Posted on 02/21/2012 4:09:20 PM PST by Repeal The 17th
Dennis Fleming, 61, of Farmington, New Hampshire,
who fired his handgun into the ground to scare an alleged burglar...
is now facing a felony charge...
The single grandfather had returned home to find that his home had been burglarized
and spotted Joseph Hebert, 27, climbing out of a window at a neighbor's home...
Fleming said he yelled "Freeze!" before firing his gun into the ground,
then held Hebert at gunpoint until police arrived...
...when the police arrived, they made two arrests.
Hebert was charged with two counts of burglary and drug possession...
Fleming is scheduled to be arraigned March 20 on a charge of reckless conduct,
which could potentially land him a sentence similar to the one Hebert faces...
Fleming's collection of seven rifles and a .38-caliber handgun were seized by police...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Under what pretext?
New Hampshire does not allow its citizens their rights under the Second Amendment. “Live Free or Die” is dead.
Envy.
This does sound serious.
How severely was the ground wounded? Is the wounded ground expected to survive / recover?
>The fellow no matter how well intentioned discharged a deadly weapon but didn’t see fit to plug the perp ie: he wasn’t in fear for his life.
Question: Is one’s right to keep and bear arms contingent upon their fear for their own life?
What cause and warrant did the police have to enter his house and steal his weapons? The police are worse than the criminals. This is going to cost him a few thousand dollars to get the charge dropped. Then he will have to spend his time and possibly more money to a lawyer to get his weapons back. I really doubt a jury would convict here. But, I also doubt he’s willing to take a chance on going to trial.
The police from the top down are very anti-gun here. They are downright afraid of citizens having guns. I’ve seen it first hand. Moving here from Texas, I just couldn’t believe the difference in attitudes of the police here vs. Texas.
>As it was, he didn’t feel threatened enough to shoot the perpetrator.
>Under the law of many states, this is a blatantly illegal act, clearly spelled out in the criminal code.
NH Constitution, Part First, Art 2-a [The Bearing of Arms.]
All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
Can you prove that he was not acting in defense of his family or his state?
This is another sign of the ascendency of the state. The individual, acting in the interest of his next door neighbor, and putting himself at risk to apprehend a criminal committing a felony. It was the property crime of burglary, but sometimes such crimes go bloody, as did the evil Petit home invasion slaughter in neighboring Cheshire, CT. He may be in violation of local and state law about the discharge of firearms, but his measured, reasonable actions should be applauded and the unjust law rebuked, and his arrest condemned.
Luke 10:25-37 (NIV)
The Parable of the Good Samaritan
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
Considering that eternal life (the safety of one's soul) is much to be desired, you should protect another's property, even as you would your own, no?
You can’t make an innocent man guilty, unless you keep making more laws.
.
Yes.
You chose exactly the same passage of scripture that came to my mind as I read andy58’s reply. Under the “free exercise” clause of the first amendment, which supersedes all statutes to the contrary, the man acted correctly, and must be acquitted of any and all charges. He fired the gun safely, and moderately, giving due respect for the perp’s life, in response to the arising need of the situation.
He fulfilled Christ's commandment, and the laws of the state as read by a reasonable person.
No and it shouldn't be. Those are two separate issues. The police are operating from the parameters of the incident at hand. I do not agree with what the police did, confiscate his firearms, but that is guaranteed in a shooting incident where the circumstances are anything less than cut and dried. He served himself up on platter for the police. The shooter would probably have been better off if he didn't fire a “warning shot” and the burglar took a dirt nap, then there would only have been one version.
“He came at me and I was in fear for my life” or words to that effect.
“I want to speak to a lawyer” then shut up.
What the hell is going on in New Hampshire? I bet that Bill Loeb is shitting with anger in his grave at this stupidity.
My wife always wanted to live in New England. I told her that with the exception of New Hampshire, NE was a leftist craphole. I was wrong. I missed New Hampshite.
Guess where we won’t be moving.
PS: My old friend and mentor Herb “ I Led Three Lives” Philbrick must be spinning in his grave too.
What a damned shame!
>>“Question: Is one’s right to keep and bear arms contingent upon their fear for their own life?”
>
>No and it shouldn’t be. Those are two separate issues.
