a weapon. In some states menacing is a felony. But this is all arm chair second guessing.
Guess I don't give a flying [bleep] who's property (excluding yours) is being stolen. Bet you're of the mindset that hey everybody has insurance, they'll cover it. That doesn't sit well with me. I work hard for what I've got. If some whigger decides he wants what I've got let him get a job and buy it like everybody else!
Im not ready to surrender my man-card just yet. You on the other hand...
T---Perhaps it's YOU who should re-read the posts at the beginning of the thread. Paying particularly close attention to Cheyenne defendiing what should be condemned.
Uh, my post agreed with Mackay that it sounded like an inappropriate use of discretion. Unfortunately, there sometimes is a disconnect between what is legal/illegal and what is appropriate under the circumstances. The law should be in harmony with right and wrong, but sometimes it is not, because the law is a "one size fits all" codification. As long as the officer is acting within the bounds of the law, the penalty for an officer applying discretion inappropriately is disciplinary and/or administrative, not through civil redress by the "victim" or criminal action against the officer. If you read my body of work on this forum, you will see that I absolutely believe that officers must act within the bounds of law, and I don't mean stepping within a millimeter of the line, and I also believe that the judicious use of discretion is the hallmark of a good police officer. But, if someone says something is "illegal" and violative of rights because discretion is used inappropriately, s/he just doesn't understand the law.
Cheyenne---I agree with what you wrote above. I also have no reason to believe you are anything but a great cop and certainly didn't mean to infer otherwise. I was only addressing this quote from you as it pertained to hunter1960s question......
"For the people thinking it was an illegal arrest, think again. I suspect the well-intentioned neighbor's actions probably fall within some crime. It certainly wasn't a bright idea and easily could be viewed as reckless endangerment. Further, the fact that a person does not get convicted does not mean the police were wrong."
In any case I hope you have a good night and stay safe out there.
The police cannot allow folks to deal with criminals on their own, because that's their only justification for existing, thus they make examples whenever they can of folks who do it.
HORSESCHIT Hawkeye,
Explain to me then why I roll out to every single medical and fire call in my jurisdiction if my only reason for existing is to make examples of people who catch their own bad guys!
My last days on I hauled a$$ out to a house on fire. I got there and met the home owner/rancher who was already outside with the wife. It was a chimney fire that caught rafters and attic insulation on fire.
He and his wife had already grabbed a couple of photo albums and some stuff. The fire was really not that bad. Anyways, I told him I would help him get his furniture out and safe outside. Whatever it took.
We went in the back of the house and scouted out what we could get out if things went bad for the firemen.
I know a bunch of cops who do the same thing whenever they get the chance. I figure someone would help me if the roles were reversed.
Med calls every single shift are no different.
Don't hand me that crap.
You don't like the work, get a different job. I wouldn't like work where I was "forced" to arrest people who had committed no real crime. That's why I'm not a cop.
Also, that post where you talked about telling the guy "good job" and then what he did wrong...he don't need your pat on the head.
Enough time in the sun to realize I don't have the right to grab a gun and run over to my neighbors place and start poppin off rounds because I believe someone comming out their window MIGHT be the person I suspect of breaking into my house and no body witnessed....
Enough time in the sun to realize I don't have the right to grab a gun and run over to my neighbors place and start poppin off rounds because I believe someone comming out their window MIGHT be the person I suspect of breaking into my house and no body witnessed....
Phil
Where do you get the idea you don't have that right? The only thing you don't have a right to do is victimize someone. Stopping a felon in the act is not victimizing him, so it's within your rights. The law and rights are often two different issues, as we've seen here.
Where do you get the idea you don't have that right?
It'll come to you when the guy coming out of the window--who may be the owner of the house--perceives YOU as the threat and shoots your ass.
Mistakes happen all the time. Doesn't mean you lock yourself up in your house for fear of ever making one rather than doing the right thing when the situation calls for it. The mistake you describe, however, seems so low probability as to be absurd, all factors considered.
Enough time in the sun to realize I don't have the right to grab a gun and run over to my neighbors place and start poppin off rounds because I believe someone comming out their window MIGHT be the person I suspect of breaking into my house and no body witnessed....
Phil
What an ignorant mofo. Looky where the SFB (that [bleep] FOR BRAINS) is from. What a surprise. You deserve to live where you live.
[quote=The_Real_Hawkeye........ however, seems so low probability as to be absurd, all factors considered. [/quote]
yeah, that's as crazy as.....well, as bagging up a pistol and putting it in your freaking shower in case you get home-invaded while you're washing your hair.
Where do you get the idea you don't have that right?
It'll come to you when the guy coming out of the window--who may be the owner of the house--perceives YOU as the threat and shoots your ass.
It was his next door neighbor crawling out of a window. Now I am not the most social butterfly in the world but I do know my neighbors and I can recognize then on the way out of one of their windows at least two out of three times.
Now I am not the best friend of all my neighbors, a couple of them are just not nice people but I am willing to bet a cup of coffee at my house they would all be liking me if I stopped a bad gut crawling out their window.
What the hell was this guy to do? He got robbed, he went looking and saw a stranger crawling out the neighbors window. He may or may not have used wisdom when he fired a warning shot but the bad guy was arrested. That sounds like a lived happily ever after to me.
IF it is serious enough to shoot at all, then shoot to kill or do NOT fire at all!! Cops here are severely prohibited from firing "warning shots". if the guy is not coming at you,has not done a crime of personal violence and IS NOT VISIBLY ARMED, you just cannot fire. Menacing,reckless endangerment are all possible. I'd chew his ass and send him on his way. Here in NY, a burglar INSIDE the house, the legal resident has the right to use deadly force. IF the scumbag dives out the window, DO NOT FIRE THAT GUN!!!
IF it is serious enough to shoot at all, then shoot to kill or do NOT fire at all!! Cops here are severely prohibited from firing "warning shots". if the guy is not coming at you,has not done a crime of personal violence and IS NOT VISIBLY ARMED, you just cannot fire. Menacing,reckless endangerment are all possible. I'd chew his ass and send him on his way. Here in NY, a burglar INSIDE the house, the legal resident has the right to use deadly force. IF the scumbag dives out the window, DO NOT FIRE THAT GUN!!!
But that is NY and this happened in NH. Could be a whole different story.
True, but most states' laws on use of force require the situation to present a direct threat to one's person or a third INNOCENT party before deadly force can be employed outside of one's home. No threat, no shoot. Pretty simple.
Enough time in the sun to realize I don't have the right to grab a gun and run over to my neighbors place and start poppin off rounds because I believe someone comming out their window MIGHT be the person I suspect of breaking into my house and no body witnessed....
Phil
What an ignorant mofo. Looky where the SFB (that [bleep] FOR BRAINS) is from. What a surprise. You deserve to live where you live.
yeah, that's as crazy as.....well, as bagging up a pistol and putting it in your freaking shower in case you get home-invaded while you're washing your hair.
Well, yeah, I guess that would be odd. What's your point?
[quote=The_Real_Hawkeye........ however, seems so low probability as to be absurd, all factors considered.
yeah, that's as crazy as.....well, as bagging up a pistol and putting it in your freaking shower in case you get home-invaded while you're washing your hair. [/quote]
Yeah well, I'll agree that is nuts, but you know what, that sort of mindset gets people through Ranger School, SFQC, and protracted wars intact. Sometimes its them crazy mofos you depend on.
Where do you get the idea you don't have that right?
It'll come to you when the guy coming out of the window--who may be the owner of the house--perceives YOU as the threat and shoots your ass.
It was his next door neighbor crawling out of a window. Now I am not the most social butterfly in the world but I do know my neighbors and I can recognize then on the way out of one of their windows at least two out of three times.
Now I am not the best friend of all my neighbors, a couple of them are just not nice people but I am willing to bet a cup of coffee at my house they would all be liking me if I stopped a bad gut crawling out their window.
What the hell was this guy to do? He got robbed, he went looking and saw a stranger crawling out the neighbors window. He may or may not have used wisdom when he fired a warning shot but the bad guy was arrested. That sounds like a lived happily ever after to me.
True, but most states' laws on use of force require the situation to present a direct threat to one's person or a third INNOCENT party before deadly force can be employed outside of one's home. No threat, no shoot. Pretty simple.
He didn't shoot the man. To shoot the man, your gun needs to be pointed at him when you pull the trigger. This is not to advocate warning shots, but there wasn't anything inherently criminal about a warning shot in this case, based on the facts known. Remember, the other guy was a felon caught in the act.
The police cannot allow folks to deal with criminals on their own, because that's their only justification for existing, thus they make examples whenever they can of folks who do it.
He didn't shoot the man. To shoot the man, your gun needs to be pointed at him when you pull the trigger. This is not to advocate warning shots, but there wasn't anything inherently criminal about a warning shot in this case, based on the facts known. Remember, the other guy was a felon caught in the act.
I fired three warning shots tonight and it worked. No life was taken nor blood shed. I even found one of my empties in the dark. I will dig out the spent rounds tomorrow and recast them. If I can fine the other two empties I will only be out three primers and 13.2 grains of powder and for that my wife and daughter think I am their hero.
He didn't shoot the man. To shoot the man, your gun needs to be pointed at him when you pull the trigger. This is not to advocate warning shots, but there wasn't anything inherently criminal about a warning shot in this case, based on the facts known. Remember, the other guy was a felon caught in the act.
I fired three warning shots tonight and it worked. No life was taken nor blood shed. I even found one of my empties in the dark. I will dig out the spent rounds tomorrow and recast them. If I can fine the other two empties I will only be out three primers and 13.2 grains of powder and for that my wife and daughter think I am their hero.
If that's whut floats yer boat,feel free. For the purposes of this argument, just the previous 2 to my response to TRH will do fine
I happen to have read your previous posts. I disagree with your premise that a warning shot is identical to shooting someone. It lacks intention, and under the circumstances, it also lacks recklessness, so isn't comparable to actually shooting someone for the purpose of the laws you're referring to. It might be a good rule of thumb not to draw without having justification for immediately firing with deadly intent, but it's not traditionally a law that if you draw you must shoot to kill, and I'm not aware of any statute to that effect either.
Warning shots are STILL the EMPLOYMENT of lethal force. And I did say that if it is serious enough to shoot, shoot to kill or don't fire AT ALL. You are a pretty murky individual.
They can be and generally they are real people friendly but two times in seven days and the one in the duck pen chasing ducks and the one stalking the wife were over the top. I am glad I took the warning shots and glad they worked but I will not keep putting up with this. Lambing season is just around the corner and this is not a place where the ladies need to be afraid to walk outside.
Based only on the facts presented in the story, I don't understand the arrest. I also don't understand the warning shot... which leads to a serious request. I'd really like to hear from all the current/former LEOs here what the gentleman SHOULD have done, by the numbers.
The reason I ask is because I'm genuinely interested in the range of answers across diverse jurisdictions, given the great variation in state laws dealing with self defense and the use of deadly force. As we know, some states, such as my former home state of Calif., do everything in their power to make it nearly impossible for someone to defend themselves. Others, such as my adopted state of Texas, take a different view.
For example:
"SAN ANTONIO -- Police say a homeowner on the city's northwest side shot a man in the head Wednesday morning for trying to steal a potted plant from his yard.
The homeowner, in his 60s, grabbed his handgun around 8 a.m. and took several shots a man he claims was stealing a potted plant and other items from his yard at 708 Shadwell, said Sgt. Chris Benavides, a spokesman for the San Antonio Police Department.
Officers caught up to the suspect at the Cabana Apartments, where he lives. He told officers that he had just finished dropping his kids off at school when he was shot in the head.
Benavides said the suspect allegedly stopped at the Shadwell Drive home on his way back from the school.
"When the homeowner saw that someone was trying to steal his plant he used his firearm, shot several times at the suspect," Benavides said. "The suspect was struck one time in the head area. It's my understanding that he was grazed by the bullet."
The suspect, in his 40s, was taken to an area hospital. Police said he will be charged with theft and possibly burglary.
Benavides said the homeowner is being questioned but will not likely be charged."
How would this case likely be treated in YOUR jurisdiction?
Warning shots are STILL the EMPLOYMENT of lethal force. And I did say that if it is serious enough to shoot, shoot to kill or don't fire AT ALL. You are a pretty murky individual.
