New Hampshire man arrested for firing gun into ground, catching suspected burglar

Fair Use: A New Hampshire man who fired his handgun into the ground to scare an alleged burglar he caught crawling out of a neighbor's window is now facing a felony charge -- and the same potential prison sentence as the man he stopped.

Snip...

Fleming's collection of seven rifles and a .38-caliber handgun were seized by police. But Fleming said he's not entirely defenseless: "I've got a Louisville Slugger here, but I would call the police," he said.:shocker:


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

Robert

This is only believable because of the intransigence of some jurisdictions to permit the use of common sense in the application of the law. Their attitude is "The law is the law!" If the law is so perverse as to punish victims of - or those who prevent - a crime, it is definitely time to change the law! Pax...

Better to fire into the crook than the ground, I guess.

09jisaac said:

Better to fire into the crook than the ground, I guess.

Click to expand...

My mother was talking about this last night. Those were my exact words.

Posted using my HTCEvo via Tapatalk

Charges dropped by the prosecutor.

http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news...uspected-of-robbing-his-home-dropped-20120223

But....

Fleming says he took his 38 millimeter

Click to expand...

Apparently it was an anti-tank round...

TechnoWeenie said:

But....

Apparently it was an anti-tank round...

Click to expand...

0.o I want one.

09jisaac said:

Better to fire into the crook than the ground, I guess.

Click to expand...

Best to ONLY fire if legally justified! And only if you are sure of your target and the backstop behind! Warning shots into the ground do two things for us... 1st--- pollutes the ground, and 2nd--- WASTES AMMO that would be better used otherwise!

JoeSparky said:

Best to ONLY fire if legally justified! And only if you are sure of your target and the backstop behind! Warning shots into the ground do two things for us... 1st--- pollutes the ground, and 2nd--- WASTES AMMO that would be better used otherwise!

Click to expand...

I would like to hope that I wouldn't kill a man that didn't need to be killed. That being said, I think a lot of things are a killing offense (like breaking in). I think this guy would have been right either way.

09jisaac said:

I would like to hope that I wouldn't kill a man that didn't need to be killed. That being said, I think a lot of things are a killing offense (like breaking in). I think this guy would have been right either way.

Click to expand...

I do believe that we both agree that MANY States could improve their "Castle Doctrine" type laws to the benefit of the lawful residents!

In a way we've 'decriminalized' the criminals. We're treating them far too humanely. We need to execute some of them with a speedy trial and we need to allow Castle doctrine and even encourage citizens and homeowners (i.e. responsible) to kill burglars and peeping toms and car jackers - the people that prey on society.

We're wasting our resources putting these guys in a comfy prison and it costs 30-50K to house them (IIRC).

We need to recriminalize the criminals and decriminalize victim-less crimes. I don't do substances, being a protein powder and vitamin person, but I think we're using the 'drug war' to enable tons of police we don't need and they know a lot of them would be out of a job if we made low level substances 'legal' (but taxed and regulated). IOW, and this just came to me. If we made dope legal but limited the amount people could buy and made them show ID, it would keep people from going too far and sliding into a life of indulgence, but, at the same time we'd cut the police force in half and stop all the illegal stuff cops do on the highways to try and 'make a bust'. The regulation of the stuff would drop the black market and if we allowed growing small amounts, that would cut it even more. I don't think it's a gateway drug. A lot of people, I suspect use it as an alternative to cigarettes and lacking nicotine it is non-addictive to most.

We also need to stop all this illegal immigration and giving immigrants jobs and money and asylum. We're beefing up the border, but still letting those who get in use our schools, welfare and all that.

sawah said:

In a way we've 'decriminalized' the criminals. We're treating them far too humanely. We need to execute some of them with a speedy trial and we need to allow Castle doctrine and even encourage citizens and homeowners (i.e. responsible) to kill burglars and peeping toms and car jackers - the people that prey on society.

We're wasting our resources putting these guys in a comfy prison and it costs 30-50K to house them (IIRC).

We need to recriminalize the criminals and decriminalize victim-less crimes. I don't do substances, being a protein powder and vitamin person, but I think we're using the 'drug war' to enable tons of police we don't need and they know a lot of them would be out of a job if we made low level substances 'legal' (but taxed and regulated). IOW, and this just came to me. If we made dope legal but limited the amount people could buy and made them show ID, it would keep people from going too far and sliding into a life of indulgence, but, at the same time we'd cut the police force in half and stop all the illegal stuff cops do on the highways to try and 'make a bust'. The regulation of the stuff would drop the black market and if we allowed growing small amounts, that would cut it even more. I don't think it's a gateway drug. A lot of people, I suspect use it as an alternative to cigarettes and lacking nicotine it is non-addictive to most.