No, they are not [separate issues]; for the right to bear arms is the right to USE arms.
>He served himself up on platter for the police.
This is something I find myself hating more and more; it is not the police (or judges) who are to be the executors of judgment, but the people themselves (via jury).
No, and it isn’t my job to prove it. I am stating simply that there are laws in many states against brandishing and using a weapon in a non-lethal manner. Also, that those laws have been on the books for a long time, and have been upheld repeatedly.
http://volokh.com/2010/02/12/if-you-brandish-a-gun-in-self-defense-in-kansas-youd-best-shoot-it/
This isn’t new, unique to New Hampshire, or out of step with other states.
The NRA goes into a fair bit of depth on this exact subject when they teach firearms classes.
It is incumbent on firearms owners to know the law and to know their rights. The police are not here to preserve our rights. We have to do it ourselves.
For example, it’s up to the state to prove that he wasn’t in any danger. At this point, though, it may be up to him to prove otherwise, depending on what he has already said to the police.
Hopefully, he said nothing beyond “I would like to speak to an attorney”.
He may have already talked, though. For one thing, they knew that he fired the gun. If he had repeated over and over ONLY that he wanted to speak to his attorney, they would have had to have gotten a warrant to test for residue.
That advice is also given out in firearms safety classes. I wish more people would take it.
So, no I can’t prove it, but it isn’t up to me. It’s up to the homeowner to know and follow the law; and it is up to the police/DA to prove him guilty. Looks like he may have helped them a bit on at least one front.
One certainly has an interest in putting a halt to burglary in your neighborhood, especially when there is reason to believe said burglar already visited you (and yes, sometimes this kind of lightning strikes multiple times).
I meant the patriot act is simply one step closer to absolute gun control. I know they’ve been keeping records at least since the 70s.
I bought a gun in 1976. Sold it to a deputy sheriff the same year. In 1978 I got a call from the Treasury Department asking me if I still owned the gun. When I told them I did not they wanted to know who I’d sold it to. I told them “a deputy from Craighead County, Arkanas but I don’t know his name”. I then asked if the gun had been used in a crime and was told that it had. So, you see, in 1978 they could track guns by who first purchased them. Gun control has been with us a long time. But it’s getting worse.
Putting the spiritual cart before the horse like this is depressingly common, which leads to things like churches or “churches” that tell their women that the wrong kind of hairdo will take them to hell.
But there is a grain of truth here, in that people who take Jesus Christ seriously ought to obey his wishes, as they will still see blessing if they do and potential curses (although for a believer, never hell) if they don’t.
I see where you're coming from; but a) if your religion/spirituality has no impact on your life then it is a dead thing (see James), and b) you have to start [a thought] somewhere.
My thought here was a specific counter to the idea voiced by someone that one has absolutely no interest in his neighbor. IMO: The Statists are actually like this, their promotion of the State is because they feel that they do not have the personal/ownership-interest in their neighbor (their consciences, such as they are see even that) but seek to control him by the indirection of the State (and therefore 'bypass' their conscience).
The there "ought to be a law" crowd, and sadly I catch myself there all too often, are oft merely embracing a diluted form of the Statist's liquor... and all too often this also has mixed into it a sort of laziness/unwillingness to address one's own self.
But there is a grain of truth here, in that people who take Jesus Christ seriously ought to obey his wishes, as they will still see blessing if they do and potential curses (although for a believer, never hell) if they don’t.
Indeed, I wrote a reply to something today -- about the our horrid education system, IIRC -- and 3 out of 4 Gospels said the same thing: "better that a millstone be tied around your neck and cast into the sea than to teach [[these] little ones] to sin." ...
and it's been bugging me, though I don't know why.
Tangent: I also read an article that said Reagan wanted to eliminate the Dept. of Education; a pity he didn't.
But, back to the topic of blessings and cursing, I'm reading a book on the life of Hudson Taylor (the Chinese missionary) and he was certainly blessed for his faithful walk.
Billy Graham's "Heaven is full of answers to prayers for which no one ever bothered to ask." certainly fits.
Jesus said "ask" and we are commanded/urged/implored by Paul to pray; yet what is the first thing we are likely to drop on a busy day, or when we feel run down?
No wonder we need a savior; we can't even get it right when God says "talk to me."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.