I disagree - a warning shot (in a safe direction) is MUCH more persuasive, and conducive to immediate compliance, than my voice. Round two would be lethal force. Mark
Warning shots are STILL the EMPLOYMENT of lethal force. And I did say that if it is serious enough to shoot, shoot to kill or don't fire AT ALL. You are a pretty murky individual.
A warning shot, no matter how ill-advised it may be, isn't lethal force.
Warning shots are STILL the EMPLOYMENT of lethal force. And I did say that if it is serious enough to shoot, shoot to kill or don't fire AT ALL. You are a pretty murky individual.
I disagree - a warning shot (in a safe direction) is MUCH more persuasive, and conducive to immediate compliance, than my voice. Round two would be lethal force. Mark
Warning shots are STILL the EMPLOYMENT of lethal force. And I did say that if it is serious enough to shoot, shoot to kill or don't fire AT ALL. You are a pretty murky individual.
A warning shot, no matter how ill-advised it may be, isn't lethal force.
Warning shots are STILL the EMPLOYMENT of lethal force. And I did say that if it is serious enough to shoot, shoot to kill or don't fire AT ALL. You are a pretty murky individual.
I disagree - a warning shot (in a safe direction) is MUCH more persuasive, and conducive to immediate compliance, than my voice. Round two would be lethal force. Mark
I gotta agree. Unless some new info comes to light, this guy being prosecuted would be total bullshiit.
San Antonio - Police say a homeowner on the city's northwest side shot a man in the head Wednesday morning for trying to steal a potted plant from his yard.
Thanks for this.
Friggin' neighbors have been taking the oranges off of our tree out front for years....
I disagree - a warning shot (in a safe direction) ....
You'd find yourself on the stand defining 'safe direction'..
I'm personally aware of a little libby twerp female lawyer who would not only grill you on that, but demonstrate - by her questioning - that there IS no 'safe direction'...
I disagree - a warning shot (in a safe direction) ....
You'd find yourself on the stand defining 'safe direction'..
I'm personally aware of a little libby twerp female lawyer who would not only grill you on that, but demonstrate - by her questioning - that there IS no 'safe direction'...
Nonsense. It's up to the prosecution to demonstrate to the satisfaction of a jury that the defendant didn't fire in a safe direction. Absent such proof, the jury will be instructed to conclude that the direction was safe. The defendant isn't required to say word one about a safe direction.
Anybody that thinks that this guy deserves charged with the info given does not belong on the 'fire. We are gun owners against liberals. The police should have thanked him, and the officer(s) that charged him should pay his legal fees along with any lost wages+.
I disagree - a warning shot (in a safe direction) ....
You'd find yourself on the stand defining 'safe direction'..
I'm personally aware of a little libby twerp female lawyer who would not only grill you on that, but demonstrate - by her questioning - that there IS no 'safe direction'...
Nonsense. It's up to the prosecution to demonstrate to the satisfaction of a jury that the defendant didn't fire in a safe direction. Absent such proof, the jury will be instructed to conclude that the direction was safe. The defendant isn't required to say word one about a safe direction.
Au Contrere, my friend.. Our gun range was shut down three years ago due to the plaintiff's argument that ANY shot, fired in ANY direction, is inherently unsafe.. Our NRA certified attorney did his best, but the local court, and the following appeal, got us bupkis.. The State Supreme Court refused to hear any further appeal - and the range is now shut down - permanently.. All due to the little twerp female litigator who let the witnesses around by the nose to an inescapable conclusion that there IS no 'safe' direction..
Warning shots are STILL the EMPLOYMENT of lethal force.
While in some distorted legal or officer-speak, that might be construed as true, but in the test of common sense, it's a complete distortion of both reality & common sense.
And yes, I respect both your experience & comments based on that experience.
Anybody that thinks that this guy deserves charged with the info given does not belong on the 'fire. We are gun owners against liberals. The police should have thanked him, and the officer(s) that charged him should pay his legal fees along with any lost wages+.
No, he did not deserve the charge... but it's apparent the law exists - therefore it's up to the DA as to whether it goes forward or will be dismissed due to the mitigating circumstances..
Too bad he just didn't shoot the sob and save the court and taxpayers a lot of money.. But that's just me..
San Antonio - Police say a homeowner on the city's northwest side shot a man in the head Wednesday morning for trying to steal a potted plant from his yard.
Thanks for this.
Friggin' neighbors have been taking the oranges off of our tree out front for years....
I disagree - a warning shot (in a safe direction) ....
You'd find yourself on the stand defining 'safe direction'..
I'm personally aware of a little libby twerp female lawyer who would not only grill you on that, but demonstrate - by her questioning - that there IS no 'safe direction'...
Nonsense. It's up to the prosecution to demonstrate to the satisfaction of a jury that the defendant didn't fire in a safe direction. Absent such proof, the jury will be instructed to conclude that the direction was safe. The defendant isn't required to say word one about a safe direction.
Au Contrere, my friend.. Our gun range was shut down three years ago due to the plaintiff's argument that ANY shot, fired in ANY direction, is inherently unsafe..
First off, that doesn't contradict what I said regarding burden of proof. Secondly, you're referring to a civil case, which is different in that a mere preponderance of the evidence is sufficient for a plaintiff to prevail, while in a criminal case the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. The latter is a much harder burden on the "plaintiff," i.e., the prosecution.
Geeze do any of you bother to read. He wasn't being threatend, no one was in harms way, NO ONE WAS BEING RAPED, and it wasn't his property.
Phil
Greyghost, I'm curious. Your neighbor is away from home and you see a small fire outside his home but right next to it. Do you go and put it out or call the fire department? Now keep in mind.... You are not being threatend, no one was in harms way, NO ONE WAS BEING RAPED, and it isn't your property.
Nope, I just go about my business and keep my nose out of the neighbors affairs. Let their damned house burn to the ground. Don't like them nor their dogs. I hope they are home and they along with their dogs are all burnt to fine ashes.
Geeze do any of you bother to read. He wasn't being threatend, no one was in harms way, NO ONE WAS BEING RAPED, and it wasn't his property.
Phil
Greyghost, I'm curious. Your neighbor is away from home and you see a small fire outside his home but right next to it. Do you go and put it out or call the fire department? Now keep in mind.... You are not being threatend, no one was in harms way, NO ONE WAS BEING RAPED, and it isn't your property.
You can come up with all the screwy sceneros you like, but the fact remains the guy went looking for trouble, then stated to police he was scared of the perp and was afraid he couldn't handle the guy.... [bleep] he should hav stayed home...
As to a fire if you like to continue with these, if it was ourside and posed a danger to the structure or life, yes I would try to put it out, if it was inside and of no danger to anones life, no it's better left to the fire department...
Geeze do any of you bother to read. He wasn't being threatend, no one was in harms way, NO ONE WAS BEING RAPED, and it wasn't his property.
Phil
Greyghost, I'm curious. Your neighbor is away from home and you see a small fire outside his home but right next to it. Do you go and put it out or call the fire department? Now keep in mind.... You are not being threatend, no one was in harms way, NO ONE WAS BEING RAPED, and it isn't your property.
Your "fire scenario" is different from the one that is the basis of this thread.
Your legal duties, and liabilities change drastically when you go from protecting you and yours with force or a weapon, to injecting yourself in something that doesn't involve you or yours.
Love it when you freaks start calling names when someone doesn't agree with your way of thinking!
Fact still remains the guy crossed the line when he left his property to go chase down someone he assumed was the person who broke into his home while he wasn't home, and witnessed nothing.
Anyone who wants to believe that firing any round into the ground is a safe place to shoot should go see a machinegun range. Specifically because the tracers allow one to see PART of what actually happens. At ANY range they impact the ground,they richochet ALL over the place!! Big MG's,mid-size MG's,small MG's, they all do the same thing. Richochet like crazy and the bullets go damn near everywhere. Letting a round go into the ground intentionally within a town,village or city is at best ill advised,and ignorant. At worst injurious or deadly. It ain't what you would LIKE to think, it is downright dangerous and ignorant. No warning shots. The scene presented so far does NOT give excuse for such an act.
So... by your definition when I went after a guy who had just stolen a woman's purse a few weeks ago I was "looking for trouble"?
Thank God everyone doesn't think like you...
I am willing to cut a little slack on this. Some of us are called to step forward and involve ourselves. Some are not. It is best to know which you are. You and I are called to step forward and do what is right within the law to help someone besides ourselves. Others do not feel that way. Not sure that falls into a good or bad guy category. It is just an "is".
Fact still remains the guy crossed the line when he left his propwery to go chase down someone he assumed was the person who broke into his home while he wasn'r home and witnessed nothin.
Phil
I guess the fact that the guy caught the felon crawling out of a neighbor's window eluded you. Not surprised.
Scott if he said that he wouldn't intervene I can live with that. Some day Phil might be very grateful that someone was willing to step foreward in a situation concerning friends or family...
I hope he never faces that situation but if the case should arise I hope there is someone there to step in. Just as I hope that if someone were to attempt to grab my wife or one of our daughters out of a parking lot there would be someone willing to step to the plate.
Edited to add I hope I never have to draw my carry weapon again even for something as minor as I had last night. But if I ever saw someone in real need of help I am willing to give all I have.
The fact that the guy caught and held a stranger crawling out of a neighbors window for police has nothing to do with it, and appearently the police felt the same way.... the fact that he grabed a gun and went looking for an unkown person and used the weapon in a unsafe way does!
You can come up with all the screwy sceneros you like, but the fact remains the guy went looking for trouble, then stated to police he was scared of the perp and was afraid he couldn't handle the guy.... [bleep] he should hav stayed home...
As to a fire if you like to continue with these, if it was ourside and posed a danger to the structure or life, yes I would try to put it out, if it was inside and of no danger to anones life, no it's better left to the fire department...
But hey you keep comeing up with these.
Phil
Why so defensive? Why is it a 'screwy sceanrio'? In both scenarios his neighbor's PROPERTY was in danger, not a life. You have touted the 'none of my business' angle and I'm trying to see how far it goes. In the OP he 'handled the guy' just fine it seems. Like I said, some folks make better neighbors than others. If we were neighbors and we had this conversation so I knew your position and chose to respect it, I suspect had the exact same scenario played itself out at your home, and I told you I went inside and called the cops and then watched TV while the perp was crawling out your window, "Thanks for being a great neighbor" would be about the last thought on your mind. Of course since I reasonable cause to suspect the guy also stole MY stuff I wouldn't have been so apathetic but go with it. The cops can't be everywhere at every minute to protect life and property and that old axiom of "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away" is not only true in defense of your life. Would you have even bothered to watch the guy and/or get his license plate number or is that also 'none of your business'? I'm just trying to quantify the level of apathy people have for taking care of threats.
Just as I hope that if someone were to attempt to grab my wife or one of our daughters out of a parking lot there would be someone willing to step to the plate.
Imagine how much LESS crime we'd have if people viewed it as a moral duty to help someone in need rather than coming up with bizarre tenuous excuses to look the other way.
A bystander that intervenes in a purse snatching is one thing! A by stander that intervenes in a purse snatching by pulling a weapon and starts popping off rounds to apprehend that purse snatcher is out of his mind!
Love it when you freaks start calling names when someone doesn't agree with your way of thinking!
Fact still remains the guy crossed the line when he left his property to go chase down someone he assumed was the person who broke into his home while he wasn't home, and witnessed nothing.
Phil
Yours is the mindset of a slave, not that of a responsible citizen of a free nation.
A bystander that intervenes in a purse snatching is one thing! A by stander that intervenes in a purse snatching by pulling a weapon and starts popping off rounds to apprehend that purse snatcher is out of his mind!
Phil
So it's really JUST about him firing his weapon? If he had tackled the guy coming out of window and beat him to a bloody pulp (or maybe just a 'chop to the solar plexus preceeded by a figure 4 leg lock whilst waiting for someone to summon the gendarme) you'd be fine with that?
A bystander that intervenes in a purse snatching is one thing! A by stander that intervenes in a purse snatching by pulling a weapon and starts popping off rounds to apprehend that purse snatcher is out of his mind!
Phil
The way I understand it anyone who does anything at all to avoid being robbed, beaten or murdered in your part of the world is wrong.
