Whizzuh Whuzzah??
Written by Mockarena // February 23, 2012 // The Makeover And/Or Miscellaneous // 35 Comments
According to this, if you live in New Hampshire, and you walk into your OWN FREAKING HOUSE and see that it’s been robbed, and you see the burglar climbing out of your neighbor’s WINDOW, and you shoot a warning shot into the ground to scare that burglar, you will be arrested, and face similar punishment as the BURGLAR himself.
That’s exactly what happened to 61 year old Dennis Fleming, who was arrested for “reckless conduct” when he came home, saw his home had been robbed, and saw the 27 year old burglar climbing out of one of his neighbor’s windows. He yelled, “Freeze!” at the perpetrator, fired his gun into the ground, and held the guy at gunpoint till the police came. No one was injured.
Fleming said, “I didn’t think I could handle this guy physically, so I fired into the ground. He stopped. He knew I was serious. I was angry … and I was worried that this guy was going to come after me.”
If you ask me, the police should give Fleming a freaking medal. But what they did instead was arrest him, and he faces SEVEN YEARS IN PRISON for catching a thief, and basically delivering that thief right to the cops.
The guy’s got 14 grandchildren, a clean record, and all he did was defend his property. To add insult to injury, the police confiscated his entire gun collection. Talk about punishing the victim.
Fleming’s neighbor summarized it well: “I think it’s outrageous. He did the community a service here. We ought to thank him for it.”
W.T.F.
35 Comments on "Whizzuh Whuzzah??"
A liberal and a guy with a gun walk into a bar. The guy with the gun whacks the liberal over the head, takes all of his money and his car and threaten to harms his children.
A guy with a gun leaves the bar.
A new-found conservative leaves the bar.
It’s getting hotter and hotter in this hand-basket….
New Hampshire motto, since 1945: Live free or die. Well, it looks like time is up.
What the prosecution is going to say is that, because the thief was leaving the house when he was identified, he was not posing a direct threat to the homeowner. Because there was no direct threat, the homeowner was not justified in firing a warning shot.
My personal thought is, the homeowner was placing the man under citizen’s arrest and when he ordered the man to stop (“Freeze!”), the theif refused. The warning shot was a threat of force if the thief would not comply, to convince the thief to submit.
I don’t know law there, but if this man sees time, it ought to be a signal to the community that y’all need a new Castle law there to protect him. In Oklahoma, we expanded ours after a guy was convicted of murder for killing one of a pair of repeat thieves in his pharmacy.
I don’t live in New Hampshire (thankfully), but can I serve on this guys jury? Please?
This is the exact opposite message we should be sending to criminals. Instead of sending the message, if they break the law they may die, they are sending the message, if they break the law they will be protected from the victims. I believe the purpose of our entire legal system was to protect the citizens from criminals not the other way around. This is extreme bull****.
And Jimi, that is a pretty lame attempt at some kind of joke. It’s not clever, not funny, makes no sense and just all around FAIL!
Yet another justification for continuing to live in my home state of Florida. HERE, we can protect ourselves and our property without fear of retribution.
Ally
The issue appears to be direction of force. For example, here in oklahoma, if someone comes towards me (or sends force my way while walking away), I am justified in defending myself. If the scumbag is walking away and not directing force my way, there is nothing to defend and shooting would be improper and makes the scumbag into the victim (and rightly so, in my opinion, as you don’t have a right to kill someone for not threatening you.)
Now, at night, we are no longer required to itendify ot confront the scumbag and can assume they have means and desire to do harm…allowing me to open fire.
That said, I’m still going to flip on the flashlight to see what I’m shooting before killing them…. Never know when it is a friend or family member…wierder things have happened.
Now, in no state that I am aware of, is that thief allowed to defend themselves from the homeowner, as they are committing an illegal act, but the question of force, and if a reasonable person would feel fear of harm of a criminal trying to crawl out a window, remains. That’ll be what the court case is about.
Like I said though, this will be a message to the state to determine how it wants to rewrite its self-defense laws, if at all.
Me? I wouldn’t have fired. I’d have gotten a description of the guy, called the cops, then taken an inventory of what was stolen.
BB
It is a lame joke, but somewhat accurate.
I recall an IL state rep who was a strong gun control voice in the state of IL until he and his wife were mugged. Then he switched sides in that debate.
A saying I’ve often heard is that liberals are pro-gun control until they’re a victim.
He fired a warning shot to get the guy to stop. He fired into the ground, you can’t get any safer than that in a warning shot.
Employed Okie:
The prosecution will say that the houses the robber burglarized were “an attractive nuisance” and that it was the homeowner’s responsibility to make his house impenetrable. Of course, should the robber injure himself while breaking in (e.g, by falling through a skylight), the homeowner will be told to pay the criminal’s medical expenses and loss of livelihood. Makes sense, doesn’t it? In fact, it has happened before.
New Hampshire is an original Libertarian state which is to say it’s liberaltarian.
Apparently common sense isn’t all that common anymore.
