24 replies to this topic

[wooffer]

http://www.foxnews.c...intcmp=obinsite

[Karpteach]

Dang bad deal! Poor man can't even defend his own! God Bless America!

[Skillet]

Ridiculous.  Isn't New Hampshire's motto "Live free or die"?  Doesn't seem very accurate.  More like "Live in fear, and don't defend yourself"

[Deerthug]

Damn gun laws! Don't know if I would have fired the gun unless I felt in fear for my life especially being that it was outdoors.

[WNYBuckHunter]

My money would be on the judge dropping the charges and the guy getting his guns back.

[fasteddie]

This says it all for the crooks !

"This homeowner fired at the ground, from all accounts, in a safe direction and held a burglar for police and did things correctly," Dean told FoxNews.com. "The fact that this man would be charged is an outrage. Burglars in New Hampshire must know it's open season, since homeowners cannot defend themselves, as evidenced by this case. This is charging the victim."

[virgil]

I agree in principle with everyone on this thread.  But, these aren't gun laws we're talking about- at least as far as i can tell.  Nothing has been mentioned about the legality of the man's ownership of his guns.  The issue was with how and where he used them.  If the burglar was unarmed and was climbing out a neighbor's window, how was this man 'defending himself'?  There's a fine line between 'protecting yourself' and 'vigilante justice'. What if the burglar was armed and returned fire, injuring the other man?  He would probably be able to make a case that he was defending himself.

All that being said, i hope the guy is cleared of the charges and gets his guns back.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I would hope the charges would be dropped. This could have gone wrong if the guy didn't fire too. Legally he would have a right to hold the guy at gun point until the police arrived. NH just passed (this past September) a pretty good law that expanded the rights of gun owners in protecting themselves.

On the subject of self defense, New Hampshire is about to enter a new era in which citizens have broader authority to make their own decisions.

On Wednesday, the House overrode Gov. John Lynch’s veto of Senate Bill 88. The Senate had overridden the veto the week before. The bill changes state weapons laws in four important ways.

1. It removes the mere display of a weapon from the state’s definition of what constitutes the use of “deadly force.”

2. It removes the mandatory prison sentence for felonies committed while in possession of or using or attempting to use a firearm.

3. It holds immune from civil suits (but not criminal prosecution) people who use force to defend themselves or someone else.

4. It allows the use of deadly force anywhere one has the legal right to be, not just in one’s home or on one’s own property.

SO you can use other than deadly force to detain a person in the commition of a felony. and by the new law presenting a firearm is no longer deadly force. Seems to be the sticking point is the shooting in the ground part. He should have disp[layed, verbally commanded and if confronted/attacked....double tap.

[SteveNY]

That article makes me physically sick.

[virgil]

interesting stuff.  not sure how i feel about the 2nd part- doesn't that seem like a change that reduces the punishment for committig a gun crime?  many anti-gun-control guys make the point that stricter enforcement of existing gun laws is the best solution to reduce gun crimes.  this seems to take it in the opposite direction.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

virgil, on 23 February 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

interesting stuff.  not sure how i feel about the 2nd part- doesn't that seem like a change that reduces the punishment for committig a gun crime?  many anti-gun-control guys make the point that stricter enforcement of existing gun laws is the best solution to reduce gun crimes.  this seems to take it in the opposite direction.

Seems it to me too. Not sure why they threw that in there.

[carloracer1987]

Its ridiculous because time and time again ive seen on the news of the burgler getting away scotch free well the vitcim is charged with the crime. A few months ago a guy beat the crap out of someone who broke into his house and he got charged well the burgler got off. our system is screwed up and i saw we go back to how it used to be. Everyone should own a gun if not its your own fault if something happens.

[ants]

virgil, on 23 February 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

I agree in principle with everyone on this thread.  But, these aren't gun laws we're talking about- at least as far as i can tell.  Nothing has been mentioned about the legality of the man's ownership of his guns.  The issue was with how and where he used them.  If the burglar was unarmed and was climbing out a neighbor's window, how was this man 'defending himself'?  There's a fine line between 'protecting yourself' and 'vigilante justice'. What if the burglar was armed and returned fire, injuring the other man?  He would probably be able to make a case that he was defending himself.

All that being said, i hope the guy is cleared of the charges and gets his guns back.

[Elmo]

Shooting dirt to scare off a crimimal is a crime?  That's just royally f-ed up!

[ants]

The man said he didnt think he could handle the guy and thought the guy would come after him. "Techniclly" I think the man was wrong to fire but I think the officers should have documented his fears and just submitted the case to the D.A.'s office and let them decide if charges are in order.

Damn shame.

Edited by ants, 23 February 2012 - 12:28 PM.

[NFA-ADK]

Next time do not call the cops, just make a bigger ditch...
This is what people will do if he is convicted, to protect yourself from our gov...  After protecting yourself from a threat...
Police get very upset with anyone else who uses guns...  Only they are allowed to fire a warning shot it's illegal for anyone else to do so.
Typical example of how it is ok for me but not you...  When was the last time a cop was arrested for firing a warning shot?  This is just stupidity.

[ants]

Cops are not allowed to fire warning shots.... The point is, given the situation, the guy should not of been charged

[Doc]

virgil, on 23 February 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

I agree in principle with everyone on this thread.  But, these aren't gun laws we're talking about- at least as far as i can tell.  Nothing has been mentioned about the legality of the man's ownership of his guns.  The issue was with how and where he used them.  If the burglar was unarmed and was climbing out a neighbor's window, how was this man 'defending himself'?  There's a fine line between 'protecting yourself' and 'vigilante justice'. What if the burglar was armed and returned fire, injuring the other man?  He would probably be able to make a case that he was defending himself.

All that being said, i hope the guy is cleared of the charges and gets his guns back.

Nothing quite like a little "vigilante justice" to put the fear of God into these creeps that prey on law abiding citizens. Basically, I am not in favor of giving the bad guy the first shot before protecting yourself from a potential threat. No such freebies are given at my home.

[nyantler]

WNYBuckHunter, on 23 February 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

My money would be on the judge dropping the charges and the guy getting his guns back.

I'm with you

[nyantler]

Doc, on 24 February 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

Nothing quite like a little "vigilante justice" to put the fear of God into these creeps that prey on law abiding citizens. Basically, I am not in favor of giving the bad guy the first shot before protecting yourself from a potential threat. No such freebies are given at my home.

A++++