This is from the commentary to today’s Union Leader article about crime-stopping hero Dennis Fleming…who was arrested and will be charged with a “crime” by a clueless (elected) county attorney, Thomas Velardi.
First, a comment from a retired police officer, Graham Baynes, as follows:
Graham Baynes said:
From a retired police officer, here are the facts. The County Attorney needs to take into consideration this was not “reckless” conduct. Mr. Fleming was 100% correct to do what he did. He “Purposely” directed that firearm in a safe direction. He is a private citizen on private land defending that property and himself. Peter Riesenberg is correct, the attorney’s statement about “appropriate use of a firearm” is a someone making up definitions and laws. It is done all the time. Police officers, attorneys, town officials and state officials make up laws, massage the ones that exist for their own agenda. Chris Kofer, what person does not act emotionally in any situation?. Fear, anger, sadness, joy are emotions, we act with emotion in everything we do. And secondly genius, what brazen criminal is going to obey someone just “displaying” a firearm. At that INSTANT there was no justification for Mr. Flemming according to the law in this state to shoot the suspect, once that shot was fired that scum knew he was dealing with someone who meant business. The emotion statement WILL be something that state will use to pin a trumped up bogus lazy law enforcement charge on Mr. Fleming. The police officer’s comment about, “hey just call the police, we will handle it”. You are reactionary, you “handle” crimes AFTER the fact, rarely during or before. Obviously, you have done a good job connecting this guy to TEN other crimes AFTER the fact so you are good at playing connect the dots. But noooooo you want to prosecute the man that solved the crimes for you. Wake up NH defend your rights because law enforcement is incompetent and out of control and the bean counting attorneys like the CA are trying to take them away. I would be very happy to contribute to a defense fund for Mr. Flemming and will volunteer all the time necessary to assist the defense.
In response to the observations of Mr. Baynes, someone named “Chris Kofer” chimes in and attacks Mr. Baynes, as follows: “
Chris Kofer said:
Graham, all you have proved is that a person should be educated to be a cop. “Once that shot was fired that scum knew he was dealing with someone who meant business.” So Graham, do you think Fleming should have shot the kid (I have zero sympathies for punk’s criminal activity) if he tried to run away? Please explain “meant business”. As I stated yesterday, I don’t think Fleming should be charged with anything greater than the wingnuts’ hero Ward Bird was charged with for his stump-shooting incident. Fleming’s intent was reasonable but “warning shots” need to be discouraged. I would hope under those circumstances that he gets a mild or completely suspended punishment. Ultimately, the punk could have shot back at Mr. Fleming and possibly be justified. Let’s be glad that did not happen.
(Report Abuse)
February 23, 2012 7:10 am
One more thing Graham, if you really were a cop, how many times did you fire a warning shot in the course of your work?
Finally, I found myself drawn into the fray by the inane questions and sniping by “Chris Kofer,” so I said the following:
Tim Condon said:
Chris Kofer, I’ll take the opportunity to answer your questions, so that Mr. Graham isn’t bothered with them. Do I think Fleming should have shot “the kid” (your use of the word “kid” reveals your own prejudice; “the kid” is a 27-year-old criminal drug-addict with a history of criminality including many burglaries of people’s homes). Your question is otherwise inane; the truth is the criminal was NOT shot. Using your own “what-if” methodology, my answer is that If he had attacked Mr. Fleming, the answer is yes, he should have been shot.
The words “meant business” mean the disclosure to the criminal that Mr. Fleming “had an operational firearm and was prepared to use it if needed.” It was sufficient to stop this one-man crime spree. Do you have a problem with that? You seem to be alarmed over Mr. Fleming firing a warning shot. You have had the entirely reasonable rationale him for taking that action above explained above, and by Mr. Fleming. Your use of perjoratives regarding Mr. Bird—and those who found the punishment meted out to him to be extreme and unjust—also weaken your argument. The fact is, as so many people yesterday and today here attest, Mr. Fleming is guilty of no “crime” at all, unless bravely taking the necessary steps to confront, stop, and apprehend a criminal is a “crime” (as apparently believed by the police and the county attorney).
As for your arguments in general, it appears that you oppose the right of self-defense, and think that everyone should rely only upon government, which is woefully unsuited to the job, as demonstrated by their inability to stop or catch or stop the criminal in this instance. Please state whether you think the people have an inalienable right to defend their selves, their families, their property, and their neighbors’ persons and property, or not. As a lawyer myself, I am unhesitant in answering in the affirmative. But in view of your arguments, I am truly curious.
