robinp Posted February 21, 2012 at 08:17 PM Posted February 21, 2012 at 08:17 PM http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/21/new-hampshire-man-faces-felony-charge-after-firing-gun-into-ground-near-burglar/
Scots Posted February 21, 2012 at 08:20 PM Posted February 21, 2012 at 08:20 PM Page not found on Fox News website. Is there another link?
papa Posted February 21, 2012 at 08:27 PM Posted February 21, 2012 at 08:27 PM Page not found on Fox News website. Is there another link? Right under the yellow triangle where it says " most active " .....first story below that.
mstrat Posted February 21, 2012 at 08:32 PM Posted February 21, 2012 at 08:32 PM Fixed link: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/21/new-hampshire-man-faces-felony-charge-after-firing-gun-into-ground-near-burglar/
Patriots & Tyrants Posted February 21, 2012 at 08:45 PM Posted February 21, 2012 at 08:45 PM http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120221/GJNEWS_01/702219939/-1/FOSNEWS read the article directly from the local NH paper. This guy went out LOOKING for the criminal. I think what he did was just and the right thing to do but I am not sure if it was "legal". Here in IL they would throw the book at him.
NakPPI Posted February 21, 2012 at 09:00 PM Posted February 21, 2012 at 09:00 PM I saw this earlier this week in a video interview and cringed as the guy told the reporter that he fired a warning shot. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A WARNING SHOT. Every gun owner needs to learn that. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
oneshot Posted February 21, 2012 at 09:46 PM Posted February 21, 2012 at 09:46 PM THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A WARNING SHOT. Dang movies.
lockman Posted February 21, 2012 at 09:58 PM Posted February 21, 2012 at 09:58 PM If he fired in a safe direction, his actions may still constitute unlawful discharge but how could it be reckless discharge unless there is a likely hood for injury or death?
citrix_guy Posted February 21, 2012 at 10:04 PM Posted February 21, 2012 at 10:04 PM Just wait until when he tries to get his other guns back... even if they press no charges, Police departments are NOT setup to return items... Guns for sure.
NakPPI Posted February 21, 2012 at 10:14 PM Posted February 21, 2012 at 10:14 PM If he fired in a safe direction, his actions may still constitute unlawful discharge but how could it be reckless discharge unless there is a likely hood for injury or death? Depends on how the law is written in the state. He purposefully discharged a firearm in a residential neighborhood when his life was not in danger and bragged about it on tv. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
Hossua Posted February 21, 2012 at 10:24 PM Posted February 21, 2012 at 10:24 PM If he fired in a safe direction, his actions may still constitute unlawful discharge but how could it be reckless discharge unless there is a likely hood for injury or death? Depends on how the law is written in the state. He purposefully discharged a firearm in a residential neighborhood when his life was not in danger and bragged about it on tv. Sent from my SCH-I500 using TapatalkI'm not so sure his life wasn't in danger, but I wasn't there.
xmikex Posted February 21, 2012 at 10:24 PM Posted February 21, 2012 at 10:24 PM dumb move by the guy but I don't see a jury convicting anytime soon.
JackTripper Posted February 21, 2012 at 10:41 PM Posted February 21, 2012 at 10:41 PM Bye, bye, $10,000.We hardly knew you.
Uncle Harley Posted February 21, 2012 at 10:53 PM Posted February 21, 2012 at 10:53 PM If he fired in a safe direction, his actions may still constitute unlawful discharge but how could it be reckless discharge unless there is a likely hood for injury or death? Depends on how the law is written in the state. He purposefully discharged a firearm in a residential neighborhood when his life was not in danger and bragged about it on tv. Sent from my SCH-I500 using TapatalkI'm not so sure his life wasn't in danger, but I wasn't there. How could he be a threat if he is crawling out a window with an arm load of loot. The dumbazz should have told him to stop or he would shoot and then wait for him to comply. Had he dropped the loot and made a move they guy then could have legally shot in fear of his life. Like one of the other posters said DANG MOVIES! There is no such thing as a warning shot PERIOD.
anonymous too Posted February 21, 2012 at 11:43 PM Posted February 21, 2012 at 11:43 PM There is no such thing as a warning shot PERIOD. It is on the books as legal for law enforcement in IL to do. There is only one agency that will still advocate it's use. You guessed it......the ISP.
citrix_guy Posted February 21, 2012 at 11:52 PM Posted February 21, 2012 at 11:52 PM There is no such thing as a warning shot PERIOD. It is on the books as legal for law enforcement in IL to do. There is only one agency that will still advocate it's use. You guessed it......the ISP. You're kidding me. Who the heck would teach that. You pull a weapon it it is not for a warning. Jeez. This is what happens when law enforcement is about politics, not law enforcement. Almost as idiotic as those pols that come around and want to force police to "shoot to wound".
