WARNING SHOT lands NH man in jail

[gunsmith]

Guy fires warning shot into ground and burglar stops whats he's doing.
Both go to jail.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/21/new-hampshire-man-faces-felony-charge-after-firing-gun-into-ground-near-burglar/?test=latestnews

[vaskidmark]

Just one more case of shooting when he shouldn't have.

stay safe.

[Fitz]

do not ever fire a warning shot. If your state allows deadly force in defense of property, shoot to kill.

If not, let the property go. Or make sure you can defend your actions in court.

Warning shots are a terrible terrible idea. Your ability to play the "i was in fear of my life" card goes out the window at that point.

[Ron]

Just another sign of the lack of common sense and discretion exercised by our authorities.

I don't condone warning shots but charging him with a felony under those circumstances is criminal. The whole frickin system is upside down.

[Fly320s]

Just another sign of the lack of common sense and discretion exercised by our authorities.

I don't condone warning shots but charging him with a felony under those circumstances is criminal. The whole frickin system is upside down.

Agreed.

This story is all over the news up here. I thought the DA had dropped the charges, but I guess not.

[Blakenzy]

How can you distinguish a warning shot from a clean miss?

[vaskidmark]

How can you distinguish a warning shot from a clean miss?

By the angle of the entry wound.

Oh, we're talking about Lawfully Armed Citizens, not cops?  My bad.

stay safe.

[Japle]

Sorry, but the guy was an idiot for using deadly force to stop a non-violent felony. The burglar was no danger to anyone and was trying to leave the scene. The guy should have called 911 and been a good witness.

Yeah, I think it’s wrong, too. Doesn’t matter. In Florida, even with our “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine” laws, you’ll be arrested for using a gun to threaten an unarmed felon who’s not endangering anyone unless he’s used force to enter your home or car. A BG climbing out of a neighbor’s window doesn’t justify the use of deadly force under the law. Just pointing a gun at the BG is a felony. Firing it will get you 20 years, mandatory. If he had shot the BG in Florida, he’d get life.  The judge would have no choice at sentencing and you can forget parole or time off for good behavior.   

When you fire a gun, that’s using deadly force. It doesn’t matter if you’ve used it in a deadly way. The law doesn’t consider that. If you shoot someone, that’s another crime.

“Force” has certain meaning under the law that it doesn’t have in everyday life. For instance, if someone enters you home uninvited through an open door or window, that’s not a “forcible felony” because they didn’t use any force. If they had come through a door that was unlocked or barely open and they’d moved the door to make room for them to get in, that’s a “forcible felony” because they used force (not much, but some) to enter.

It’s a shame, but the law often doesn’t make a lot of sense.

[RoadKingLarry]

Sorry, but the guy was an idiot for using deadly force to stop a non-violent felony. The burglar was no danger to anyone and was trying to leave the scene. The guy should have called 911 and been a good witness.

While likely "legally" in the wrong morally I have no problem with it other than my preference would have been legally able to shoot the scum and be done with it.

As far as "being a good witness" goes, mostly that means you fill out a report that maybe gets filed and likely gets ignored.

If I catch someone trying to pack off my stuff I'm not about to just let them leave with it just because they are "trying to get away". If more people would refuse to be a victim and stand up for themselves and their rights this crap would eventually stop.

[Japle]

If I catch someone trying to pack off my stuff I'm not about to just let them leave with it just because they are "trying to get away". If more people would refuse to be a victim and stand up for themselves and their rights this crap would eventually stop.

You'd better have an extra $50,000 you don't need, because that's about the minimum it'll cost you for legal fees. 

The days when you could shoot a fleeing thief are long gone.  It's a shame, but that's where we are today.  If you use a gun in a way the law says isn't necessary, it's aggravated assault.  Say "Hi" to Bubba.

[Regolith]

The days when you could shoot a fleeing thief are long gone.

Depends on the state. For instance, it's legal in Texas under certain circumstances.

[MechAg94]

You'd better have an extra $50,000 you don't need, because that's about the minimum it'll cost you for legal fees. 

The days when you could shoot a fleeing thief are long gone.  It's a shame, but that's where we are today.  If you use a gun in a way the law says isn't necessary, it's aggravated assault.  Say "Hi" to Bubba.

But that is all a legal problem due to crappy laws in your state.  Sounds like something that needs to be fixed. 

I don't have a moral problem with shooting non-violent thieves nor warning shots.  They are just both legal minefields that a gun owner needs to be aware of and take very seriously. 

[RoadKingLarry]

You'd better have an extra $50,000 you don't need, because that's about the minimum it'll cost you for legal fees. 

