No "alleged" about it. No one denied that he broke the law. His wife just thought he should have been only warned. Not her call. The officers will make that decision.
Apart from that, I'll leave the word "alleged" to the courts and newspapers afraid of being sued. The reality is that he was shooting his bow an arrow in his back yard and that such is against the plain language of the law.
palerider: The trailer was, in fact, seized. There may well be an exception in the law, allowing such a seizure pending a warrant. Police may refer to this as "freezing the scene," but, at least for a while, the owner has lost the right to freely enjoy his property due to an action of the government. That's a seizure.
In Terry, the court called the situation where a citizen feels that he is not free to go a seizure. Such a situation is also one that is temporary while an investigation is conducted, in this case to determine whether an arrest would be needed. That is often called a detention, but is actually a seizure, which may or may not be lawful.
The seizure of the home is analogous. It may be called "freezing the scene," but it is a seizure, which may or may not be lawful.
Excellent point about her trailer being seized; we must also remember that the 4th amendment not only protects our property but our persons as well. When the officers denied her entry to her home not only did they essentially seize the home, but one could also argue it was a form of detainment.
I have not seen the video yet because I am at work and do not have sound on this computer.
So I don't know what was said to "admit" to the "crime". I am going to assume that he either admitted to firing the crossbow or that his wife claimed he did so.
When I read what he was apparently charged with, I don't see how firing a crossbow in and of itself is a violation. It seems that the firing of the weapon in and of its self is NOT a crime, and this may be dismissed or he may be found not guilty.
"It shall be unlawful for any person, except as provided in this chapter, to fire or discharge, within the corporate limits, or on any property of the City of Lincoln outside of the corporate limits, any air rifle, toy pistol, toy gun, slingshot, or any other air, gas, or spring operated gun, weapon, apparatus, or instrument for the purpose of throwing or projecting missiles of any kind by any means whatsoever
in such a manner as to endanger the safety of persons or property, whether the instrument is called by any name set forth above or by any other name." (my emphasis)
It seems that the the state has the burden to prove that, not only did he fire the weapon but that he did so "in manor as to endanger the safety of persons or property".
We don't know the "Draw Weight" of the crossbow, we don't know what was behind his target, we don't know what his target was.
If he was using a 75lb crossbow to shoot a large target attached to a large tree and with a proper backstop then it would be hard to demonstrate that he "endanger(ed) the safety of persons or property."
now if he was shooting it at the fence then that is clearly another story.
If the endangerment clause wasn't there then this law would effect every kid with a "nerf gun".