What a shame

Glock19fan · Feb 21, 2012

Check this out. What do you all think about it.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/2...ge-after-firing-gun-into-ground-near-burglar/

Cisco · Feb 21, 2012

He should get a medal. I don't see anything wrong with firing into the ground. It may have prevented him from having to shoot the perp... 'course, that would have been a good outcome, also!

ArmySoldier22 · Feb 21, 2012

This is absolutely ridiculous. While I agree that I would've rather seen the burglar shot, he still managed to stop the thief. And from what I understand, this wasn't even in the city either, it was outside the city. The whole situation is so stupid. The entire thing should be dropped and he should be praised for removing a bad guy from the streets.

If I'm going to jail, it's going to be because the guy has been dropped, not because I fired into the ground to stop him.

WOD · Feb 21, 2012

I just saw this post, and I agree that this is a crock of horse manure. I haven't looked at the laws of the state this occurred in, but they need to review those laws if the burglary victim is charged with a felony for protecting their and anothers' property.

ArmySoldier22 · Feb 21, 2012

This reminds me of incidents in other states where somebody shoots a burglar in their home and the thief sues them. I think it's right up there on the same level of ridiculousness.

MainelyGlock · Feb 21, 2012

ArmySolider, When I was taking a basic pistol course, my instructor told us several stories about how the intruder ended up surviving and counter-suing the persons who's house he invaded. He told us that if we are shooting defensively, then shoot to kill, not to wound. The sad part is that the man in the article would probably be in less trouble if he had shot and killed the burglar.

rotorhead · Feb 21, 2012

MainelyGlock said:
ArmySolider, When I was taking a basic pistol course, my instructor told us several stories about how the intruder ended up surviving and counter-suing the persons who's house he invaded. He told us that if we are shooting defensively, then shoot to kill, not to wound. The sad part is that the man in the article would probably be in less trouble if he had shot and killed the burglar.

He would have been in even less trouble had he simply called the police and let them handle it. Although we don't know all the facts from a simple news story, there is no indication that the man's life was in danger, nor the lives of anyone else for that matter. Self-defense is one thing, shooting into the ground to stop a suspected robbery (in his mind) in a house that you don't even live in is quite another.

If a state has laws which can lead to a person's arrest for shooting an intruder he caught trying to break into his house, how much more would those same laws come back to haunt someone used a weapon to defend a home in which he didn't even reside?

I know I won't hold the popular opinion on this one, but shooting into he ground to scare the crap out of someone who showing no indication of harming you or anyone else is not the smartest of moves. I could see justification in the act if the guy was breaking into my own home and I shot him in the nostrils, but shooting into the ground to stop a robbery of someone else's house would go beyond my standards for a self-defense justification.

ArmySoldier22 · Feb 21, 2012

rotorhead said:
He would have been in even less trouble had he simply called the police and let them handle it. Although we don't know all the facts from a simple news story, there is no indication that the man's life was in danger, nor the lives of anyone else for that matter. Self-defense is one thing, shooting into the ground to stop a suspected robbery (in his mind) in a house that you don't even live in is quite another.

If a state has laws which can lead to a person's arrest for shooting an intruder he caught trying to break into his house, how much more would those same laws come back to haunt someone used a weapon to defend a home in which he didn't even reside?

I know I won't hold the popular opinion on this one, but shooting into he ground to scare the crap out of someone who showing no indication of harming you or anyone else is not the smartest of moves. I could see justification in the act if the guy was breaking into my own home and I shot him in the nostrils, but shooting into the ground to stop a robbery of someone else's house would go beyond my standards for a self-defense justification.

You do bring up some good points, but to be fair, his house was also robbed. The burglar just moved on to his neighbors house afterwards.

NC-Heel · Feb 21, 2012

double post

NC-Heel · Feb 21, 2012

Warning shots are for TV. Never give a verbal warning as it could show intent. If you feel the need to warn someone before defending yourself a pump 12 gauge has a built in warning system. I WILL NEVER live in a State where it is against the law to protect myself from an attacker.

I like the part where the guy defends his actions by saying,"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." That is what you have the gun for.

Instead of telling the responding officer he fired a warning shot, whether in the ground or in the air, he should have said it accidentally discharged. What was he going to do if the guy did not stop, shoot him in the back?

bc.cruiser · Feb 21, 2012

I'm with Rotor on this.

Absent personal threat, I won't be shooting to protect property, mine or that of a neighbor. Being a burglary victim does confer a sense of being violated, but that in itself does not warrant lethal action.

Of course, without witnesses to the contrary, a burglar may decide to attack me. And be dealt with.