That said, a purse snatching is not a shooting offense and thus the brandishing of a weapon in such a case is a felony. However, the little old lady or the sweet young thing who is under attack could in some cases use a firearm for defense if they thought they were in serious danger. It is a case by case thing and one answer does not fit all cases.
Anyone who wants to believe that firing any round into the ground is a safe place to shoot should go see a machinegun range. Specifically because the tracers allow one to see PART of what actually happens. At ANY range they impact the ground,they richochet ALL over the place!! Big MG's,mid-size MG's,small MG's, they all do the same thing. Richochet like crazy and the bullets go damn near everywhere. Letting a round go into the ground intentionally within a town,village or city is at best ill advised,and ignorant. At worst injurious or deadly. It ain't what you would LIKE to think, it is downright dangerous and ignorant. No warning shots. The scene presented so far does NOT give excuse for such an act.
The advisability of a warning shot is not in discussion here. What is in discussion is its status as a crime in the present context. Context is everything. While it might be a crime to step out your front door on the Fourth of July and fire rounds from your AR-15 willy nilly, it's not a crime if the purpose is reasonably directed at stopping a felon in the act, and reasonable care (considering the circumstances) was taken not to endanger innocent third parties in the process, and this regardless of whether you agree with the advisability of warning shots under any circumstances. Crime and advisability are two separate questions.
The fact that the guy caught and held a stranger crawling out of a neighbors window for police has nothing to do with it, and appearently the police felt the same way.... the fact that he grabed a gun and went looking for an unkown person and used the weapon in a unsafe way does!
But to each his own.
Phil
Maybe my reading comprehension sucks, but I didn't take that from the article.
In my mind, the dude just got home, saw his house in shambles as a result of a violent robbery. At that point, he is old, scared, and alone. So, he justly reaches for his gun. At that point he starts investigating his property to make sure he was safe and to see what damage may have been done outside. I don't think he went looking for trouble, but quite the opposite....
I do have my "Monday morning quaterback" issues with how he played out the whole thing, but I wasn't there, I don't know his mind, and I can't speak to his behavior as a result.
Everyone likes to wax philosophic about what they, in their superior mind, would do in a given situation. The fact is, nobody does.
Interesting how the incident has been transposed from a property crime to an extremely PERSONAL assault. Coming to the aid of a PERSON in danger is one thing. Even then the morally acceptable level of force is dependant on the nature of the assault. Property crimes by themselves do not have the standing to allow the use of what could be deadly force. You ARE fully accountable for where any projectile goes. You fire five to stop a kidnapper(quite legally and morally acceptable). Four hit him. Number 5 scores a 10 ring on Grandma a block away. Manslaughter. Recklessly causes etc,etc,etc, No friggin' warning shots!
Interesting how the incident has been transposed from a property crime to an extremely PERSONAL assault. Coming to the aid of a PERSON in danger is one thing. Even then the morally acceptable level of force is dependant on the nature of the assault. Property crimes by themselves do not have the standing to allow the use of what could be deadly force. You ARE fully accountable for where any projectile goes. You fire five to stop a kidnapper(quite legally and morally acceptable). Four hit him. Number 5 scores a 10 ring on Grandma a block away. Manslaughter. Recklessly causes etc,etc,etc, No friggin' warning shots!
Seems like I remember a story years ago about a CCW holder in Texas that popped a would be murderer with a 357 Mag. One of his shots went wild and killed an innocent bystander-the guy went to prison for that, IIRC.
The way I understand it anyone who does anything at all to avoid being robbed, beaten or murdered in your part of the world is wrong.
That said, a purse snatching is not a shooting offense and thus the brandishing of a weapon in such a case is a felony. However, the little old lady or the sweet young thing who is under attack could in some cases use a firearm for defense if they thought they were in serious danger. It is a case by case thing and one answer does not fit all cases.
Exactly!
Although, I have to admit that I don't like that purse snatching isn't a shooting offense. In my mind, it's protection of personal property. Though, personally, I'd let the guy go, because I'd hate to live with that shoot on my mind.
Whenever away, my neighbors and I always ask and agree to keep an eye on each others place. That given, we are not just blindly running down some unknown individual seen exiting a window, but following through on an agreement with the neighbor. I'd be tickled pink to have that gentleman across the street.
On the reckless firing. Yes, bullets can bounce (especially when fired across near level plains) and even come back in the opposite direction in some extremely rare instances. I'd lay odds though that a slug fired into soil, at anything greater than a 45 degree angle, is going to stick right there. If it did indeed stay put, endangerment should absolutely not be a issue. Any of us with just a little bit of thought, could probably stand in a crowd and figure out some way to safely discharge a firearm. Do we arrest our officers when they engage in an urban environment? The laws should read the same for everyone.
If anyone is in that vicinity, could you please keep us up on the happenings in this instance. I'd gladly donate to a defense fund if it's needed.
A few comments here lead me to believe that some would simply watch the rape of a 12 year old go down in the middle of the street and not step in. What is the legal definition of "looking for trouble" versus "coming to someones assistance?"
Sounds like maybe the perp in the original post was apprehended under illegal circumstances, perhaps we should apologize and turn him loose. Some stupid enforcers there.
Geeze do any of you bother to read. He wasn't being threatend, no one was in harms way, NO ONE WAS BEING RAPED, and it wasn't his property.
Phil
Greyghost, I'm curious. Your neighbor is away from home and you see a small fire outside his home but right next to it. Do you go and put it out or call the fire department? Now keep in mind.... You are not being threatend, no one was in harms way, NO ONE WAS BEING RAPED, and it isn't your property.
Your "fire scenario" is different from the one that is the basis of this thread.
Your legal duties, and liabilities change drastically when you go from protecting you and yours with force or a weapon, to injecting yourself in something that doesn't involve you or yours.
I think you missed that part where the shooter's house had been burglarized. When you discover your house has been burglarized and you see a burglar coming out of your neighbor's window, it's a fairly safe assumption that it's the same guy...so it does involve you.
In Texas you can shoot in defense of property.
As far as the warning shot goes, it doesn't negate NH law on the subject but, by it's very definition it went in a safe direction because it harmed nobody and nothing.
Whenever away, my neighbors and I always ask and agree to keep an eye on each others place. That given, we are not just blindly running down some unknown individual seen exiting a window, but following through on an agreement with the neighbor. I'd be tickled pink to have that gentleman across the street.
On the reckless firing. Yes, bullets can bounce (especially when fired across near level plains) and even come back in the opposite direction in some extremely rare instances. I'd lay odds though that a slug fired into soil, at anything greater than a 45 degree angle, is going to stick right there. If it did indeed stay put, endangerment should absolutely not be a issue. Any of us with just a little bit of thought, could probably stand in a crowd and figure out some way to safely discharge a firearm. Do we arrest our officers when they engage in an urban environment? The laws should read the same for everyone.
If anyone is in that vicinity, could you please keep us up on the happenings in this instance. I'd gladly donate to a defense fund if it's needed.
The fact that the guy caught and held a stranger crawling out of a neighbors window for police has nothing to do with it, and appearently the police felt the same way.... the fact that he grabed a gun and went looking for an unkown person and used the weapon in a unsafe way does!
But to each his own.
Phil
Maybe my reading comprehension sucks, but I didn't take that from the article.
In my mind, the dude just got home, saw his house in shambles as a result of a violent robbery. At that point, he is old, scared, and alone. So, he justly reaches for his gun. At that point he starts investigating his property to make sure he was safe and to see what damage may have been done outside. I don't think he went looking for trouble, but quite the opposite....
I do have my "Monday morning quaterback" issues with how he played out the whole thing, but I wasn't there, I don't know his mind, and I can't speak to his behavior as a result.
Everyone likes to wax philosophic about what they, in their superior mind, would do in a given situation. The fact is, nobody does.
Seems like I remember a story years ago about a CCW holder in Texas that popped a would be murderer with a 357 Mag. One of his shots went wild and killed an innocent bystander-the guy went to prison for that, IIRC.
Most likely an urban legend. According to the laws of most, if not all, states, so long as the shooting was justified, any third parties injured or killed are considered the fault of the criminal, not the justified shooter, regardless of who fired the bullet.
The fact that the guy caught and held a stranger crawling out of a neighbors window for police has nothing to do with it, and appearently the police felt the same way....
And that, unfortunately, is where we, as country, & the "laws" have evolved to.
Sad state of affairs to see such a devaluation of our ethics & views.............pure political correctness at its worst.
Seems like I remember a story years ago about a CCW holder in Texas that popped a would be murderer with a 357 Mag. One of his shots went wild and killed an innocent bystander-the guy went to prison for that, IIRC.
Most likely an urban legend. According to the laws of most, if not all, states, so long as the shooting was justified, any third parties injured or killed are considered the fault of the criminal, not the justified shooter, regardless of who fired the bullet.
Legend? Could be, Hawk. As to the rest, I don't know, to be honest. The point I was trying to make is that a CCW holder or whoever ought to be darn careful about where they put those bullets!
Whenever away, my neighbors and I always ask and agree to keep an eye on each others place. That given, we are not just blindly running down some unknown individual seen exiting a window, but following through on an agreement with the neighbor. I'd be tickled pink to have that gentleman across the street.
On the reckless firing. Yes, bullets can bounce (especially when fired across near level plains) and even come back in the opposite direction in some extremely rare instances. I'd lay odds though that a slug fired into soil, at anything greater than a 45 degree angle, is going to stick right there. If it did indeed stay put, endangerment should absolutely not be a issue. Any of us with just a little bit of thought, could probably stand in a crowd and figure out some way to safely discharge a firearm. Do we arrest our officers when they engage in an urban environment? The laws should read the same for everyone.
If anyone is in that vicinity, could you please keep us up on the happenings in this instance. I'd gladly donate to a defense fund if it's needed.
In this state the LE agencies that i've seen their SOP's, do not even allow warning shots to be fired, it's pretty standard not to. If you check those in OR. they probably don't either.
Legend? Could be, Hawk. As to the rest, I don't know, to be honest. The point I was trying to make is that a CCW holder or whoever ought to be darn careful about where they put those bullets.
That's needless to say, but a justified shooter is held innocent regarding injuries to third parties. I believe that's the law in every state. Some states even charge the criminal who was the target of the shooting with murder if third parties are killed by the bullets fired from the justified shooter's weapon.
Where in the world a violent robery came from is beyond me....
Done with thread, and will leave it at this, I keep a loaded 44 mag handy when home, some one comes onto my property and breaks into my home. There won't be any talking, won't be any questions or trying to persuade the guy to leave... first step he takes towards me, my wife or one of my dogs the guy gets one between the eye's and their won't be any regrets...
But there is no property, not mine or not yours that is worth anyones life... you all can talk all you like!
But once the guy decides to leave and is no longer a threat to mine, my family's, or anyones life, it's done, I'm not going to chase down a crook gun in hand like some madman.
Twist the facts any way you like...
We're not in the day's of vigilantism and the hangman's noose... You want to play cowboy and indians, have at it. Just be prepared to pay the consequences!
Legend? Could be, Hawk. As to the rest, I don't know, to be honest. The point I was trying to make is that a CCW holder or whoever ought to be darn careful about where they put those bullets.
That's needless to say, but a justified shooter is held innocent regarding injuries to third parties. I believe that's the law in every state. Some states even charge the criminal who was the target of the shooting with murder if third parties are killed by the bullets fired from the justified shooter's weapon.
That is interesting. I guess I'd best do some more research on Idaho's laws concerning same.
Legend? Could be, Hawk. As to the rest, I don't know, to be honest. The point I was trying to make is that a CCW holder or whoever ought to be darn careful about where they put those bullets.
That's needless to say, but a justified shooter is held innocent regarding injuries to third parties. I believe that's the law in every state. Some states even charge the criminal who was the target of the shooting with murder if third parties are killed by the bullets fired from the justified shooter's weapon.
That is interesting. I guess I'd best do some more research on Idaho's laws concerning same.
Where in the world a violent robery came from is beyond me....
Phil
Wrong choice of words on my behalf. I should have stated more clearly that it was a violent BURGLARY. The violence was evident in the shambles the inside of his home was in as a result of the violence. I can absolutely see that shaking a lone, elderly person to the core and make them fear for their life, until they have had a look around....
