The next Ward Bird?

[NoRegrets]

Looks like the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" has turned into a source of revenue for and debate in the judicial and legal fields.

Technicality of the law now over-rides the intent of the law. Inconsistent application of punishment has given suspicion that processes are corruptible. The inability to take action against "bad and criminal" activity makes the individual victim feel vulnerable or at risk so when we feel right about protecting our small little parcel of earth we risk becoming the "next Ward".

I find it sad that we are evolving into a society that isn't driven by morals with leadership that focuses on social responsibility and contribution. We have leaders fanning class wars and encourage or celebrate tolerance for activities that decay our society.

Hope this situation clears up and the crook's name, crime, and punishment are all that is head lined!

Keep the heat turned on and enjoy an Early ICE OUT for 2012!!!!

[Slickcraft]

Sanity returns:

From WMUR
http://www.wmur.com/news/30524687/detail.html

FARMINGTON, N.H. -- The county attorney's office is dropping charges against a man who tracked down a burglary suspect and held him at gunpoint until police could arrive.

Dennis Fleming said he tracked down the man in his Farmington neighborhood and fired his gun into the ground to get the burglar to stop.

He held 27-year-old Joseph Hebert at gunpoint until police arrived and arrested him.

Hebert was charged with two counts of burglary and one count of possession of a controlled drug.

Fleming was originally charged with reckless conduct for firing the gun.

"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 Strafford County attorney said in a statement.

The attorney's office said firing a "warning shot" around or near other people or homes can result in police involvement or a charge.

[RailroadJoe]

About time the attorney Generals office got smart. Maybe they are thinking logically.

[hilltopper]

Originally Posted by RailroadJoe

Maybe they are thinking logically.

Ha! Good one! I'd say they succumbed to public outcry. Or, in their own words "...but subsequent facts discovered since have led me to believe that such a charge under these circumstances would be unjust".

[NoBozo]

Ya really gotta hate it when those Pesky "subsequent facts" rear their ugly heads in the middle of an otherwise airtight case. NB

[Lakepilot]

Was it the NH Attorney General or the Stafford County Attorney that exercised such poor judgement in this case? What office and what individual in that office?

[bclaker]

Originally Posted by RailroadJoe

About time the attorney Generals office got smart. Maybe they are thinking logically.

Maybe they checked the survey on FOX 25. When I checked last night, about 94% favored not pressing charges.

[Jonas Pilot]

What ever they did, they fixed it and got it right.

[Pineedles]

I am very glad the charges were dropped. I also want to issue a big thank you to Dennis Fleming for his actions. This man is a true hero! Think about it folks, do you have inside of you, what it took Mr. Fleming to do? I don't know whether I have it. I hope I don't ever have to find out. Holding a gun on someone, is something that is not easy to do I would imagine.

[jeffk]

While I agree with the common sense outcome I think the actions that happened are not clear cut.

Are you "defending your property or yourself" when you hunt someone down that has left your property?

Discharging a firearm is serious. So is threatening with a firearm. It doesn't sound like the burglar, although committing a felony, had a weapon. I'm not sure what a person's rights are to detain a person using a gun when that person isn't a direct threat. Suppose Fleming found the guy a couple days later and somehow identified him. Could he pull a gun on him?

In comparing it to the Bird case. Ward says that he did NOT threaten the woman with his gun, and she WAS on HIS property illegally, a misdemeanor. He certainly did not discharge his weapon. He did not try to detain her for the police. He just told her to leave. Ward's actions were much more restrained than Mr. Fleming and yet Ward's case was pursued as a felony. It shows the people at the start of the case make decisions that have a significant impact on the outcome.

[SIKSUKR]

Homerun on that post Jeff.

[Pineedles]

Although the title of the thread may have been disjointed from the Bird affair, as a 2nd amendment advocate I wanted people to look at, think, and respond to a man's actions in defending his home and his neighbor's home; and of course most important, the action of the government in arresting him.

I worry about this country's future and the legacy that we will leave our children. Are we our neighbors keepers? No, but we must be willing to stand up and protect them if the situation presents itself. This is why I believe Mr. Fleming is a hero. Damn the torpedoes (gun laws) and full steam ahead. Or in other words, restrain the perpetrator despite the noise ordinances with a shot to ground, to get his attention, and let him know you mean business.

[NBR]

Better to let the guy know the gun is loaded and you are serious than be forced to shoot him if he decides to go for you!

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by NBR

Better to let the guy know the gun is loaded and you are serious than be forced to shoot him if he decides to go for you!

Except that if you've taken any basic gun safety or home defense legality courses you'll know that this is the opposite of the truth.