MainelyGlock · Feb 21, 2012

In Maine, at least, I was taught that you are legally allowed to use lethal force to protect your property, but NOT anyone else's. That certainly doesn't mean you should, and I didn't intend for my post to suggest that he should have shot the man.

If he had been caught breaking into that man's house, who's to say what his intentions were? You wouldn't know whether or not he was there to rob you, or kill you. I do disagree with NC-Heel about verbal warnings. I wouldn't just open fire on anyone breaking into my house, without first giving them a chance to surrender. I hope to god I never have to use any of my firearms in a lethal manner. I say if you're at a safe distance from the perp, then let me know you're armed and to eff off.

NC-Heel · Feb 21, 2012

If you have time to converse with them then were you ever really in danger?

Which call do you want to make to 911?

Someone broke into my house. I shot them. I first told them to leave and I was armed but they did not heed my commands. I waited till they got close enough to me to be a threat.

I just shot an intruder. I heard a noise and next thing I know they were coming at me so I defended my life. I was scared. Please send help.

ArmySoldier22 · Feb 21, 2012

I guess it really comes down to what you're comfortable with doing in a situation. Me personally, just the fact that somebody is in my home makes them a threat to me.

MainelyGlock · Feb 22, 2012

NC-Heel said:
If you have time to converse with them then were you ever really in danger?

Someone broke into my house. I shot them. I first told them to leave and I was armed but they did not heed my commands. I waited till they got close enough to me to be a threat.

Not so much converse, as let them know you're armed. That's just my personal preference. I would want a bit of distance between us for this to happen. Of course, I can only speak for myself, but discharging my firearm is not something I want to have to do, and if there's a chance of not having to kill someone while staying safe, I'll take it.

So, to answer your question, I'd want to be making the call I kept in the quote.

Chief1297 · Feb 22, 2012

I dont agree with warnings or warning shots to someone who has broken into my home. If they broke in, they are a threat to me and my family. There will be no discussion. In this case, I would not have fired into the ground but would have issued a verbal warning to stop. Any further actions on his part would have been deemed hostile. My neighbors and I watch each others homes and wont stand around while the other is robbed. I will call 911 first but I will address the issue.

94 at Large · Feb 22, 2012

Chief1297 said:
I dont agree with warnings or warning shots to someone who has broken into my home. If they broke in, they are a threat to me and my family. There will be no discussion. In this case, I would not have fired into the ground but would have issued a verbal warning to stop. Any further actions on his part would have been deemed hostile. My neighbors and I watch each others homes and wont stand around while the other is robbed. I will call 911 first but I will address the issue.

Gotta love "Castle Doctrine" as of 12/1/2011

If someone unlawfully crosses a homeowner’s threshold, whether there's a weapon in the intruder’s hands or not, it's automatically presumed that the person is a violent intruder.

So, under Castle Doctrine, there’s a legal presumption that if he’s here, inside forcibly and unlawfully inside, he’s here to do me harm. And at that point, one can respond with deadly force..............

However, there are limits in the new law. If the intruder tries to leave, the Castle Doctrine no longer applies. The bill also includes the right to defend your car and workplace, but you can't just pull a gun on anybody walking by.

(The intruder) has to forcibly and unlawfully try to enter the vehicle...........

Part of the law will also apply outside people’s homes – an alley, a mall, anywhere that person has a legal right to be.

Under the law, if a perpetrator runs up to someone with a bat, that person would first have to try to run away. The new law removes the duty to retreat. If the person felt the perpetrator could kill or cause harm, he or she could use deadly force, if necessary.

Red Dawg · Feb 22, 2012

Why did they take ALL of his guns? I kind of understand why the gun he fired into the ground. But there was no reason to take them all. He has NOT been convicted of anything, so he is not a felon with a gun. The other guns are not affiliated with the case, they are not evidentiary. He is getting a bum deal. As they say you may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. He is unarmed until this is sorted out. What if the guns were someone elses?

merc460 · Feb 22, 2012

MainelyGlock said:
ArmySolider, When I was taking a basic pistol course, my instructor told us several stories about how the intruder ended up surviving and counter-suing the persons who's house he invaded. He told us that if we are shooting defensively, then shoot to kill, not to wound. The sad part is that the man in the article would probably be in less trouble if he had shot and killed the burglar.

I have an uncle that spent 7 years in prison for "malicious wounding" that was in that exact same situation.
He was never the same after that.

ArmySoldier22 · Feb 22, 2012

merc460 said:
I have an uncle that spent 7 years in prison for "malicious wounding" that was in that exact same situation.
He was never the same after that.

There's no excuse for charging somebody with something like that for self defense. This is the exact reason why anybody breaking into my home/anybody intending to do me harm, will not walk away.

What a shame

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member