The next Ward Bird?

[winniboy]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

That's a much easier question to answer as everyone has a right to defend themselves. Really what this comes down to is simply as Grandpa Redneck says, shoot the dirt bag or not. I agree that if you feel threatened then any use of force including lethal may be permissible under the law, but for me personally, I would only play that card as a last resort. Owning a firearm comes with some serious responsibility and the ability to be cool in a tense situation. I for one would not want the death of another on my conscience unless I was absolutely convinced at the time I had no other choice. I sincerely believe that is the intent of law.

Anyone that decides to play vigilante and the situation ensues/escalates to the point of a fatality, well that's a different story. Far as that Martin case goes, it's easy to play on emotion, nobody wants to see a kid get killed needlessly no matter their race. Is that what really happened? Who knows, with any luck the cops will make a decision to prosecute or not based on the evidence, not because of the pressure put on by the lunatics running around convicting the shooter without even having any first hand knowledge of what really happened. Lynch mob mentality is every bit as wrong as vigilantism.

i agree i would also only KILL if it was a last resort, but like the ward bird case and this case. NO ONE IS DEAD, ward bird never fired a shot, and fleming only fired one into the ground. therefore by a legal standpoint, both are totally fine by law. as long as fleming had a permit for the gun. hell he can say he was doing some target practice or what ever, last time i checked, with proper permits, you can fire a gun on your own property. so what the hell was he arrested for? i shake my heads at the officer who did the arresting and at the AG, you are a fool.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by winniboy

i agree i would also only KILL if it was a last resort, but like the ward bird case and this case. NO ONE IS DEAD, ward bird never fired a shot, and fleming only fired one into the ground. therefore by a legal standpoint, both are totally fine by law. as long as fleming had a permit for the gun. hell he can say he was doing some target practice or what ever, last time i checked, with proper permits, you can fire a gun on your own property. so what the hell was he arrested for? i shake my heads at the officer who did the arresting and at the AG, you are a fool.

You cannot fire a gun on your own property if you are within 300 feet of any other permanently occupied residence unless you have permission from the owner. You cannot discharge a firearm win the "compact" part of a town or city. You also cannot shoot over a road or within 15 feet of one. The list of limitations goes on. It sounds to me that Fleming did not comply with this which is why he was in hot water. Even the pd seemed to side with him, but the laws are the laws.

Nh does have permits, licenses or registrations for firearms themselves, just a license to carry in a concealed manner so you were incorrect here too. You can carry a loaded weapon as long as it it is not concealed in public with a few exceptions such as federal buildings, near schools, etc. Nh law actually specifies only none in courtrooms, federal law is more strict.

Owning, carrying or using a gun is a privilege and a right, not to be taken lightly.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by winniboy

i agree i would also only KILL if it was a last resort, but like the ward bird case and this case. NO ONE IS DEAD, ward bird never fired a shot, and fleming only fired one into the ground. therefore by a legal standpoint, both are totally fine by law. as long as fleming had a permit for the gun. hell he can say he was doing some target practice or what ever, last time i checked, with proper permits, you can fire a gun on your own property. so what the hell was he arrested for? i shake my heads at the officer who did the arresting and at the AG, you are a fool.

I agree with you on the Ward Bird case he was well within his rights, although once again I would go back to my statement of confrontation and mixing firearms with that. I certainly do not find fault with him confronting a trespasser, showing he was packing probably wasn't necessary but again well within his rights to do so. Had I been in that situation I would not have shown any iron unless I was prepared to use it. In NH you don't need a permit for a gun unless you are carrying concealed.

Fleming on the other hand did fire a shot into the ground, I'll give him credit for not shooting the robber, but that is IHMO at minimum irresponsible and I would dare say border line reckless discharge of a weapon. Should he have gotten arrested, no, but I think his actions were not exactly smart either. What if the perpetrator was packing and next thing you know we've got a shootout between those guys? Over what, a burglary? Again I point to the idea that the situation could have escalated when it wasn't really a situation of life or death. Don't get me wrong here I'm happy that the robber was busted but the outcome could have been much different and I think that is the lesson to come out of a case like this.