I can't really argue with the rest of your above statement as I'd like to think that I would act accordingly. That said, I will stick to my point that you don't have a freaking clue what you would do, until you are in that moment!
Legend? Could be, Hawk. As to the rest, I don't know, to be honest. The point I was trying to make is that a CCW holder or whoever ought to be darn careful about where they put those bullets.
That's needless to say, but a justified shooter is held innocent regarding injuries to third parties. I believe that's the law in every state. Some states even charge the criminal who was the target of the shooting with murder if third parties are killed by the bullets fired from the justified shooter's weapon.
That is interesting. I guess I'd best do some more research on Idaho's laws concerning same.
Here's a start on the concept I'm referring to:
"[T]he doctrine of self-defense is available to insulate one from criminal responsibility where his act, justifiably in self-defense, inadvertently results in the injury of an innocent bystander." (People v. Mathews (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 1018, 1024 [154 Cal.Rptr. 628]; see also People v. Curtis (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1357 [37 Cal.Rptr.2d 304].) " Source
And California isn't known for being particularly self-defense friendly.
The advisability of a warning shot is not in discussion here. What is in discussion is its status as a crime in the present context. Context is everything. While it might be a crime to step out your front door on the Fourth of July and fire rounds from your AR-15 willy nilly, it's not a crime if the purpose is reasonably directed at stopping a felon in the act, and reasonable care (considering the circumstances) was taken not to endanger innocent third parties in the process, and this regardless of whether you agree with the advisability of warning shots under any circumstances. Crime and advisability are two separate questions.
I think you have framed the issue correctly there. However, without knowing the law or the facts, it is not possible to know if the shot was legal or not under the circumstances.
Although, I have to admit that I don't like that purse snatching isn't a shooting offense. In my mind, it's protection of personal property. Though, personally, I'd let the guy go, because I'd hate to live with that shoot on my mind.
Exactly. I understand that in Texas it is legal to kill someone by shooting in the back if they steal and empty soda can from your place. In my mind that is NOT a shooting offense. If someone knocks my wife down, puncher her in the face, steals her purse and runs away that is not a shooting offense. He is leaving and no longer presents a threat. Besides we are broke and her purce would be empty.
Now if someone was crawling out a window and was threatening me with harm that could be a different thing.
As far as the warning shot goes, it doesn't negate NH law on the subject but, by it's very definition it went in a safe direction because it harmed nobody and nothing.
Cole, under that logic the guy who fires a round at you intending to kill you, but he misses and the bullet lodges in a wall, would not be guilty of attempted murder or aggravated assault because it went in a safe direction and nobody was harmed. It's not as cut and dried as you suggest.
Geeze do any of you bother to read. He wasn't being threatend, no one was in harms way, NO ONE WAS BEING RAPED, and it wasn't his property.
Phil
Greyghost, I'm curious. Your neighbor is away from home and you see a small fire outside his home but right next to it. Do you go and put it out or call the fire department? Now keep in mind.... You are not being threatend, no one was in harms way, NO ONE WAS BEING RAPED, and it isn't your property.
Your "fire scenario" is different from the one that is the basis of this thread.
Your legal duties, and liabilities change drastically when you go from protecting you and yours with force or a weapon, to injecting yourself in something that doesn't involve you or yours.
I think you missed that part where the shooter's house had been burglarized. When you discover your house has been burglarized and you see a burglar coming out of your neighbor's window, it's a fairly safe assumption that it's the same guy...so it does involve you.
In Texas you can shoot in defense of property.
As far as the warning shot goes, it doesn't negate NH law on the subject but, by it's very definition it went in a safe direction because it harmed nobody and nothing.
I don't think it's safe to make such assumptions when the use of deadly force could result. The article doesn't tell me what other knowledge the man had. For instance, did he know the neighbor well enough to know this wasn't any family of theirs. Yes, it's pretty suspicious to find your home burglarized, then see someone crawling out of a neighbors window, but I personally am going to need more knowledge than that to pick up a gun and go inject myself in to that situation. Maybe he had enough knowledge, I don't know, and I don't have a problem with people protecting other's property. All I'm saying is, you better be sure. Tragic errors can result from assumptions.
And, for the record, I don't think the guy should have been charged for firing a warning shot.
I'll leave the debate over issue of warning shots to others.
Where in the world a violent robery came from is beyond me....
Done with thread, and will leave it at this, I keep a loaded 44 mag handy when home, some one comes onto my property and breaks into my home. There won't be any talking, won't be any questions or trying to persuade the guy to leave... first step he takes towards me, my wife or one of my dogs the guy gets one between the eye's and their won't be any regrets...
But there is no property, not mine or not yours that is worth anyones life... you all can talk all you like!
But once the guy decides to leave and is no longer a threat to mine, my family's, or anyones life, it's done, I'm not going to chase down a crook gun in hand like some madman.
Twist the facts any way you like...
We're not in the day's of vigilantism and the hangman's noose... You want to play cowboy and indians, have at it. Just be prepared to pay the consequences!
Phil
I think you're making some assumptions. I'm not a violent or bloodthirsty person and most of the people I see defending this guy aren't ime, either. Granted I know none of them face-to-face but...
The robber who breaks into your home may not be "violent" either. I saw no evidence that this guy acted like a mad dog and was out to do vigilante justice or anything. Have you ever been robbed? Your first reaction is to grab a gun, if you have one left. I don't think this is for the purpose of coercion in forcing the bad guys to give your stuff back. IMO it is an instinct from someplace deep in your conciousness telling you that the person may still be around and may be dangerous to you. That you have the gun for this purpose and the person presents themselves to you makes it easy for you to prevent the robbery. There aren't very many here who would not act in the exact way I'm describing including the guy we are talking about. This is instinctual. If circumstances dictated that you end up shooting the guy, you will feel bad about it if indeed it looks like it was all over property. In some places it is even against the law to shoot that way. It shouldn't be. That's because to most guys, the whole thing is instinctual. If you don't understand this or aren't like this I don't know what to say other than I'm guessing that 90% of men are-and I mean no offense by what I'm saying.
This is separate...if somebody is stealing from you they are ultimately threatening the lives of your family. IMO the reason it is so ingrained to defend your property is that back in the ancient old timey type days of yore and suchlike, if you had raised some corn to feed your family and cows and somebody took it, your family had nothing to eat. We know the end result of that.
We're in agreement as to your last two paragraphs. I think you're just as guilty of speculation as I am in this particular case. I'm just coming down on the side of the good guy and also assuming him innocent in regards to the info presented thus far-which he is sans the law about shooting in town. My take is that he very well could have grabbed the gun up when he saw the house was gone through in case the burglar was yet on the premises. Following the trail, so to speak, he spies the burglar coming out of his neighbor's window. I think that this is not only reasonable but the most reasonable explanation and I'll hazard a guess that most of us here would do similarly to what he did in the same situation. I'll include you in that group.
As far as the warning shot goes, it doesn't negate NH law on the subject but, by it's very definition it went in a safe direction because it harmed nobody and nothing.
Cole, under that logic the guy who fires a round at you intending to kill you, but he misses and the bullet lodges in a wall, would not be guilty of attempted murder or aggravated assault because it went in a safe direction and nobody was harmed. It's not as cut and dried as you suggest.
lol Cheyenne, dude, you're an attorney and know better than to foment such an argument. No offense intended, but...
Guilt in such a case as the first one you mention, is predicated on the intent of the shooter. First, he is the bad guy because he's attempting to murder me because I caught him thieving-at least that's how I take your scenario. Second, his guilt is predicated on his intent, not where his bullet went.
In the scenario in the OP, the guy is the good guy. He demonstrates his intent is not to kill the burglar and his bullet evidently did no harm. Therefore he is only guilty of breaking a law which the spirit of, is to prevent accidental injuries and property damage, of which ostensibly, none occurred.
Just as intent can cause trouble notwithstanding poor execution of an act, sometimes, poor execution of an act can get you in trouble notwithstanding lack of intent. And, sometimes the law punishes an act even if no bad result occurs, because the legislature thinks people just shouldn't be doing that. Overlay on top of that the rules concerning justification notwithstanding the technical occurrence of a crime, and you have a very fact intensive inquiry.
In the scenario in the OP, the guy is the good guy. He demonstrates his intent is not to kill the burglar and his bullet evidently did no harm. Therefore he is only guilty of breaking a law which the spirit of, is to prevent accidental injuries and property damage, of which ostensibly, none occurred.
I just got back from working out at the PD. Everybody is still up in arms about this. I just got done saying that the only thing that could change my mind on this case is the point of impact of that round.
We "know" (strong word based on newspapers) that the round was fried into the ground. What I don't know is where that piece of real estate was (at a witnesses feet?) or where it went after. I know nobody was injured and I surmise (due to no mention) that there was no property damage. Still, I'd like to know where the round went.
FWIW, I not only respect CA Velardi as a professional but also feel he's a damn good person. You're not going to catch me saying that about a lot of lawyers.
We're in agreement as to your last two paragraphs. I think you're just as guilty of speculation as I am in this particular case. I'm just coming down on the side of the good guy and also assuming him innocent in regards to the info presented thus far-which he is sans the law about shooting in town. My take is that he very well could have grabbed the gun up when he saw the house was gone through in case the burglar was yet on the premises. Following the trail, so to speak, he spies the burglar coming out of his neighbor's window. I think that this is not only reasonable but the most reasonable explanation and I'll hazard a guess that most of us here would do similarly to what he did in the same situation. I'll include you in that group.
We pretty well agree. And I said I agree the circumstances that we do know about, yes, it was a reasonable assumption. I'm simply saying in my mind, before I inject myself in to something that could end up resulting in the use of deadly force, I want it to be on more than a "reasonable assumption". That's just me.
As to the charge against the old guy, I don't get it. Like someone else said, there may be more to this than has been reported.
Per today's paper, the case has gone to the CA's office for review.
George
So, does that mean he's not actually been charged, and this "review" will be seeking a warrant? Is the charge he's potentially facing a felony or misdemeanor?
Per today's paper, the case has gone to the CA's office for review.
George
So, does that mean he's not actually been charged, and this "review" will be seeking a warrant? Is the charge he's potentially facing a felony or misdemeanor?
Based on what I'm reading, he has been formally charged with Reckless Conduct (felony as it's worded at this time). I don't know when the PC hearing will be (if it happens).
Now that CA Velardi has it, there are mulitple options (as you know). He could let it stand, kick it back to down as a Misd. or recommend tanking it.
Per today's paper, the case has gone to the CA's office for review.
George
So, does that mean he's not actually been charged, and this "review" will be seeking a warrant? Is the charge he's potentially facing a felony or misdemeanor?
Based on what I'm reading, he has been formally charged with Reckless Conduct (felony as it's worded at this time). I don't know when the PC hearing will be (if it happens).
Now that CA Velardi has it, there are mulitple options (as you know). He could let it stand, kick it back to down as a Misd. or recommend tanking it.
George
Do officers there not have to screen warrants with the CA?
Negative, though I would take any odds you want to offer that a phone call was made to the on-call ACA while this was in progress (disclaimer: not based on any personal knowledge or conversation with those involved).
Depending on the case I might: a) just bang out the felony warrant, make the arrest, and send it up to the CA arrigment/PC hearing b) call the CA's office and "get a ruling" before completing a warrant. c) throw the case together and simply send it up for indictment d) arrest on scene (obviously, but wanted to throw it in)
Did the arresting officers not have to have a warrant to go into the mans house and sieze his other weapons? Or was that done presuming that the man was guilty of a felony?
Negative, though I would take any odds you want to offer that a phone call was made to the on-call ACA while this was in progress (disclaimer: not based on any personal knowledge or conversation with those involved).
Depending on the case I might: a) just bang out the felony warrant, make the arrest, and send it up to the CA arrigment/PC hearing b) call the CA's office and "get a ruling" before completing a warrant. c) throw the case together and simply send it up for indictment d) arrest on scene (obviously, but wanted to throw it in)
George
Still think there must be something more to the story. Is it possible the LE Agency has a policy that prohibits officer discretion?
Did the arresting officers not have to have a warrant to go into the mans house and sieze his other weapons? Or was that done presuming that the man was guilyy of a felony?
Phil
My guess based on my knowledge of BCs in County is that it was done as a condition of bail.