We also need to stop all this illegal immigration and giving immigrants jobs and money and asylum. We're beefing up the border, but still letting those who get in use our schools, welfare and all that.

Click to expand...

And jaywalkers, people who don't use their turn signal and mormons. I believe it should be legal to kill mormons too. We shouldn't encourage anyone to get their killing done but it should ALWAYS be an option to use deadly force to (legitimately) protect your property.

I do agree with with you about the victimless crimes. What is it hurting if I carry a gun into a post office, mail a package and leave? If that is exactly how it happened, I still broke the law. But I don't agree with your regulation of it, how would that cut down on "people going too far"? They're getting them now, illegally, and going too far. What would make you think that they can't do that if you legalize it? What is it any of our business what they do to themselves as long as they aren't hurting anyone else?

JoeSparky said:

I do believe that we both agree that MANY States could improve their "Castle Doctrine" type laws to the benefit of the lawful residents!

Click to expand...

I do agree with that. Firing a gun in protection of your property in itself shouldn't be illegal. I don't care if deadly force is not justified. If I didn't shoot you, then I didn't use deadly force, even if I was aiming at you. For a gunshot to be deadly, it has to hit.

09jisaac said:

And jaywalkers, people who don't use their turn signal and mormons. I believe it should be legal to kill mormons too.

Click to expand...

I assume you are being sarcastic, and therefore I shall avoid the question HYLYFM? Pax...

sawah said:

In a way we've 'decriminalized' the criminals. We're treating them far too humanely. We need to execute some of them with a speedy trial and we need to allow Castle doctrine and even encourage citizens and homeowners (i.e. responsible) to kill burglars and peeping toms and car jackers - the people that prey on society.

Click to expand...

My personal belief is that our confinement facilities should be much less comfortable. Uncomfortable to the point that nobody would want to go there once, much less return to it. The medieval dungeon would work well as a model.

sawah said:

We're wasting our resources putting these guys in a comfy prison and it costs 30-50K to house them (IIRC).

Click to expand...

Even your low estimate of the cost of housing convicts is a bit high according to the Federal Register, which posted the following notice:

A Notice by the Prisons Bureau on 02/03/2011
Summary:

"The fee to cover the average cost of incarceration for Federal inmates in Fiscal Year 2009 was $25,251. The average annual cost to confine an inmate in a Community Corrections Center for Fiscal Year 2009 was $24,758."

But, that's just for Federal prisoners. State prisons are slightly less expensive, per guest, at approximately $22K per year, and local jails are significantly more expensive with a mean average of roughly $37K. For example, according to the "OLR Report" the annual cost to incarcerate an inmate in Connecticut in FY 06 was $44,165, the least expensive facitility being Willard/Cybulski Correctional Institution at $29,493, and the most expensive facility was Northern Correctional Institution at $100,385. Costs associated with incarceration vary significantly from state-to-state. In 2008 the National Institute of Corrections, part of the U.S. Justice Department, lists Oregon's annual cost per inmate in 2008 as $36,060, compared with the national average of $24,052.

sawah said:

We also need to stop all this illegal immigration and giving immigrants jobs and money and asylum. We're beefing up the border, but still letting those who get in use our schools, welfare and all that.

Click to expand...

I agree completely with the first half of that statement. GIVE THEM NOTHING! But the second half... not so much. "We're beefing up the border,". We ARE??? We have doubled the number of BP agents, and they are still ineffective, thanks (at least in-part) to the 'chilling effect' of US v Campeon and Ramos. In a May 2011 speech, Barack Obummer claimed, "The Border Patrol has 20,000 agents – more than twice as many as there were in 2004, a build up that began under President Bush and that we have continued." Great!! Now we have twice as many people who are afraid to enthusiatically defend our border, or return fire if fired upon, because they don't want to be sent to prison for doing their job! Essentially the Border Patrol has been reduced to the function of a Wal-Mart greeter - "Hi there, and Welcome to the United States of America! Can I help you find something? Free Housing? Free education? Free Medical? Free money from Welfare? Illegal weapons? How about a nice job, Señor?" It would be cheaper to round 'em all up and send them back to wherever they came from, than it is to provide them with all the amenities that (many) American citizens must work for in order to obtain! :uhoh: Pax...

09jisaac said:

I do agree with that. Firing a gun in protection of your property in itself shouldn't be illegal. I don't care if deadly force is not justified. If I didn't shoot you, then I didn't use deadly force, even if I was aiming at you. For a gunshot to be deadly, it has to hit.

Click to expand...

And to be charged and convicted of Aggravated Assault all one needs to do if fire a gun towards/at someone (even if you miss) without LEGAL justification.