[winniboy]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

I agree with you on the Ward Bird case he was well within his rights, although once again I would go back to my statement of confrontation and mixing firearms with that. I certainly do not find fault with him confronting a trespasser, showing he was packing probably wasn't necessary but again well within his rights to do so. Had I been in that situation I would not have shown any iron unless I was prepared to use it. In NH you don't need a permit for a gun unless you are carrying concealed.

Fleming on the other hand did fire a shot into the ground, I'll give him credit for not shooting the robber, but that is IHMO at minimum irresponsible and I would dare say border line reckless discharge of a weapon. Should he have gotten arrested, no, but I think his actions were not exactly smart either. What if the perpetrator was packing and next thing you know we've got a shootout between those guys? Over what, a burglary? Again I point to the idea that the situation could have escalated when it wasn't really a situation of life or death. Don't get me wrong here I'm happy that the robber was busted but the outcome could have been much different and I think that is the lesson to come out of a case like this.

i agree it may have been a bonehead move, but by law, i dont see anything wrong with what he did. and to the poster above. when did i say anything about concealed weapons?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by winniboy

i agree it may have been a bonehead move, but by law, i dont see anything wrong with what he did. and to the poster above. when did i say anything about concealed weapons?

Your statement included "as long as Fleming had a permit for the gun". This is what I was speaking to, since nh does not require permits for guns themselves. Permits to carry concealed are required in nh, I was elaborating on the law.

[winniboy]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Your statement included "as long as Fleming had a permit for the gun". This is what I was speaking to, since nh does not require permits for guns themselves. Permits to carry concealed are required in nh, I was elaborating on the law.

yes im sorry for the misunderstanding, i guess i meant not permit persay but as long as the gun was legal (permits, licence, registered) etc... for what ever the weapon was.

[ChocolateGypsy]

I didn't mean to start a debate on the Florida situation, but the situation with Fleming could have gone down the same way. If Fleming hadn't fired his gun, I'm sure the burglar would have brought charges against Fleming for something. Or maybe he should have just gone up and slugged Fleming? According to the media that's the thing to do when someone is pointing a gun at you -- hit them. (I'll try that the next time I'm mugged.)

As they say, the laws are written to protect the criminals -- and the criminals know the laws. Unfortunately, law-abiding citizens have no rights to defend themselves and no support until they are in a coma in the hospital and have become a statistic.

[Belmont Resident]

Originally Posted by ChocolateGypsy

I didn't mean to start a debate on the Florida situation, but the situation with Fleming could have gone down the same way. If Fleming hadn't fired his gun, I'm sure the burglar would have brought charges against Fleming for something. Or maybe he should have just gone up and slugged Fleming? According to the media that's the thing to do when someone is pointing a gun at you -- hit them. (I'll try that the next time I'm mugged.)

As they say, the laws are written to protect the criminals -- and the criminals know the laws. Unfortunately, law-abiding citizens have no rights to defend themselves and no support until they are in a coma in the hospital and have become a statistic.

I could be wrong but I believe the law was passed to give us more ways to protect ourselves when we are on our own property.
Most of us do not walk around with a gun shoved into our belt, legal or not.
Legal or not can you imagine the outcome of a road rage incident that had both drivers carrying hand guns? I do not believe the law should allow for use of guns in public even for self defense.
I am glad the guy up here was set free and no charges pressed.
The case in Florida has so many things wrong with it and who do you believe? First he did this then he did that. It looks like a case of another punk who was on his way to a life of crime is no longer around to hurt someone else.
Then there is the story of the guy who was beat up showing no signs of it on the arrest video, looks like it could have been murder more then self protection.
The problem is the story keeps changing for both involved, on top of that the news people always seem to add their feelings into the story that helps sway it one way or the other.
It will be interesting to see what finally comes out of this one.

[ChocolateGypsy]

Originally Posted by Belmont Resident

The problem is the story keeps changing for both involved, on top of that the news people always seem to add their feelings into the story that helps sway it one way or the other.
It will be interesting to see what finally comes out of this one.

I agree -- no one will really know anything until it goes to court. I used to live in that town and feel badly for both families. But I also know that if the 911 call proves that it was Zimmerman yelling for help in the background, people will claim the report was "doctored." The racial tension between the police and the black neighborhoods there is really bad and goes back many years. (Sanford has a rural "deep south" character to it -- It's not a stereotypical Florida "tourist" community.)