Jim, I am unaware of what their internal policies are. That's as far as I'm willing to go on a public forum.
Did the arresting officers not have to have a warrant to go into the mans house and sieze his other weapons? Or was that done presuming that the man was guilyy of a felony?
Phil
My guess based on my knowledge of BCs in County is that it was done as a condition of bail.
Jim, I am unaware of what their internal policies are. That's as far as I'm willing to go on a public forum.
Interesting how the incident has been transposed from a property crime to an extremely PERSONAL assault. Coming to the aid of a PERSON in danger is one thing. Even then the morally acceptable level of force is dependant on the nature of the assault. Property crimes by themselves do not have the standing to allow the use of what could be deadly force. You ARE fully accountable for where any projectile goes. You fire five to stop a kidnapper(quite legally and morally acceptable). Four hit him. Number 5 scores a 10 ring on Grandma a block away. Manslaughter. Recklessly causes etc,etc,etc, No friggin' warning shots!
Twin,
You know I like and respect you.
BUT...I'm sure glad that "justice" as the left and other left coast see it hasn't evolved throughout middle America.
Here the VICTIM would have been given a medal and a special day in his honor.
I'm glad as all h@ll I don't live where "justice" has evolved to the extent it has in NY or CA.
I sure do hope that gets straightened out in his favor, it is just wrong IMHO.
I certainly agree Terry.
But then, "But Fleming said he's not entirely defenseless: "I've got a Louisville Slugger here, but I would call the police," he said." (quote from article). Let's just hope he doesn't strike the bat at the ground if he has to apprehend another burglar.
BUT...I'm sure glad that "justice" as the left and other left coast see it hasn't evolved throughout middle America.
And, up until a couple days ago, I would have bet the farm it never would have played out this way here. When the actual incident took place "we" were all elated/excited that the homeowner stopped the schithead....then this.
In 13 years, I have never thought twice about putting on my uniform. This isn't my jurisdiction, but just being in the same County as this incident makes me feel.....dirty. I can only hope that the CA makes it right as he can, but it isn't going to fix everything.
I can happen in your AO, so don't go getting too self-righteous. All it takes is a pure "letter of the law" call and voila.
Yeah....give one of the most pro-gun States to England and Australia.......
NH doesn't come off as very Pro-Gun by this, but I hope the rest of the folks there feel as you do. We're outside, looking in, and this fiasco is what we see right now.
If you're pro-gun, England and Australia could use a dose of your Yankee common sense.
I know most of our DAs here, and with the exception of the Clark County DA (Las Vegas), none would touch a hair on the head of the victim.
I'll also eat a little crow in regards to "ratings".
We fall mid-range on the Brady schit-list. The "2 points" that keep us from falling right in with Texas and Wyoming, etc. is the license at point-of-purchase. I was thinking strictly in regards to shall-issue ($10.00), open carry, no wait at point-of-purchase, etc.
I have high hopes for the CCW going the way of the dodo this year....
Enough time in the sun to realize I don't have the right to grab a gun and run over to my neighbors place and start poppin off rounds because I believe someone comming out their window MIGHT be the person I suspect of breaking into my house and no body witnessed....
Phil
What an ignorant mofo. Looky where the SFB (that [bleep] FOR BRAINS) is from. What a surprise. You deserve to live where you live.
Yeah, but what's Stray's excuse?
My excuse? Oh, Montana law, I suppose... 45-3-104. Use of force in defense of other property. A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property, other than an occupied structure, or personal property lawfully in the person's possession or in the possession of another who is a member of the person's immediate family or household or of a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
History: En. 94-3-104 by Sec. 1, Ch. 513, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 94-3-104; amd. Sec. 1645, Ch. 56, L. 2009.
or this one...
49-1-103. Right to use force. Any necessary force may be used to protect from wrongful injury the person or property of one's self, of a wife, husband, child, parent, or other relative or member of one's family, or of a ward, servant, master, or guest.
History: En. Sec. 36, Civ. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 3606, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 5694, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. Civ. C. Sec. 50; Based on Field Civil C. Sec. 33; re-en. Sec. 5694, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 64-210.
Hey, just a word to the wise...be dang sure of the laws regarding the threat of deadly force where you live.
BUT...I'm sure glad that "justice" as the left and other left coast see it hasn't evolved throughout middle America.
And, up until a couple days ago, I would have bet the farm it never would have played out this way here. When the actual incident took place "we" were all elated/excited that the homeowner stopped the schithead....then this.
In 13 years, I have never thought twice about putting on my uniform. This isn't my jurisdiction, but just being in the same County as this incident makes me feel.....dirty. I can only hope that the CA makes it right as he can, but it isn't going to fix everything.
I can happen in your AO, so don't go getting too self-righteous. All it takes is a pure "letter of the law" call and voila.
Yeah....give one of the most pro-gun States to England and Australia.......
George
I always feel better about things after reading one of your posts George. You're right, it could happen around here too.
I'll also eat a little crow in regards to "ratings".
We fall mid-range on the Brady schit-list. The "2 points" that keep us from falling right in with Texas and Wyoming, etc. is the license at point-of-purchase. I was thinking strictly in regards to shall-issue ($10.00), open carry, no wait at point-of-purchase, etc.
I have high hopes for the CCW going the way of the dodo this year....
George
I hope you get that. Not much chance of it happening here.
It could very well end up going to a Grand Jury if that's what the accused asks for at arraignment. I don't know what your experience is with Grand Juries? Mine is extensive, I can tell you they aren't always the best move for the accused. I can get a true bill on a ham sandwich, remember it's the DA, LE, and twelve people who've been selected for the GJ. All the DA & LE have to show is PC, which isn't difficult.
Kudo's to all those involved. Justice was done here, and it's a beautiful thing to see.
Extra kudo's to you George! You demonstrated how bad judgement by an officer of the law is not accepted, tolerated, or condoned by the others, but quite the opposite.
I think when things like this happen and the department itself remains silent in order to conduct it's investigation, it gives the wrong impression that the officers of that department are ok with what happened and are just covering it up.
You were emphatically embarrassed and disgusted by it, as I'm sure most officers you work with, were too. Thank you!
Edit: I guess I should have read the article first. I'm very impressed with the DA!!! The guys actions that day do fill the letter of the NH law for felony recklessness, as such the DA could have completely upheld the law and prosecuted this guy. He, instead decided that the law is poorly applied to a situation like this. Well done! Going by the book isn't always the best way to go. A lesson I hope the arresting officer learns.
I'll just take a moment to unsure that, in case of any misunderstanding somewhere back there, that this was not my Department. It was, however, damn close and in County.
I know every officer up there, some better than others, and I have not yet spoke to any of them. In reality, they're a damn good group of guys and I would go through a door with any member of their patrol division. Unfortunately, this time, schit happened....
Ya know. In reading some of the posts where a few put the officers involved down for making the decision to arrest didn't sit very well with me. It's really easy to be a back seat driver, or an arm chair quaterback, or any other term you want to apply. One mentioned, "what happened to officer discretion"? We have all the time in the world to sift through things after the fact, but a cop has to make his decision right then and there for the most part. I made arrests maybe that I shouldn't have made. But based on the situation at hand, I made my decision. If the cause was found, the arrest stood. If the evidence didn't support me, as in this case, the charges were dropped. Everyone involved with this did the job they were hired to do. What more can you ask of anyone?
I'll just take a moment to unsure that, in case of any misunderstanding somewhere back there, that this was not my Department. It was, however, damn close and in County.
Ya know. In reading some of the posts where a few put the officers involved down for making the decision to arrest didn't sit very well with me. It's really easy to be a back seat driver, or an arm chair quaterback, or any other term you want to apply. One mentioned, "what happened to officer discretion"? We have all the time in the world to sift through things after the fact, but a cop has to make his decision right then and there for the most part. I made arrests maybe that I shouldn't have made. But based on the situation at hand, I made my decision. If the cause was found, the arrest stood. If the evidence didn't support me, as in this case, the charges were dropped. Everyone involved with this did the job they were hired to do.
After actually reading () the article, I can't disagree with you one bit.
It does lead me to question though, how much latitude do officers have in using judgment to how a law is applied? Would that officer come under a lot of heat from supervisors and such had he come to the same conclusion that the DA did?
The "bad" news is, I have to blow out of here for a PC Hearing on a felony that isn't my case (assisted another agency). I had a righteous case of pizzed-off going because I had to reschedule an important appointment for my uncle as they wouldn't release me from the subpoena.
Now I have to go in and be nice to the prosecutor from the CA's office and ask her to thank Tom for me. Damn it!
The "bad" news is, I have to blow out of here for a PC Hearing on a felony that isn't my case (assisted another agency). I had a righteous case of pizzed-off going because I had to reschedule an important appointment for my uncle as they wouldn't release me from the subpoena.
Now I have to go in and be nice to the prosecutor from the CA's office and ask her to thank Tom for me. Damn it!
George
If you see Velardi, please give him a big "atta boy" from us here!
It does lead me to question though, how much latitude do officers have in using judgment to how a law is applied?
We have miles of "rope" with which to hang ourselves. That becomes part of the problem. If you get a guy that is so hung up on liability/getting sued (not saying that's the case here) decisions may become "exact letter of the law".
My Chief always told me that if I knew I wasn't going to like the answer I received when I called a supervisor, I should make the decision on my own. I took that to heart and live and die, generally, without involving anybody else. Not everyone is as lucky with bosses as I am.
That's really NOT the officer's job. He's out there to 1, keep the peace and 2 ENFORCE the law. Cops do NOT fire warning shots. Reckless conduct??????????? Hard to say. Poor judgement?????????????? NO QUESTION. Cops catch heat, no matter what they do. Latitude in judgement DIRECTLY relates to common sense. A cop is damed if he does, and damed if he does NOT.
The press release from the D.A., cited in the article, included this:
Quote
The facts available at the scene on Saturday supported the charge of felony reckless conduct, but subsequent facts discovered since have led me to believe that such a charge under these circumstances would be unjust,"
Ya know. In reading some of the posts where a few put the officers involved down for making the decision to arrest didn't sit very well with me. It's really easy to be a back seat driver, or an arm chair quaterback, or any other term you want to apply. One mentioned, "what happened to officer discretion"? We have all the time in the world to sift through things after the fact, but a cop has to make his decision right then and there for the most part. I made arrests maybe that I shouldn't have made. But based on the situation at hand, I made my decision. If the cause was found, the arrest stood. If the evidence didn't support me, as in this case, the charges were dropped. Everyone involved with this did the job they were hired to do. What more can you ask of anyone?
Exactly, that's why we have the judicial system that we do with checks and balances.
That's what I figured. Thank's to both of you gents for clearing that up for me.
To rehash in simpleton terms so I know I am getting this right....
It's the officers job to enforce the law, as it stands on the books. It's the DA's job to determine the spirit of that law and decide rather or not to prosecute. Cops have latitude, but have to answer for their decisions.
It seems to me that if I was an officer, I'd follow the law to the letter, and in such cases as it (the law) doesn't sit well in application to a certain situation like this one, I would do my best to speak on behalf of the arrested party.
Cops are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. It seems to be that the public is as well. This guy still went through a lot of hassle and stress.
As LEO's (George, I'll get your answer later as you already said you've got to hit the road), what would you like to see done to change the system in a manner that is less intrussive to the public?
Hard one, I know, as in this case the man brought on his own strife by actually breaking the law, even if not in spirit.
The press release from the D.A., cited in the article, included this:
Quote
The facts available at the scene on Saturday supported the charge of felony reckless conduct, but subsequent facts discovered since have led me to believe that such a charge under these circumstances would be unjust,"
The D.A. has discretion, too, and he used it.
Yes, they do and prosectorial discretion is used more then Joe Citizen realizes it is. It sometimes pisses Joe Citizen off that it's used, but the scale of justice swings both ways.
That's what I figured. Thank's to both of you gents for clearing that up for me.
To rehash in simpleton terms so I know I am getting this right....
It's the officers job to enforce the law, as it stands on the books. It's the DA's job to determine the spirit of that law and decide rather or not to prosecute. Cops have latitude, but have to answer for their decisions.
It seems to me that if I was an officer, I'd follow the law to the letter, and in such cases as it (the law) doesn't sit well in application to a certain situation like this one, I would do my best to speak on behalf of the arrested party.