junglebob Posted February 22, 2012 at 12:54 AM Posted February 22, 2012 at 12:54 AM My son is a corrections officer and interestingly enough they are told to fire a warning shot. He said if a fight breaks out in the prison yard an officer in the tower will fire a warning shot at a special "shot board", normally all the inmates hit the ground as they know they may be shot if they continue fighting. In self defense situtations the only warning shot should be the first round that hits the perpetrator who tries to attack you after being given a verbal warning. The worst thing would be that a warning shot richochets or is fired in the air and hits an innocent bystander. You're responsible for all rounds fired, including "warning shots".
citrix_guy Posted February 22, 2012 at 01:24 AM Posted February 22, 2012 at 01:24 AM My son is a corrections officer and interestingly enough they are told to fire a warning shot. He said if a fight breaks out in the prison yard an officer in the tower will fire a warning shot at a special "shot board", normally all the inmates hit the ground as they know they may be shot if they continue fighting. In self defense situtations the only warning shot should be the first round that hits the perpetrator who tries to attack you after being given a verbal warning. The worst thing would be that a warning shot richochets or is fired in the air and hits an innocent bystander. You're responsible for all rounds fired, including "warning shots". That I can see. You are in a position to fire w/out having to take return fire or be advanced on... a cop on patrol... not so much.
Hossua Posted February 22, 2012 at 02:13 AM Posted February 22, 2012 at 02:13 AM How could he be a threat if he is crawling out a window with an arm load of loot. The dumbazz should have told him to stop or he would shoot and then wait for him to comply. Had he dropped the loot and made a move they guy then could have legally shot in fear of his life. Like one of the other posters said DANG MOVIES! There is no such thing as a warning shot PERIOD.Like I said, I wasn't there. That robber could have dropped that crap and shot him dead. How would that guy have known if he was armed or not? Agreed about the warning shot, but at least he fired into the ground unlike most idiots that would shoot in the air.
NakPPI Posted February 22, 2012 at 03:00 AM Posted February 22, 2012 at 03:00 AM Let's all take a deep breath here... This guy made a lot of mistakes. Intentionally shooting a gun in a residential neighborhood when no one's life is immediate danger and the bad guy is FLEEING is a big NO NO. (Also, the gun was a .50 cal Desert Eagle, I can't find the video anymore I suppose Fox took it down) And for those of you who want to know the legality police (not the general public) of shooting people who are fleeing, feel free to read this case: Tennessee v. Garner A Tennessee statute provides that, if, after a police officer has given notice of an intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees or forcibly resists, "the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest." Acting under the authority of this statute, a Memphis police officer shot and killed appellee-respondent Garner's son as, after being told to halt, the son fled over a fence at night in the backyard of a house he was suspected of burglarizing. The officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" the suspect was unarmed and thinking that he was 17 or 18 years old, and of slight build. The father subsequently brought an action in Federal District Court, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for asserted violations of his son's constitutional rights. The District Court held that the statute and the officer's actions were constitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed.Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 497 U. S. 7-22. Moral of the story--don't go chasing after bad guys when no one's life is in danger. Edit, from the Dissenting (losing side) of Garner: The Court's opinion sweeps broadly to adopt an entirely new standard for the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to apprehend fleeing felons. Thus, the Court "lightly brushe aside," Payton v. New York, supra, at 445 U. S. 600, a longstanding police practice that predates the Fourth Amendment and continues to receive the approval of nearly half of the state legislatures. I cannot accept the majority's creation of a constitutional right to flight for burglary suspects
dmefford Posted February 22, 2012 at 05:35 AM Posted February 22, 2012 at 05:35 AM My good friend a deputy here in Pike County fired a warning shot while apprehending a suspect who was draining an anhydrous tank. The suspect stopped and he was subsequently arrested and there was no flak! Regards, Drd EDITED to say. The officer said he would not have shot the guy. The officer is heavy and would not have been able to apprehend him unless the subject had stopped on his own.
vezpa Posted February 22, 2012 at 02:10 PM Posted February 22, 2012 at 02:10 PM What right did the police have to enter his house to take the other guns? If he stayed outside the house until police arrived I can see them taking the gun he used, but they had no right/reason to enter his house to look for more weapons. That is bull****.
Xwing Posted February 22, 2012 at 03:08 PM Posted February 22, 2012 at 03:08 PM Sounds like the homeowner made some mistakes. But still, I hate it that the courts and police seem to always side with the burglar / robber, and not with the man who was being robbed.
jim123 Posted February 22, 2012 at 05:10 PM Posted February 22, 2012 at 05:10 PM This guy went out to help neighbors three times. He fired a .50 cal Desert Eagle into the ground, tackled the bad guy, and dragged him to the cops. He's on the news as a hero. Try that in chicago. This why I REALLY HATE LIBERALS. http://www.click2houston.com/news/Bellaire-man-grabs-gun-helps-make-arrest/-/1735978/8778752/-/2oqonaz/-/index.html
dmefford Posted February 22, 2012 at 08:47 PM Posted February 22, 2012 at 08:47 PM Sounds like the homeowner made some mistakes. But still, I hate it that the courts and police seem to always side with the burglar / robber, and not with the man who was being robbed. You got it...... These cops haven't got good sense or they are on power trips.... The Oklahoma cops had it right when that young mother shot the bad guy down here a while back...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.