Public sides heavily with Farmington man who fired gun to stop burglary suspect
- Login to post comments
Area residents are feeling sympathetic with Dennis Fleming's decision to fire a weapon at the ground after finding his Ten Rod Road home burglarized and keeping the suspect at bay until police arrived.
Public sides heavily with Farmington man who fired gun to stop burglary suspect
Has this been posted somewhere?
Anyway, can I call the police "dumbasses" here, without fear of being contradicted?
Had the guy killed the burglar, he probably would have been better off. That's the police mentality as well, they can't imagine shooting not to kill.
Anyway, the police don't seem to have been protecting the neighbothood in this case, and God forbid the citizens should take it upon themselves. Next thing you know the dumb citizens will think they can do more themselves, and demand less from the government.
And wouldn't THAT throw a monkey wrench into the whole works.
"he was defending himself"? No, he wasn't, he was not in any situation that met the "self defense" standard period.
Should he be prosecuted ? No , he should be given a strong reminder of the requirements of having that firearm and its' use.
This passes the feels good test,fails the statutory test .
The split second decisions require previous understanding of elements required for them to be correct,not reckless!
I'd like to think I'd have done the same thing. I'd then let a jury of my peers pass judgement on my action. I suspect a conviction would be hard to come by.
charlie
I just don't see how firing a gun into the ground is "reckless endangerment". He's not endangering anything - except for, maybe, his foot.
Nothing a little jury nulification can't fix.
I just don't see how firing a gun into the ground is "reckless endangerment". He's not endangering anything - except for, maybe, his foot.
You never know if there's a rare and protected double headed spotted wingworm 6" down. And what about the people in China? What caliber was the weapon?
What if the thief hadn't stopped?
What is the next step ?
And what about the people in China? What caliber was the weapon?
88 Magnum. "It shoots through schools."
In this case, the law in Maine is more "user friendly" than that of NH. It is why one needs to know the law of each state in which you plan to be armed.
In Texas, the law about defending neighbor's property might well have permitted shooting the burglar. In Maine, the threatened use of deadly force is not deadly force. Firing a firearm "in the direction of" a person would NOT have been permitted in Maine, at least on the facts reported. It is deadly force.
The law on warning shots is "muddy" at best. Only the Coasties do warning shots as their stock in trade.
"What if he doesn't stop" ? depends which way he's heading and what he has in his hands!
When the subject is running away in fear the burden shifts to the shooter. The shooter needs to be convinced that the fleeing subject is going to cause more harm to someone else in the immediate area before shooting.
The law on warning shots is "muddy" at best.
What laws cover "brandishing"?
"Hey you kids! Get off my LAWN!"
Tom I loved that movie.
"Johnny Dangerously" or "Gran Torino"?
"Never hang me on a hook. My mother hung me on a hook, ONCE."
Stephen Carmichael said: Nothing a little jury nulification can't fix.
Good luck getting that into a courtroom. This is a subject matter worthy of it's own thread.
Some charges, such as this, would be nullified by the jury without their even being aware of the concept of nullification.
charlie
FARMINGTON — County Attorney Tom Velardi dropped all charges Thursday against the local man who fired a gun into the ground while stopping an alleged burglar last weekend, calling him an “upstanding member of the community for 61 years.”
Which, of course, is the sensible outcome. The biggest problem I had with this story was the cops charging him that day, like he was trigger happy or a flight risk and might not be around tomorrow. The DA was going to review this case, one way or the other and the cops know it, so why put an upstanding guy on the spot unnecessarily? Why bring the unwarranted publicity to this guy when maybe the perp has a few unstable relatives in the nieghborhood?
The DA actually handed out some justice and dropped the charges before the story got even more coverage.
The Police are often so accustomed to charging people with crimes, that they forget the unnecessary stress the process puts on the average law abiding citizen.
The case would've been a jury nulification had it gone to trial. I love a good nulification.
This was not reckless use of a firearm; it was intentional, accurate and necessary.
It wouldn't have required "jury nullification" -- just "juror education".
Conclusions from the applicable NH law:
1) Dennis Fleming did not use "deadly force" because he did not discharge the firearm "in the direction of" the burglar, and did not otherwise use physical force.
2) Dennis Fleming did not recklessly shoot, because the circumstances known to him did NOT involve any likelihood of the shot he fired causing harm to anybody or anything.
3) Dennis Fleming, regardless of the above, might have been actually justified in using deadly force if he "reasonably" believed" the burglar was likely to use ANY unlawful force against him while he was standing in the "curtilage" of his own house.
4) Fleming's actions were consistent with "the conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the situation", hence not reckless.
Now here's the law.
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.
-- he is not required to retreat if he is within his dwelling or its curtilage and was not the initial aggressor
As to the NH "Reckless conduct" statute:
2006 New Hampshire Statutes - Section 631:3 Reckless Conduct.
Share |
The term "reckless" is pretty well defined, and is similar to Maine law.
(c) ""Recklessly.'' A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the circumstances known to him, its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the situation.
The above analysis does not rely on the jury disregarding ANY provision of NH law. It merely requires the defense to present the justification facts (probably via the state's witnesses) and request the correct jury instructions of the judge.
At the end of the day, it is best characterized as a non-physical (threatening) case justified by the "competing harms" doctrine. Since his conduct was consistent with that of a "law abiding person" and involved no reasonable likelihood of harm, it was not reckless
- Login to post comments
Reckless Endangerment ??? Really? Sounds like a perfect example of "Neighborhood Watch" to me! most 10 Rod Roads I know of tend to be somewhat Rural, the man was apperantly on his own or his neighbors personal property. and he discharged his weapon into the ground causing nobody any harm. he got the bad guys undivided attention, and the cops eventualy got there to do their job! Win-Win! if more Burglers got shot at, we'd have a lot less Burglaries!