Cops are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. It seems to be that the public is as well. This guy still went through a lot of hassle and stress.
As LEO's (George, I'll get your answer later as you already said you've got to hit the road), what would you like to see done to change the system in a manner that is less intrussive to the public?
Hard one, I know, as in this case the man brought on his own strife by actually breaking the law, even if not in spirit.
Laws are continually being amended in the court or legislative body. It's just like changes that come out for TM's in the Army, a constant cycle of change. In this state for example, legal defense groups are speaking to legislatures to make amendments, just as LE groups are. These battles take place in committees and amendments come out one way or the other after a vote by both houses. We have a good checks & balance legal system as in this case.
FWIW, I not only respect CA Velardi as a professional but also feel he's a damn good person. You're not going to catch me saying that about a lot of lawyers.
based upon your posts here over the years, your "say" carries a lot of weight with me.
i love to hear of good folks doing good jobs
imo your community is very blessed to have you serve in the capacity you do for them George.
I'd be willing to bet the attorney you speak of would pretty much say the same about you.
it's a bit of a paradox to me that our country recognizes the bravery and courage of our armed forces so readily these days, but there seems to be a tendency to withhold those feelings of regard for our domestic folks in uniform.
we're all adults and realize even with the respect we bestow upon our military members, there's bad apples and occasionally bad behavior by pretty good apples in an org of that size.
why as a society we don't seem to be able to recognize the same for our LEO remains a bit of a mystery to me.
thank you for sharing the general consensus of your guys there George, it gives me great peace and hope when LEO's share the same sense of outrage over possible misapplication of the law as the citizens they're sworn to protect.
hope it turns out well for everyone, sans the burgular.
I just hope the guy gets his guns back, I'm sure he will, since it seems charges were never brought.
I'm still stunned they were confiscated and yes, hopefully they are already returned without a scratch (but with an apology would be nice).
Every where in this country is unique, in it's requirements after an arrest involving force. Bond & bail is a priveledge, not a right. You either sign and agree to the requirement of the bond agreement or your butt can sit in jail until you appear before the Judge.
I just hope the guy gets his guns back, I'm sure he will, since it seems charges were never brought.
I'm still stunned they were confiscated and yes, hopefully they are already returned without a scratch (but with an apology would be nice).
They oughta give him one of their issue pistols to go along with his collection and then give him some free handgun training. That would clear up the "warning shot" issue so many seem to have a problem with.
I was pretty critical here and I think with good reason. The problem is with the law itself and also with a cop who had no good judgment. I don't think anything should happen to the cop. I know that will surprise some. I think he made a terrible decision especially the part where the guy's guns were confiscated. He was following the law though. The department needs to informally watch the guy and make sure he doesn't do more stuff like this with penalties in the future if he does. Of course if he already has a history of bad decision making, maybe he needs a suspension or desk or something.
Kudos to the County Attorney. He sounds about 90% better than the assclown we have for one.
Laws are continually being amended in the court or legislative body. It's just like changes that come out for TM's in the Army, a constant cycle of change. In this state for example, legal defense groups are speaking to legislatures to make amendments, just as LE groups are. These battles take place in committees and amendments come out one way or the other after a vote by both houses. We have a good checks & balance legal system as in this case.
I know here in Pa (at least in my county) any arrest involving a gun you have to give up your firearms, Also an arrest for Dui you have to give up your firearms.... before trial. One of my best friends had to turn in all his guns after being arrested for DUI, the case was thrown out at the magisterial level. But because the charges were dropped "with prejudice". He could not get them back. He can still buy new guns, just can't have the ones he turned in
They oughta give him one of their issue pistols to go along with his collection and then give him some free handgun training. That would clear up the "warning shot" issue so many seem to have a problem with.
I love this idea!
It's "corrective training" as we used to call it in the Army.
One of my best friends had to turn in all his guns after being arrested for DUI, the case was thrown out at the magisterial level. But because the charges were dropped "with prejudice". He could not get them back. He can still buy new guns, just can't have the ones he turned in
I know here in Pa (at least in my county) any arrest involving a gun you have to give up your firearms, Also an arrest for Dui you have to give up your firearms.... before trial. One of my best friends had to turn in all his guns after being arrested for DUI, the case was thrown out at the magisterial level. But because the charges were dropped "with prejudice". He could not get them back. He can still buy new guns, just can't have the ones he turned in
I just hope the guy gets his guns back, I'm sure he will, since it seems charges were never brought.
I'm still stunned they were confiscated and yes, hopefully they are already returned without a scratch (but with an apology would be nice).
They oughta give him one of their issue pistols to go along with his collection and then give him some free handgun training. That would clear up the "warning shot" issue so many seem to have a problem with.
I was pretty critical here and I think with good reason. The problem is with the law itself and also with a cop who had no good judgment. I don't think anything should happen to the cop. I know that will surprise some. I think he made a terrible decision especially the part where the guy's guns were confiscated. He was following the law though. The department needs to informally watch the guy and make sure he doesn't do more stuff like this with penalties in the future if he does. Of course if he already has a history of bad decision making, maybe he needs a suspension or desk or something.
Kudos to the County Attorney. He sounds about 90% better than the assclown we have for one.
The confiscation of the weapons, is probably not a decision of the LEO, it's a decision of the Judge or the Magistrate, Judicial Commissioner, who writes the Mittimus for the arrest as a condition of bond.
The LEO followed the letter of the law. Do you think he put this all together by himself? I can guarantee you there was supervision on the scene of this shooting, they proceeded on the side of the law. That's why we have a checks & balance system. An arrest didn't have to be made at the scene, the case could of been presented to the Grand Jury at it's next setting.
In this state the only arrest that has to made at the scene is that of domestic violence, if evidence shows that an assault has occurred and the suspect is present.
Don't read into my comments as leo bashing, the officers have nothing to due with how laws are written, they just have to enforce them. In the particular case (my buddie), I was reffering to, I have a feeling the guns were already gone when he went to retrtrive them.
Here's the problem...and I'm speculating this was the case here. There are two things officers, and/or their agencies do. Officers often are trained to believe that courts "sort things out". That could have been the case here.
The other is departmental policies that say probable cause = automatic arrest. I'm betting this is the more likely scenario.
In either event, it's passing the buck, and it's passing it to an entity that is NOT charged with investigating, and "sorting things out"...the DA is charged with prosecuting crimes, and the courts with maintaining procedural safeguards. Cases brought to him should have been "sorted out" by the investigating officer(s). That's what an investigation does, sorts out facts, and circumstances.
Ya know. In reading some of the posts where a few put the officers involved down for making the decision to arrest didn't sit very well with me. It's really easy to be a back seat driver, or an arm chair quaterback, or any other term you want to apply. One mentioned, "what happened to officer discretion"? We have all the time in the world to sift through things after the fact, but a cop has to make his decision right then and there for the most part. I made arrests maybe that I shouldn't have made. But based on the situation at hand, I made my decision. If the cause was found, the arrest stood. If the evidence didn't support me, as in this case, the charges were dropped. Everyone involved with this did the job they were hired to do. What more can you ask of anyone?
I think we could have and must ask for common sense to prevail. The arresting officer "jumped his gun" in being so quick to arrest the victim. Had he used better judgement, the victim would have never gone through what was foisted upon him, and he would not have an arrest record to contend with.
On the outside, looking in...it appears that LEO takes no interest in the long term ramifications of these quick arrests and the harm they might cause an innocent person who plays by the rules all his life and causes no harm, ever.
This isn't a condemnation of LEO painted with a broad brush, but...dammit...LEO works for us who abide by the law, and they need to remember that sometimes, while doing the most difficult job imaginable...to protect us all.
Ya know. In reading some of the posts where a few put the officers involved down for making the decision to arrest didn't sit very well with me. It's really easy to be a back seat driver, or an arm chair quaterback, or any other term you want to apply. One mentioned, "what happened to officer discretion"? We have all the time in the world to sift through things after the fact, but a cop has to make his decision right then and there for the most part. I made arrests maybe that I shouldn't have made. But based on the situation at hand, I made my decision. If the cause was found, the arrest stood. If the evidence didn't support me, as in this case, the charges were dropped. Everyone involved with this did the job they were hired to do. What more can you ask of anyone?
I think we could have and must ask for common sense to prevail. The arresting officer "jumped his gun" in being so quick to arrest the victim. Had he used better judgement, the victim would have never gone through what was foisted upon him, and he would not have an arrest record to contend with.
On the outside, looking in...it appears that LEO takes no interest in the long term ramifications of these quick arrests and the harm they might cause an innocent person who plays by the rules all his life and causes no harm, ever.
This isn't a condemnation of LEO painted with a broad brush, but...dammit...LEO works for us who abide by the law, and they need to remember that sometimes while doing the most difficult job imaginable to proyect us all.
This old guy now has a permanent record of a felony arrest. And you know how that's viewed by most folks? They think he "beat it on a technicality". Which he did. The technicality was that he didn't commit a crime.
Don't read into my comments as leo bashing, the officers have nothing to due with how laws are written, they just have to enforce them. In the particular case (my buddie), I was reffering to, I have a feeling the guns were already gone when he went to retrtrive them.
He should of got an Atty. and sat down with the DA & Judge and got an order releasing the guns back to him. The guns went somewhere? There should be a log of where they were logged into evidence and logged out.
The Judge or DA has the authority to call the State Police to investigate the agency who seized the guns, at least they do in this state anyway.
We don't have a State Police per say, we have TBI (TN. Bureau of Invest.) I've seen them investigate many an agency and make arrests of LEO's to include elected Sheriff's.
Ya know. In reading some of the posts where a few put the officers involved down for making the decision to arrest didn't sit very well with me. It's really easy to be a back seat driver, or an arm chair quaterback, or any other term you want to apply. One mentioned, "what happened to officer discretion"? We have all the time in the world to sift through things after the fact, but a cop has to make his decision right then and there for the most part. I made arrests maybe that I shouldn't have made. But based on the situation at hand, I made my decision. If the cause was found, the arrest stood. If the evidence didn't support me, as in this case, the charges were dropped. Everyone involved with this did the job they were hired to do. What more can you ask of anyone?
I think we could have and must ask for common sense to prevail. The arresting officer "jumped his gun" in being so quick to arrest the victim. Had he used better judgement, the victim would have never gone through what was foisted upon him, and he would not have an arrest record to contend with.
On the outside, looking in...it appears that LEO takes no interest in the long term ramifications of these quick arrests and the harm they might cause an innocent person who plays by the rules all his life and causes no harm, ever.
This isn't a condemnation of LEO painted with a broad brush, but...dammit...LEO works for us who abide by the law, and they need to remember that sometimes while doing the most difficult job imaginable to proyect us all.
This old guy now has a permanent record of a felony arrest. And you know how that's viewed by most folks? They think he "beat it on a technicality". Which he did. The technicality was that he didn't commit a crime.
Let things cool down a bit, hire an Atty. and look at an expungment of his record. He already seems to be in good with the DA, who would be the one to primarily object. Expungements happen all the time here. Do they do them in the court that you work in???
It seems to me that if I was an officer, I'd follow the law to the letter, and in such cases as it (the law) doesn't sit well in application to a certain situation like this one, I would do my best to speak on behalf of the arrested party.
* * *
Hard one, I know, as in this case the man brought on his own strife by actually breaking the law, even if not in spirit.
The system would function a lot worse, and more injustice would occur, in a zero tolerance world. If you start out with the supposition that the law is designed to discourage bad behavior, rather than merely to punish, the goal frequently can be accomplished without the need for enforcement action. Once an officer makes a decision to act or not act, s/he owns the decision, so it behooves the officer to examine the issue in good faith and have a really good rationale either way.
Ya know. In reading some of the posts where a few put the officers involved down for making the decision to arrest didn't sit very well with me. It's really easy to be a back seat driver, or an arm chair quaterback, or any other term you want to apply. One mentioned, "what happened to officer discretion"? We have all the time in the world to sift through things after the fact, but a cop has to make his decision right then and there for the most part. I made arrests maybe that I shouldn't have made. But based on the situation at hand, I made my decision. If the cause was found, the arrest stood. If the evidence didn't support me, as in this case, the charges were dropped. Everyone involved with this did the job they were hired to do. What more can you ask of anyone?
