So Much for "Live Free or Die"
- Thread starter jimby82
- Start date
The government does not like those who look out for themselves. They prefer victims and sheep.
The home owner should have shot elsewhere.
Well, thanks for clearing that up.
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
Yep that sheds a whole different light on the case.
sluggo
Seasoned Expediter
"How this happened" is a man broke into his home. Appearantly protecting ones self is no longer legal never mind holding the idiot accountable for invading his home. What is it that you need to know? Give me a break.
Sounds like the main problem was with some overzealous bureaucrats in the Strafford County Prosecutor's office trying to make themselves look good to the local voters. Too bad Mr. Fleming probably had to pay one of the local defense attorneys to straighten them out.
http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/arme...on-leader,-manchester,-nh-022212,-022312.aspx
http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/arme...on-leader,-manchester,-nh-022212,-022312.aspx
Here in the US, we do not execute people for property crimes. Particularly, if you witness a crime on someone else's property. Exceptions are made if you encounter someone breaking into your own home. Even then, you must be inside your home and feel your life is in jeopardy. In some jurisdictions, you must demonstrate you had no reasonable means of flight to avoid a resort to killing the perpetrator.
Mr. Fleming witnessed an alleged burglar crawling out his neighbor's window. The fact his own home had been burglarized has no bearing on his decision to take up a firearm and begin shooting. As Mr. Fleming has learned, the right to own a firearm is not the same as the right to fire the weapon. Anyone who fires a gun in anger while in the presence of another person will have to answer for it in court. It's about giving a proportional response.
The lawmakers in our society decided long ago that property crimes should not result in death. If property crimes were deemed worthy of death, we would be no better than the Taliban who actually execute thieves in public at soccer games. Is that the kind of America we want? Hardly. All this bravado about the eagerness to kill someone over a stolen TV or household item is the very reason we have such restrictive gun laws. Too many gunowners somehow hold the notion it is their right to kill at the least provocation.
Mr. Fleming would have been right to allow the perpetrator to retreat and then call police. Some gunowners may not like this, but responsible gunowners understand this. Reckless discharge of a weapon is no small matter. Either shoot to kill or don't shoot at all. And only when in mortal danger.
Mr. Fleming witnessed an alleged burglar crawling out his neighbor's window. The fact his own home had been burglarized has no bearing on his decision to take up a firearm and begin shooting. As Mr. Fleming has learned, the right to own a firearm is not the same as the right to fire the weapon. Anyone who fires a gun in anger while in the presence of another person will have to answer for it in court. It's about giving a proportional response.
The lawmakers in our society decided long ago that property crimes should not result in death. If property crimes were deemed worthy of death, we would be no better than the Taliban who actually execute thieves in public at soccer games. Is that the kind of America we want? Hardly. All this bravado about the eagerness to kill someone over a stolen TV or household item is the very reason we have such restrictive gun laws. Too many gunowners somehow hold the notion it is their right to kill at the least provocation.
Mr. Fleming would have been right to allow the perpetrator to retreat and then call police. Some gunowners may not like this, but responsible gunowners understand this. Reckless discharge of a weapon is no small matter. Either shoot to kill or don't shoot at all. And only when in mortal danger.
Here in the U.S. we have EVERY right to defend our lives and property. With the drug crazed idiots out there one has little choice but to insure that no harm is done to them or family members.
What there is NO right for in the U.S. is breaking into homes or businesses. There is NOT right to become a criminal. It is 100% a CHOICE. If and when a person CHOOSES to become a criminal that person must accept the risks of their chosen life.
Don't want to be shot entering someone's home? DON'T! Don't want to be shot robbing a store? DON'T! Simple math.
What there is NO right for in the U.S. is breaking into homes or businesses. There is NOT right to become a criminal. It is 100% a CHOICE. If and when a person CHOOSES to become a criminal that person must accept the risks of their chosen life.
Don't want to be shot entering someone's home? DON'T! Don't want to be shot robbing a store? DON'T! Simple math.
clcooper
Expert Expediter
from this he got a free lawyer .
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120223/GJNEWS_01/702239725/0/FOSREGION
The alleged burglar, to my understanding, was confronted by an armed and angry Mr. Fleming while the burglar was on a neighbor's property. It is unclear to me if Mr. Fleming was standing on his own property or his neighbor's. Wouldn't matter much where Fleming was standing since he has no legal right to shoot a person not on Fleming property.
Mr. Fleming took up a gun in anger. If Fleming had actually shot and killed the alleged burglar, Mr. Fleming would be facing homocide charges. The police responding initially were alarmed enough by what they saw and heard to seize Mr. Fleming's weapons. The police, in their professional capacity, had to make an evaluation as to Mr. Fleming's demeanor, intent and state of mind. The police on the scene obviously deemed Mr. Fleming to be a danger to others.
The local prosecutor has bowed to public pressure only because no one was actually shot.
I would do what ever I could to protect my neighbor's property and lives as well.
The police are unable to do the job. The prosecutor is unable to deter crime. He is also an employee of the public. As long as there is danger we can protect ourselves. We have an ABSOLUTE right to defend our live's and property. Even from the police, prosecutor and government.
There is no mention in the article that a neighbor's life was ever in danger. If you shoot an alleged burglar on a neighbor's property, you are doomed. Property crimes of this nature do not equate to a lethal response. Police handled this situation as expected.
IF the police could handle these situations there would not be break ins, rapes or murders. IF prosecutors were able to deter crimes there would be no need to defend ourselves or property.
The 'authorities' have usurped our RIGHT to defend our lives and property ages ago. They have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are unable to defend the nation from invasion, our homes from invasion OR inure our safety on the streets. When they accomplish that then and only then will I have absolutely no need for deadly force. Until they are able to do that job with 100% certainty, I will act as needed.
The IS my RIGHT!