You don't fire off "warning shots". Ever.

[Slickcraft]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Except that if you've taken any basic gun safety or home defense legality courses you'll know that this is the opposite of the truth.

You don't fire off "warning shots". Ever.

Correct. You can never be sure where that round will go especially when under stress. Also the warning round might result in return fire from a panicked bad guy turning the incident into a gun fight. Police have to account for every round fired and are trained to not fire warning shots. They fire only at an imminent deadly threat and then shoot to kill.

[tis]

But if he killed the guy, there is no doubt he would be in jail. Good thing it WAS a warning shot only……..

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by tis

But if he killed the guy, there is no doubt he would be in jail. Good thing it WAS a warning shot only……..

No, it's really not a "good thing". We don't know the exact details of the scenario, but most people who specialize in training for these sorts of scenarios would tell you that by firing a "Warning" shot he had about a 50/50 chance of causing bodily harm or lethal harm to himself and/or the burglar.

[Pineedles]

To be completely fair, brk-Int is correct that it is not recommended to fire a warning shot. I'm not sure about the 50% chance thing, but I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea. Bottom line is that the perp is in jail and Mr. fleming is not, and that's a good thing.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

I'm not sure about the 50% chance thing

Bullets can ricochet in some amazing ways, especially off of frozen ground. They may also fragment, with the fragments each ricocheting in their own direction.

Additionally, most people have relatively poor trigger control even in controlled situations in calm environments (eg: at a gun range). By this is mean anticipating the shot and trying to pre-compensate for recoil, which will send the bullet not in the intended direction. There are THOUSANDS of documented cases of trained police officers accidentally discharging their weapons in high stress environments, causing unintended injuries to themselves or others.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the 2nd amendment, try to stay up to speed on various local self-defense and property defense laws, have sent thousands of rounds down the shooting range in various practice scenarios and so forth. My concern in cases like this is that these are EXACTLY the kinds of actions that go awry and lead pansy-assed politicians to pass MORE laws protecting us from ourselves and ultimately inhibiting us from protecting ourselves.

If you want to "shoot" something in a scenario like this, get your camera phone and snap a couple of pics. Sure, do your best to detain the person, but a few cellphone pics will be better than trying to play vigilante if you don't understand the basics around legal and proper use of lethal force and displays of weapons.

[ishoot308]

To expand a little further, it is unlawful to threaten to or to take another persons life over material goods plain and simple. If you see someone stealing your car and you go out and attempt to stop them by threatening their life with your firearm or if you shoot at them, you are going to jail, no ifs, ands, or buts. Even states with the castle doctrine do not allow you to kill someone for stealing.

You are only allowed to use lethal force if yours or another persons life is in imminent and immediate danger and you better be able to prove it!

I could go on and on about this issue but to sum it up, even if justified be prepared for a six figure defense fund if you kill someone. You want to do everything you can to NOT pull the trigger.

I highly recommend to anyone who doubts this to take an NRA certified home defense course. It will be the best money you ever spent and will teach you how to protect your home and what the legal repercussions are if you are in a situation where you have no choice to defend yourself and your family with your firearm.

Heaven forbid any of us are ever put in that situation.

Dan

[jeffk]

As much as I strongly agree with the sentiment of stopping criminals and helping neighbors, the law is full of land mines for citizens taking actions against criminals.

I poked around a bit and found the law seems nebulous and expanding as cases are settled. That makes it very dangerous since you can never be sure exactly how things will end up.

Here is a link to a California site.
California Legal Opinion

In essence, it says that a criminal being arrested that THINKS excessive force might be used against him has a right to defend himself. In Fleming's case, that might mean the burglar, feeling threatened by a warning shot, could have legally defended himself by shooting Fleming. It sounds crazy and I don't agree with it. But it is law in California.

I even understand it a bit. We have a presumption of innocence. You see a guy doing something illegal, you pull your gun for a citizen's arrest, he bolts and you shoot him. The problem is that he turns out to be innocent. The law addresses this issue by saying that only required force may be used. There's even a question whether you can restrain a person you suspect of a crime. You tell him to stop, he refuses and walks away, you wrestle him down and hold him. You may have used excessive force and illegally restrained him. As Ward Bird found out, this process can be a nightmare.

The law can be a nasty thing. Consider that a person stopping to help an injured person could have been sued for accidentally causing more damage. We had to write "Good Samaritan Laws" to specifically protect them from legal assault.

As I said, some of these interpretations of the law seem to fly in the face of common sense but if you have a police department and prosecutor that lean in that direction you can run into big trouble.

[SIKSUKR]

I do like your posts Jeff but I was refering to jeffk's post.