I think we could have and must ask for common sense to prevail. The arresting officer "jumped his gun" in being so quick to arrest the victim. Had he used better judgement, the victim would have never gone through what was foisted upon him, and he would not have an arrest record to contend with.
On the outside, looking in...it appears that LEO takes no interest in the long term ramifications of these quick arrests and the harm they might cause an innocent person who plays by the rules all his life and causes no harm, ever.
This isn't a condemnation of LEO painted with a broad brush, but...dammit...LEO works for us who abide by the law, and they need to remember that sometimes while doing the most difficult job imaginable to proyect us all.
This old guy now has a permanent record of a felony arrest. And you know how that's viewed by most folks? They think he "beat it on a technicality". Which he did. The technicality was that he didn't commit a crime.
Let things cool down a bit, hire an Atty. and look at an expungment of his record. He already seems to be in good with the DA, who would be the one to primarily object. Expungements happen all the time here. Do they do them in the court that you work in???
We don't have an expungement statute in AL. Seen it tried and failed only a handful of times. There's talk of writing legislation to allow it.
Second, that only works at the state level, he'll still have a record on NCIC. Since 9/11, the Feds won't expunge anything.
Here's the problem...and I'm speculating this was the case here. There are two things officers, and/or their agencies do. Officers often are trained to believe that courts "sort things out". That could have been the case here.
The other is departmental policies that say probable cause = automatic arrest. I'm betting this is the more likely scenario.
In either event, it's passing the buck, and it's passing it to an entity that is NOT charged with investigating, and "sorting things out"...the DA is charged with prosecuting crimes, and the courts with maintaining procedural safeguards. Cases brought to him should have been "sorted out" by the investigating officer(s). That's what an investigation does, sorts out facts, and circumstances.
One of my best friends had to turn in all his guns after being arrested for DUI, the case was thrown out at the magisterial level. But because the charges were dropped "with prejudice". He could not get them back. He can still buy new guns, just can't have the ones he turned in
Unbelievable! Well... I guess... not really.
Yes, and people wonder why some people blow a gasket and walk up to a cop in a donut shop and shoot the mofo dead. When I read about incidents like that I always hope it was one of the youtube thugs and not an actual "peace officer".
Ya know. In reading some of the posts where a few put the officers involved down for making the decision to arrest didn't sit very well with me. It's really easy to be a back seat driver, or an arm chair quaterback, or any other term you want to apply. One mentioned, "what happened to officer discretion"? We have all the time in the world to sift through things after the fact, but a cop has to make his decision right then and there for the most part. I made arrests maybe that I shouldn't have made. But based on the situation at hand, I made my decision. If the cause was found, the arrest stood. If the evidence didn't support me, as in this case, the charges were dropped. Everyone involved with this did the job they were hired to do. What more can you ask of anyone?
I think we could have and must ask for common sense to prevail. The arresting officer "jumped his gun" in being so quick to arrest the victim. Had he used better judgement, the victim would have never gone through what was foisted upon him, and he would not have an arrest record to contend with.
On the outside, looking in...it appears that LEO takes no interest in the long term ramifications of these quick arrests and the harm they might cause an innocent person who plays by the rules all his life and causes no harm, ever.
This isn't a condemnation of LEO painted with a broad brush, but...dammit...LEO works for us who abide by the law, and they need to remember that sometimes while doing the most difficult job imaginable to proyect us all.
This old guy now has a permanent record of a felony arrest. And you know how that's viewed by most folks? They think he "beat it on a technicality". Which he did. The technicality was that he didn't commit a crime.
Let things cool down a bit, hire an Atty. and look at an expungment of his record. He already seems to be in good with the DA, who would be the one to primarily object. Expungements happen all the time here. Do they do them in the court that you work in???
I suppose you'll pony up and PAY for his attorney to make sure justice was actually done???
I know here in Pa (at least in my county) any arrest involving a gun you have to give up your firearms, Also an arrest for Dui you have to give up your firearms.... before trial. One of my best friends had to turn in all his guns after being arrested for DUI, the case was thrown out at the magisterial level. But because the charges were dropped "with prejudice". He could not get them back. He can still buy new guns, just can't have the ones he turned in
I'm finding that very difficult to believe. BTW, charges being "dismissed with prejudice" is in favor of the defendant. Means they can't be brought back up.
It seems to me that if I was an officer, I'd follow the law to the letter, and in such cases as it (the law) doesn't sit well in application to a certain situation like this one, I would do my best to speak on behalf of the arrested party.
* * *
Hard one, I know, as in this case the man brought on his own strife by actually breaking the law, even if not in spirit.
The system would function a lot worse, and more injustice would occur, in a zero tolerance world. If you start out with the supposition that the law is designed to discourage bad behavior, rather than merely to punish, the goal frequently can be accomplished without the need for enforcement action. Once an officer makes a decision to act or not act, s/he owns the decision, so it behooves the officer to examine the issue in good faith and have a really good rationale either way.
What's a cop to do though? If he doesn't uphold the letter of the law, his neck is on the block. If he does, his neck is on the block.
Jim brought something to light for me. There had to have been an investigation on the scene. This means it had to be the investigators decision to arrest, not the actual arresting officer.
It's a murky process all around. There has to be a better way to protect the public and enforce the laws....
Ya know. In reading some of the posts where a few put the officers involved down for making the decision to arrest didn't sit very well with me. It's really easy to be a back seat driver, or an arm chair quaterback, or any other term you want to apply. One mentioned, "what happened to officer discretion"? We have all the time in the world to sift through things after the fact, but a cop has to make his decision right then and there for the most part. I made arrests maybe that I shouldn't have made. But based on the situation at hand, I made my decision. If the cause was found, the arrest stood. If the evidence didn't support me, as in this case, the charges were dropped. Everyone involved with this did the job they were hired to do. What more can you ask of anyone?
I think we could have and must ask for common sense to prevail. The arresting officer "jumped his gun" in being so quick to arrest the victim. Had he used better judgement, the victim would have never gone through what was foisted upon him, and he would not have an arrest record to contend with.
On the outside, looking in...it appears that LEO takes no interest in the long term ramifications of these quick arrests and the harm they might cause an innocent person who plays by the rules all his life and causes no harm, ever.
This isn't a condemnation of LEO painted with a broad brush, but...dammit...LEO works for us who abide by the law, and they need to remember that sometimes, while doing the most difficult job imaginable...to protect us all.
Not picking, but you have no experience in this area, do you?? How many crime scenes involving shootings, use of deadly force, etc. have you been to?? I can guarantee, that this wasn't some, "shake & bake" hurry up make an arrest situation.
I can again guarantee you that the arresting LEO wasn't the only officer on the scene, I can also guarantee you that he probably wasn't the highest ranking either. I can also guarantee you that a patrol unit front-hood "Pow Wow" was held, as to where to go with this case.
I can guarantee, that this wasn't some, "shake & bake" hurry up make an arrest situation.
I can again guarantee you that the arresting LEO wasn't the only officer on the scene, I can also guarantee you that he probably wasn't the highest ranking either. I can also guarantee you that a patrol unit front-hood "Pow Wow" was held, as to where to go with this case.
I can absolutely buy that...
What worries me is that even after all that, they still made the arrest. Was it a CYA thing, you think?
Don't read into my comments as leo bashing, the officers have nothing to due with how laws are written, they just have to enforce them. In the particular case (my buddie), I was reffering to, I have a feeling the guns were already gone when he went to retrtrive them.
He should of got an Atty. and sat down with the DA & Judge and got an order releasing the guns back to him. The guns went somewhere? There should be a log of where they were logged into evidence and logged out.
The state police have been investigating the local sheriff's office for years, on their records. As of right now they have suppeona the dept. for all records, the sheriff has refused to produce them, and is in Jail on contempt charges. This all came to light when a man ( not my buddie) was charged and aquitted ( of what I don't remember) went to retrieve his firearms and was told there was no record of them. He was a class 3? ( fully auto) license holder, and one of the thompson's that he turned over ended up at a gunshop in the county. The bill of sale said the county sold it to the gunshop for 575.00 ( I've never been in the market for one, but that sounds like a bargain). He turned over two thompsons, thats the one that was found. Welcome to Luzerne Co.
The Judge or DA has the authority to call the State Police to investigate the agency who seized the guns, at least they do in this state anyway.
We don't have a State Police per say, we have TBI (TN. Bureau of Invest.) I've seen them investigate many an agency and make arrests of LEO's to include elected Sheriff's.
Here's the problem...and I'm speculating this was the case here. There are two things officers, and/or their agencies do. Officers often are trained to believe that courts "sort things out". That could have been the case here.
The other is departmental policies that say probable cause = automatic arrest. I'm betting this is the more likely scenario.
In either event, it's passing the buck, and it's passing it to an entity that is NOT charged with investigating, and "sorting things out"...the DA is charged with prosecuting crimes, and the courts with maintaining procedural safeguards. Cases brought to him should have been "sorted out" by the investigating officer(s). That's what an investigation does, sorts out facts, and circumstances.
We don't know if an investigator or a patrol supervisor wasn't involved. The decision may of been made and the arresting officer, was just the one who placed him under arrest. When i worked in patrol, i've been to many crime scenes where I was told to place the suspect under arrest and transport and book the suspect. My name was on the booking card and Mittimus as the arresting officer, yet I wasn't the one who made the decision to place the suspect under arrest. You know this happens and have seen it yourself.
It seems to me that if I was an officer, I'd follow the law to the letter, and in such cases as it (the law) doesn't sit well in application to a certain situation like this one, I would do my best to speak on behalf of the arrested party.
* * *
Hard one, I know, as in this case the man brought on his own strife by actually breaking the law, even if not in spirit.
The system would function a lot worse, and more injustice would occur, in a zero tolerance world. If you start out with the supposition that the law is designed to discourage bad behavior, rather than merely to punish, the goal frequently can be accomplished without the need for enforcement action. Once an officer makes a decision to act or not act, s/he owns the decision, so it behooves the officer to examine the issue in good faith and have a really good rationale either way.
What's a cop to do though? If he doesn't uphold the letter of the law, his neck is on the block. If he does, his neck is on the block.
Jim brought something to light for me. There had to have been an investigation on the scene. This means it had to be the investigators decision to arrest, not the actual arresting officer.
It's a murky process all around. There has to be a better way to protect the public and enforce the laws....
Every agency has different policies. Where I policed, I didn't have to arrest anybody by policy. I was ordered to arrest someone exactly once. I put that in my report: "Sgt. ordered me to arrest, and charge with..." So when the detective got the case, he knew I didn't create the screwed up mess, and my Sgt. was on the hook as a witness now.
It used to be policy in the City of Birmingham, that a patrol officer could not make an arrest on the street for drugs. If it was a simple possession case, he made a report, took the drugs, and it was handed over to a drug detective. If it was something big, the detective had to be called to the scene.
Cases like the one in this thread though? Yeah, the facts fit the letter of the law, BUT there were extenuating circumstances too. Hard for me to fathom that somebody in the chain of command didn't have the ability to say either "Policy be damned, investigate, do a report, and let the DA decide to charge or not." Or that a supervisor didn't pull officer Do-right aside and say "hey, why don't you rethink this decision, you can always get a warrant or indictment later if need be?" Whichever was the case.
Here's the problem...and I'm speculating this was the case here. There are two things officers, and/or their agencies do. Officers often are trained to believe that courts "sort things out". That could have been the case here.
The other is departmental policies that say probable cause = automatic arrest. I'm betting this is the more likely scenario.
In either event, it's passing the buck, and it's passing it to an entity that is NOT charged with investigating, and "sorting things out"...the DA is charged with prosecuting crimes, and the courts with maintaining procedural safeguards. Cases brought to him should have been "sorted out" by the investigating officer(s). That's what an investigation does, sorts out facts, and circumstances.
We don't know if an investigator or a patrol supervisor wasn't involved. The decision may of been made and the arresting officer, was just the one who placed him under arrest. When i worked in patrol, i've been to many crime scenes where I was told to place the suspect under arrest and transport and book the suspect. My name was on the booking card and Mittimus as the arresting officer, yet I wasn't the one who made the decision to place the suspect under arrest. You know this happens and have seen it yourself.