The original New Hampshire Plantation was part of Massachusetts. Also a lot of the liberal air from MA seems to drift up there. So what can you really expect? It is pretty to drive through, however.
These same gun-control advocates are crafting our national security guidelines and military rules of engagement. Makes me sick.
It’s a good thing that 61-year-old menace may be taken off the streets. *eyeroll*
This is precisely why I love Ohio. You’re on my property or in house without my permission? I can’t shoot you. Simple as that.
Losing more and more hope for this country every day. I think I’ll move to Unicorn Land instead…
Reminds me of Beverly Hills Cop. “Disturbing the peace!? I got thrown out of a f*#@#*% window! What’s the charge for getting thrown out of a moving car? Jaywalking!?”
The man hunted the robber down for half an hour….he did not shoot the warning shot at his own residence. See article below:
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/02/20/burglary-victim-charged-with-reckless-conduct-for-firing-gun/
ReportAlloftheFacts:
So?
What is your point?
One of the other things in this story that kind of bother me….. No case yet, not even sure if there will be one…. But the cops have already stolen 7 rifles and his .38.
I seem to remember reading something that allows gun ownership and suggests that we are innocent until proven guilty…can’t remember what that was.
Emily, In Ohio, you can not shoot someone on your property without proving self defense. The castle doctrine applies to your home (inside) and your vehicle. What it does, is removes your “duty to retreat” and prove self defense when it is in your home or vehicle. It protects you from civil suits also. The law basically establishes that if someone is in or entering your home illegally you have the right to stand your ground and not retreat and you are also allowed to presume they are going to harm you without proving they were going to. If you go into your yard and shoot someone, you’re going to have to prove self defense which will be extremely difficult since you could have stayed inside. I live here and have reviewed the laws over and over.
Reminds me of a story I ran across a few days ago. Chicks will “Heart” this!
Story from a Minnesota State Trooper
The following story came across my desk today:
I made a traffic stop on an elderly lady the other day for speeding on MN State Hightway 210 just East of McGregor, MN. I asked for driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance.
The lady took out the required information and handed it to me. In with the cards I was somewhat surprised (due to her advanced age) to see she had a Conceal Carry Permit. I looked at her and asked if she had a weapon in her possession at this time.
She responded that she indeed had a .45 automatic in her glove box. Something – body language, or the way she said it – made me want to ask if she had any other firearms.
She did admit to also having a 9mm Glock in her center console. Now I had to ask one more time if that was all.
She responded once again that she did have just one more, a .38 special in her purse. I then asked her what she was so afraid of.
She looked mew right in the eye and said, “Not a f—ing thing!”
Source: http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=95853
OMG Sue C. someone needs to get that lady a snuggie so she can have a 12 gauge in her front seat!
Awesome! I hope I have the ovarian fortitude to do that even when I am old.
…btw, if the government succeeds to take away/amend the 2nd Amendment, there will be nothing to stop them from doing the same to the 1st Amendment.
If only the story about the Minnesota Trooper were true.
Unfortunately this story has been going around for YEARS. It has been said to have happened in Texas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Florida, and many other locations.
I agree with the sentiment expressed, but it’s just an old joke.
My point Laurel is that they make it sound like he defended himself in his own home and that was not the case. Personally, I like having All Of The Facts. I don’t like other people doing my thinking for me. How can you decide how you really feel about this article when you are only getting a sound bite and someone else’s opinion. This from the very people who I am sure are first in line to take issue with the media….
Charges Dropped Against Homeowner Who Fired Gun
Full article from WMUR in Boston with video
http://www.wmur.com/r/30524687/detail.html
Laurel…I just WISH there was a source for pure news and facts….not a sound bite and someone twisting it to suit their purpose. I do think the guy has every right to defend himself…I also think the cops had a right to investigate the “victim’s” once he went vigilante on the situation.
Thanks Buckeye Bob.
*victim
BB
Good. Had he fired in the air, I’d have said “file charges”… But into the dirt? Good call by the da, who probably received calls and emails from across the country.
You have to understand. If we allow citizens to stop thieves and serve justice upon them…there is no escape for Congress members.
Firing a “warning shot” is considered an unlawful discharge even in very-pro-2nd Amendment states like Arizona. It would have been more legal to shoot the criminal then state “I’m 61, he’s 27, I feared for my life, my property, my neighbor’s life, and my neighbor’s property”.
“Stop or I will shoot” constitutes “Fair Warning”. No “warning shot” is necessary. If the shot ricocheted and hit an innocent bystander, there would have been a huge issue that anti-2nd-Amendment activists would have to use against us.
If the 61 year old gentleman had taken the same concealed carry classes I have, he’d have known better.
ReportAlloftheFacts: I agree that I wish there was a news source that could be trusted. Now tell me how is your link inspire any more modicum of trust than any other link?
I sincerely doubt that it does if indeed the charges were dropped.
Any quit with the stereotype…it’s not becoming or intelligent.