The days when you could shoot a fleeing thief are long gone.  It's a shame, but that's where we are today.  If you use a gun in a way the law says isn't necessary, it's aggravated assault.  Say "Hi" to Bubba.

Didn't say I was just gonna haul of and shoot them, just said I wasn't gonna be a good little victim and let them leave with my stuff. And as mentioned just 'cause that's the way they do it in Florida don't necessarily mean that's how it works in Oklahoma or elsewhere.

[zxcvbob]

They'll probably drop the charges against the burglar in exchange for him testifying against the shooter. 

The right approach is probably arrest the guy and let him spend the night in jail thinking about how stupid he is.  Then drop the charges.  Or something like that.  Maybe charge him with a misdemeanor and fine him $200.  (that's up to the prosecutor and a judge, not the cops)

[CNYCacher]

When you fire a gun, that’s using deadly force. It doesn’t matter if you’ve used it in a deadly way. The law doesn’t consider that. If you shoot someone, that’s another crime.

Hogwash.  He didn't shoot at the burglar, or even in his general direction.  If they want to charge him with whatever misdemeanor you get for shooting your gun off too close to a house or whatever, then fine, do that.  Charging him with unjustified use of deadly force is ridiculous.

I'm wondering if he is being charged for holding the guy at gunpoint.

[Japle]

He didn't shoot at the burglar, or even in his general direction.  If they want to charge him with whatever misdemeanor you get for shooting your gun off too close to a house or whatever, then fine, do that.  Charging him with unjustified use of deadly force is ridiculous.

Yeah, it's ridiculous.  It just might be the law, though. 

There have been a lot of cases here in Florida where some loony was trying to run a driver off the road, the driver held up a gun to scare the loony off and was charged (and convicted) of aggravated assault.  That's a three year mandatory sentence and loss of your right to own a gun, since you're now a convicted felon. 

In some of the cases, the judge actually apologized to the poor guy because he had no choice in sentencing. 

[Ron]

He needs a jury trial ending in jury nullification to put this bad law to death.

[Japle]

What he needs is a little prosecutorial discretion.  The guy acted in what he considered to be good faith in stopping a fleeing felon.  There was no criminal intent on his part. 

At worst, he should be allowed to plead guilty with deferred judgment.  As long as he stays out of trouble for a specified length of time, his record can be wiped and he’s free and clear.  That kind of thing happens all the time.  It’ll still cost him $15-25,000 in legal fees, but he won’t have to spend twice that on a jury trial and trust the jury to turn him loose. 

[Fly320s]

Charges have been dropped.

No link handy, but read it at WMUR TV's website.

[Ron]

Charges have been dropped.

No link handy, but read it at WMUR TV's website.

awesome!

[Japle]

"The facts available at the scene on Saturday supported the charge of felony reckless conduct, but subsequent facts discovered since have led me to believe that such a charge under these circumstances would be unjust," the Strafford County attorney said in a statement.
The attorney's office said firing a "warning shot" around or near other people or homes can result in police involvement or a charge.

Excellent news!  If the Strafford County DA is elected, he must have seen this as a potential land mine on his way to re-election. 

There was a time when shooting a fleeing felon was expected.  Too bad that time has passed.

[MrsSmith]

I sent you a PM Japle asking for a link, but please cite your sources. FL resident (for the moment) and I don't recall anything about any of this in my class.

[zxcvbob]

Is this the link yur looking for?  http://www.wmur.com/news/30524687/detail.html

[dogmush]

There have been a lot of cases here in Florida where some loony was trying to run a driver off the road, the driver held up a gun to scare the loony off and was charged (and convicted) of aggravated assault.  That's a three year mandatory sentence and loss of your right to own a gun, since you're now a convicted felon. 

In some of the cases, the judge actually apologized to the poor guy because he had no choice in sentencing. 

I've heard that story too, mostly as a complaint on minimum mandatory sentences.  No one I've asked down here has been able to tell me where or when that's happened even once.
When I ask my LEO friends they scoff a bit and say some version of: "If a guy is trying to run you off the road in a car that's he's the aggressor, and a car wreck meets the "death or serious bodily injury" portion of FL's statute, so deadly force is in play.  Just make sure you aren't/weren't the aggressor." 

Similarly, if you see a non violent felony being committed you have the ability under FL law (if you want, not always smart) to attempt to stop it using non deadly force.  If the criminal then escalates to a deadly force encounter, it's not on you.  But it would be pretty important to make sure you present the timeline and use of force decisions correctly.