I've speculated it both ways. Yes it happens. It shouldn't have here. I've also seen a patrol officer tell a supervisor, "If you want him arrested, then you do it".
Ya know. In reading some of the posts where a few put the officers involved down for making the decision to arrest didn't sit very well with me. It's really easy to be a back seat driver, or an arm chair quaterback, or any other term you want to apply. One mentioned, "what happened to officer discretion"? We have all the time in the world to sift through things after the fact, but a cop has to make his decision right then and there for the most part. I made arrests maybe that I shouldn't have made. But based on the situation at hand, I made my decision. If the cause was found, the arrest stood. If the evidence didn't support me, as in this case, the charges were dropped. Everyone involved with this did the job they were hired to do. What more can you ask of anyone?
I think we could have and must ask for common sense to prevail. The arresting officer "jumped his gun" in being so quick to arrest the victim. Had he used better judgement, the victim would have never gone through what was foisted upon him, and he would not have an arrest record to contend with.
On the outside, looking in...it appears that LEO takes no interest in the long term ramifications of these quick arrests and the harm they might cause an innocent person who plays by the rules all his life and causes no harm, ever.
This isn't a condemnation of LEO painted with a broad brush, but...dammit...LEO works for us who abide by the law, and they need to remember that sometimes, while doing the most difficult job imaginable...to protect us all.
Not picking, but you have no experience in this area, do you?? How many crime scenes involving shootings, use of deadly force, etc. have you been to?? I can guarantee, that this wasn't some, "shake & bake" hurry up make an arrest situation.
I can again guarantee you that the arresting LEO wasn't the only officer on the scene, I can also guarantee you that he probably wasn't the highest ranking either. I can also guarantee you that a patrol unit front-hood "Pow Wow" was held, as to where to go with this case.
Probably far more than you. But, that is ancient history.
Simply put...so you might understand...LEO are our servants. When they cause harm to basically innocent citizens by rash or too quick decisions where there is no immanent danger to anyone, they have harmed their employer for no rational reason.
The officer could well have done his report and let the DA review it for possible further action. If the policy is to arrest always, as is the case sometimes with various agencies, those agencies are out of whack and need some Real Life training in what harm they do inadvertently.
You great guys in LEO have a most difficult job, and too often politics and PC get into the mix, making it that much more difficult.
Here's the problem...and I'm speculating this was the case here. There are two things officers, and/or their agencies do. Officers often are trained to believe that courts "sort things out". That could have been the case here.
The other is departmental policies that say probable cause = automatic arrest. I'm betting this is the more likely scenario.
In either event, it's passing the buck, and it's passing it to an entity that is NOT charged with investigating, and "sorting things out"...the DA is charged with prosecuting crimes, and the courts with maintaining procedural safeguards. Cases brought to him should have been "sorted out" by the investigating officer(s). That's what an investigation does, sorts out facts, and circumstances.
We don't know if an investigator or a patrol supervisor wasn't involved. The decision may of been made and the arresting officer, was just the one who placed him under arrest. When i worked in patrol, i've been to many crime scenes where I was told to place the suspect under arrest and transport and book the suspect. My name was on the booking card and Mittimus as the arresting officer, yet I wasn't the one who made the decision to place the suspect under arrest. You know this happens and have seen it yourself.
I've speculated it both ways. Yes it happens. It shouldn't have here. I've also seen a patrol officer tell a supervisor, "If you want him arrested, then you do it".
Do you have criminal investigators within your DA's office?? The majority of Judicial Districts in this state do. It's paid out of the DA's budget. They can do follow up work on cases for the DA or they can strike out in areas that the DA wants to look at.
Do you have criminal investigators within your DA's office?? The majority of Judicial Districts in this state do. It's paid out of the DA's budget. They can do follow up work on cases for the DA or they can strike out in areas that the DA wants to look at.
I've seen that abused first hand. A DA with that kind of power and support can be a dangerous thing to the public.
Do you have criminal investigators within your DA's office?? The majority of Judicial Districts in this state do. It's paid out of the DA's budget. They can do follow up work on cases for the DA or they can strike out in areas that the DA wants to look at.
I've seen that abused first hand. A DA with that kind of power and support can be a dangerous thing to the public.
He or she is an elected official, in this state for eight years. If the citizens don't like the results, they don't have to be reelected, voters choice.
DA's in this state have a lot of pull, if they don't have their own investigators, they can use TBI, that's why TBI has an investigator in every county or assigned to every county. If the DA wants to look into something, he just has to show reason to the TBI, if he wants to go around local LE.
If you poll the majority of people on the street about crime and LE's response. What they'll tell you is to stick it to every criminal who walks the street, that is aslong as it isn't them or their family.
Do you have criminal investigators within your DA's office?? The majority of Judicial Districts in this state do. It's paid out of the DA's budget. They can do follow up work on cases for the DA or they can strike out in areas that the DA wants to look at.
I've seen that abused first hand. A DA with that kind of power and support can be a dangerous thing to the public.
He or she is an elected official, in this state for eight years. If the citizens don't like the results, they don't have to be reelected, voters choice.
If you poll the majority of people on the street about crime and LE's response. What they'll tell you is to stick it to every criminal who walks the street, that is aslong as it isn't them or their family.
Popularity and abuse aren't always mutually exclusive....
Do you have criminal investigators within your DA's office?? The majority of Judicial Districts in this state do. It's paid out of the DA's budget. They can do follow up work on cases for the DA or they can strike out in areas that the DA wants to look at.
I've seen that abused first hand. A DA with that kind of power and support can be a dangerous thing to the public.
He or she is an elected official, in this state for eight years. If the citizens don't like the results, they don't have to be reelected, voters choice.
If you poll the majority of people on the street about crime and LE's response. What they'll tell you is to stick it to every criminal who walks the street, that is aslong as it isn't them or their family.
Popularity and abuse aren't always mutually exclusive....
You can't step on too many toes and still be reelected. They walk a fine line.
He or she is an elected official, in this state for eight years. If the citizens don't like the results, they don't have to be reelected, voters choice.
DA's in this state have a lot of pull, if they don't have their own investigators, they can use TBI, that's why TBI has an investigator in every county or assigned to every county. If the DA wants to look into something, he just has to show reason to the TBI, if he wants to go around local LE.
If you poll the majority of people on the street about crime and LE's response. What they'll tell you is to stick it to every criminal who walks the street, that is aslong as it isn't them or their family.
Do they have term limits?
All I'm saying is that I know first hand of how a system like that has been abused.
I also know better than to go into details online. I'll be happy to share with you via PM though how such a system was horrifically abused.
I understand that it's important for a DA to have the ability to conduct investigations. It's a needed evil in our system. Just keep in mind though, that absolute power, corrupts absolutely. That kind of power needs to have a check. Term limits are a place to start....
I will also freely admit that my story is the exception, and not the norm for DA's and LEO's.
They all have a real tough job to do. One that I wouldn't relish myself. I'm glad they are there, and that they do the work that they do. They are far more of an assest to our society than they are a liability.
I know better than to take my personal issues, and apply them to all LEO's or even DA's with a broad paintbrush. Every one of them are individuals.
He or she is an elected official, in this state for eight years. If the citizens don't like the results, they don't have to be reelected, voters choice.
DA's in this state have a lot of pull, if they don't have their own investigators, they can use TBI, that's why TBI has an investigator in every county or assigned to every county. If the DA wants to look into something, he just has to show reason to the TBI, if he wants to go around local LE.
If you poll the majority of people on the street about crime and LE's response. What they'll tell you is to stick it to every criminal who walks the street, that is aslong as it isn't them or their family.
Do they have term limits?
All I'm saying is that I know first hand of how a system like that has been abused.
I also know better than to go into details online. I'll be happy to share with you via PM though how such a system was horrifically abused.
I understand that it's important for a DA to have the ability to conduct investigations. It's a needed evil in our system. Just keep in mind though, that absolute power, corrupts absolutely. That kind of power needs to have a check. Term limits are a place to start....
No term limits. Just have to run for reelection every eight years. A lot of people don't worry about local elections. They only worry about state & natl. elections. They vote by name recognition in local elections or someone being a friend of a friend thing.
No term limits. Just have to run for reelection every eight years. A lot of people don't worry about local elections. They only worry about state & natl. elections. They vote by name recognition in local elections or someone being a friend of a friend thing.
Here's the problem...and I'm speculating this was the case here. There are two things officers, and/or their agencies do. Officers often are trained to believe that courts "sort things out". That could have been the case here.
The other is departmental policies that say probable cause = automatic arrest. I'm betting this is the more likely scenario.
In either event, it's passing the buck, and it's passing it to an entity that is NOT charged with investigating, and "sorting things out"...the DA is charged with prosecuting crimes, and the courts with maintaining procedural safeguards. Cases brought to him should have been "sorted out" by the investigating officer(s). That's what an investigation does, sorts out facts, and circumstances.
We don't know if an investigator or a patrol supervisor wasn't involved. The decision may of been made and the arresting officer, was just the one who placed him under arrest. When i worked in patrol, i've been to many crime scenes where I was told to place the suspect under arrest and transport and book the suspect. My name was on the booking card and Mittimus as the arresting officer, yet I wasn't the one who made the decision to place the suspect under arrest. You know this happens and have seen it yourself.
I've speculated it both ways. Yes it happens. It shouldn't have here. I've also seen a patrol officer tell a supervisor, "If you want him arrested, then you do it".
Do you have criminal investigators within your DA's office?? The majority of Judicial Districts in this state do. It's paid out of the DA's budget. They can do follow up work on cases for the DA or they can strike out in areas that the DA wants to look at.
Yes we do. We don't currently have any that are commissioned. Their primary duty is finding witnesses, not investigating crime. That's what the police are supposed to do.
Everywhere is different as to how DA's use Criminal Investigators. In this state they use them to investigate crime. DA's in this state also run, Judicial Drug Taskforces of multi-agency LEO's within their Judicial Districts. This isn't new, I have a BIL who use to oversee a DA's Drug Taskforce in the early 70's in Lane Co. (Eugene) OR. Back in the days when ANY possession of marijuana was a felony.
Everywhere is different as to how DA's use Criminal Investigators. In this state they use them to investigate crime. DA's in this state also run, Judicial Drug Taskforces of multi-agency LEO's within their Judicial Districts. This isn't new, I have a BIL who use to oversee a DA's Drug Taskforce in the early 70's in Lane Co. (Eugene) OR. Back in the days when ANY possession of marijuana was a felony.
We used to have some with commission cards, and they were used as investigators. Budget cuts though. We have the multi-agency DTF too, and a dedicated attorney that rides the circuit just working their cases.
I wouldn't be so quick to lavish undue praise on the CA over this. Anyone who thinks the flood of negative media attention played no role in the final outcome of this case may be underestimating the ability of DAs to assess prevailing wind direction.
Here's one clue from the release that indicates he may not be entirely on the side of the righteous:
"Ultimately, citizens should forgo direct involvement in the apprehension or detainment of suspected criminals," Velardi said in the release.
On this point, I would ask the gentleman for further clarification. Specificallly, does he believe that direction should apply within the confines of one's own home? His statement seemed somewhat definitive, and if I lived within his jurisdiction, I'd be more than a little interested in the answer.
I wouldn't be so quick to lavish undue praise on the CA over this. Anyone who thinks the flood of negative media attention played no role in the final outcome of this case may be underestimating the ability of DAs to assess prevailing wind direction.
Here's one clue from the release that indicates he may not be entirely on the side of the righteous:
"Ultimately, citizens should forgo direct involvement in the apprehension or detainment of suspected criminals," Velardi said in the release.
On this point, I would ask the gentleman for further clarification. Specificallly, does he believe that direction should apply within the confines of one's own home? His statement seemed somewhat definitive, and if I lived within his jurisdiction, I'd be more than a little interested in the answer.
That statement tends to confirm my initial statements, i.e., the treatment of the shooter was designed to show general disapproval on the part of "the authorities" for regular folks dealing directly with criminals caught in the act.
"We want people to own and bear arms, but to be responsible with them,"
I have never heard a statement out of CA Velardi that would put him anywhere but on the side of the 2A. His quote is CYA, similar to what most of us have to make all the time for the sake of liability.
There was a home-invasion shooting in Rochester a couple years back where the victim/resident was cleared in less than 24 hours.
Changed it. 