[NoRegrets]

Originally Posted by ChocolateGypsy

I agree -- no one will really know anything until it goes to court. I used to live in that town and feel badly for both families. But I also know that if the 911 call proves that it was Zimmerman yelling for help in the background, people will claim the report was "doctored." The racial tension between the police and the black neighborhoods there is really bad and goes back many years. (Sanford has a rural "deep south" character to it -- It's not a stereotypical Florida "tourist" community.)

I am not sure if everything will be known about the situation via a court room show. Look at the OJ Simpson case as well as other situations where legal maneuvers kept information away from the jury. The mainstream media has edited the stories to lead the headlines. NBC is now being investigated for editing the 911 call to show Zimmerman was a racist. Rev. Sharpton and the Black Panthers have already tried and convicted Zimmerman. There is something sinister on how this made it to this level in the main stream media when there were 441 murders in Chicago alone last year that were unreported. LA, New York, Philli, and all other cities have similar horror stories yet this one was used by media, the President, and activists. What is the real story????

To stay on track on the Lakes region issues....I believe the headlines are snipets of biased information and the posts in the Winni forum actually add some balance to the stories.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by NoRegrets

To stay on track on the Lakes region issues....I believe the headlines are snipets of biased information and the posts in the Winni forum actually add some balance to the stories.

With all due respect to the fine people in the media, ain't a one of them as smart or informed as the forum members on here. Even the ones I may disagree with. At least all of us are honest enough to share our opinions as that, opinion not sit behind a news desk, hatchet the daily news, and claim to be unbiased!

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Belmont Resident

I do not believe the law should allow for use of guns in public even for self defense.

I vehemently disagree with you on this.

If you choose not to protect yourself that's cool more power to ya. That's your decision. Call 911 and hope the cops show up in time to help you out. Roll the dice.

I feel just the opposite and at the end of the day one thing is for sure. Criminals that get guns don't care about the law or anything else other than whatever crime the are hell bent to commit. Them having a gun in hand gives them the upper hand in any situation why else would they have them? If you or anyone else chooses to allow yourself to be in that situation fine, but how dare you suggest taking away my choice to see things a little differently. BTW you would probably be surprised at how many people do carry all the time.

[Grandpa Redneck]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

I vehemently disagree with you on this.

If you choose not to protect yourself that's cool more power to ya. That's your decision. Call 911 and hope the cops show up in time to help you out. Roll the dice.

I feel just the opposite and at the end of the day one thing is for sure. Criminals that get guns don't care about the law or anything else other than whatever crime the are hell bent to commit. Them having a gun in hand gives them the upper hand in any situation why else would they have them? If you or anyone else chooses to allow yourself to be in that situation fine, but how dare you suggest taking away my choice to see things a little differently. BTW you would probably be surprised at how many people do carry all the time.

I completely agree with ya on this MAXUM!

[ChocolateGypsy]

I meant that I agreed that no one really knows what happened based on the media reports. But we do know that in both cases only one person had a gun.

Now with that said, I believe that most people don't really understand what happens in a fist fight. It's not like what's seen on tv -- one person throws a punch, then there's a pause, then there's a return punch. Or in a sport where there are "rules" and a measured time frame. In real life, it's more like being attacked by a rabid dog. It's fast, intense, ferocious and PAINFUL! The other person clearly wants to beat you to death. In that situation, most people can't think clearly (severe pain does that to one's mind) -- they just want it to STOP! And I believe that, under such circumstances, most people will use the first thing they can get their hands on and strike back with a large rock, a bat, or a knife... the attacker could still end up dead... depending on how freaked out their victim is. ("she stabbed him twenty times... it's insane!")

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by winniboy

i agree it may have been a bonehead move, but by law, i dont see anything wrong with what he did. and to the poster above. when did i say anything about concealed weapons?

You didn't I was just pointing out that in NH you do not need a permit to have or purchase a gun, nor is it necessary to register them. You do need a permit to carry concealed.

That doesn't preclude any federal laws such as a mandatory background check at the time of purchase.