Only in a Liberal State Like CT Could This Happen

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/...d=569425&rfi=6

EAST WINDSOR - Two men were arrested on numerous charges Saturday, police said, after a homeowner fired his shotgun out his window to drive away a would-be burglar.

Alan Pelletier, 45, of 95A Main St. in the Broad Brook section was charged with first-degree reckless endangerment, unlawful discharge of firearms, and second-degree breach of peace by threat, police said.

Delroy A. Martin, 24, of 794 South St. Suffield, was charged with second-degree assault, criminal mischief, breach of peace, and criminal attempt to commit burglary, police said.

Officers responded to a call about 8:15 p.m. Saturday, police said.

"It appears Martin was attempting to break into 93 Main St. when shots were fired," Capt. Roger T. Hart said.

"It appears Pelletier shot a 12-gauge shotgun out the rear window of 95A Main St., presumably in an attempt to scare away the suspect," according to Hart.

No one was injured from the shooting, police said.

"When we arrived several people were holding a black male down," Hart said.

That man, Martin, was "attempting to break into a residence, using a garden tool to break down the door," according to Hart.

Martin appeared to have been intoxicated, and damaged multiple unit doors, Hart said.

Martin was held in lieu of $100,000 bond and was scheduled to appear at Enfield Superior Court today.

Pelletier was released on $10,000 nonsurety bond and is to appear on Jan. 22 at Enfield Superior Court, Hart said.

Gee, big surprise that the victim of a robbery would be charged with a crime. Only in New England. Unlwaful discharge of a firearm and breach of peace? Come on! I guess the victim should have just opened the door for the BG and given him a guided tour of the house showing him where all of the valuables were. Unbelievable. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CT-Mike

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/...d=569425&rfi=6

EAST WINDSOR - Two men were arrested on numerous charges Saturday, police said, after a homeowner fired his shotgun out his window to drive away a would-be burglar.

Alan Pelletier, 45, of 95A Main St. in the Broad Brook section was charged with first-degree reckless endangerment, unlawful discharge of firearms, and second-degree breach of peace by threat, police said.

Delroy A. Martin, 24, of 794 South St. Suffield, was charged with second-degree assault, criminal mischief, breach of peace, and criminal attempt to commit burglary, police said.

Officers responded to a call about 8:15 p.m. Saturday, police said.

"It appears Martin was attempting to break into 93 Main St. when shots were fired," Capt. Roger T. Hart said.

"It appears Pelletier shot a 12-gauge shotgun out the rear window of 95A Main St., presumably in an attempt to scare away the suspect," according to Hart.

No one was injured from the shooting, police said.

"When we arrived several people were holding a black male down," Hart said.

That man, Martin, was "attempting to break into a residence, using a garden tool to break down the door," according to Hart.

Martin appeared to have been intoxicated, and damaged multiple unit doors, Hart said.

Martin was held in lieu of $100,000 bond and was scheduled to appear at Enfield Superior Court today.

Pelletier was released on $10,000 nonsurety bond and is to appear on Jan. 22 at Enfield Superior Court, Hart said.

Gee, big surprise that the victim of a robbery would be charged with a crime. Only in New England. Unlwaful discharge of a firearm and breach of peace? Come on! I guess the victim should have just opened the door for the BG and given him a guided tour of the house showing him where all of the valuables were. Unbelievable. :mad:

---

Well, I found Martin's case:

http://www.jud2.ct.gov/crdockets/Cas...1-b066c285211a

Pelletier's case isn't on the pending criminal case list, but I made a call the the clerks office. They don't have a date for him in the system yet, but from the news paper's article, he didn't even have to pay bond.

It's a non-surety bond.

It's a promise to appear for your court date and an acknowledgment that you will pay a specified amount if you fail to appear at court on your scheduled date.

Only if you don't show up do you have to pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CT-Mike

I guess the victim should have just opened the door for the BG and given him a guided tour of the house showing him where all of the valuables were.

---

I guess the victim should have waited till Delroy was more clearly inside the building and then made sure to aim COM and get the full pattern on target.

This case is a good lesson in showing us that you don't fire a weapon to scare someone off.

Firing a shotgun out the window indiscriminately is reckless. How would you like to be in a car passing by the house when someone fires off a round of buckshot and it hits your car broadside as you pass by?

You don't fire unless you are sure of your target.

Isn't that what you are supposed to do?

He wasn't arrested for defending his home. He was arrested because he put people around him in unnecessary risk because of his actions.

If he had shot Delroy after he broke in, this story would be very different and more pleasant to read.

I have to agree with Mitchell. He wasn't defending himself he was being reckless.

That was rather reckless.

http://www.donath.org/Rants/TheFourRules/

Tsk. Tsk.

Personally I'm glad both of them are in trouble. Flame on if you so choose but shooting into the air, ground, etc. is not safe and violates the most basic gun handling rules.

Agree with matiki. If I were to rack one inside of the residence or put barrel to the nogin the BG would get the idea. Hold him at gunpoint until the cavalry arrives.

Shoot to STOP the threat.....not "scare" the threat.

Hmmm,

After reading everyone's replies and re-reading the original story, I do have to agree that the homeowner was acting reckless, and the charges seem like they are warranted.

I too agree with Mitchell, and the law.

It is well known and has long been established that 'warning shot' type discharges are unlawful, can be, and have been in episodes past including with cops to be quite dangerous and even fatal.
Do not do this!

In a case like this dial 911, state to the BG who was within voice range that you are armed and to STOP RIGHT NOW, and let that guy run/retreat.
Discharging ones firearm is lawful if only on your own property with no abutters for acres/miles outside the functional range of ones firearm and/or the BG has become a direct threat to you.

Sticking your shotgun out a window and ripping off a shell to startle/scare a person is just plain stupid, and reckless as charged.
Yet another instance where antis have stated this sort of thing would occur when guns are in the hands of yahoos and non thinkers.

- Janq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janq

In a case like this dial 911, state to the BG who was within voice range that you are armed and to STOP RIGHT NOW, and let that guy run/retreat.

---

While it might be the polite thing to do, I don't believe their is an obligation to warn a criminal of your presence.

If a home owner simply reacted react as appropriate to a criminal invading his home in the dead of night...

Well.

Their is always the price of being a thug...:image035:

from CT laws

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap9...#Sec53a-21.htm

doesn't seem this shooter had a right

wasn't there seperate residences ? 93 main and 95A main ?

.

Unfortunately, in a liberal state, this kind of fubar just gives the gun grabbers more standing. Even in a gun-friendly state like Arizona, his actions would not be justified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ibez

doesn't seem this shooter had a right

---

Not to be firing indiscriminately.

I respect his right to defend his house, but I don't want to be the one to eat his warning shots.

If he is firing at the criminal and because of movement, stress and the general confusion of a gunfight, that's one thing. Warning shots, that's another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MitchellCT

While it might be the polite thing to do, I don't believe their is an obligation to warn a criminal of your presence.

---

Correct.
But to do so is far more reasonable and prudent than to do what this guy did.

- Janq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janq

Correct.
But to do so is far more reasonable and prudent than to do what this guy did.

- Janq

---

That's the key. "Reasonable and Prudent". That doesn't mean you're not finger on the trigger as you shout out. But shouting out will really make you look better to a grand jury, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matiki

That's the key. "Reasonable and Prudent". That doesn't mean you're not finger on the trigger as you shout out. But shouting out will really make you look better to a grand jury, etc.

---

Yep.

But, I personally would not be finger on trigger.
I'd remain finger indexed, safety off, round chambered...and with any luck electronic ears on and activated for a bionic advantage.

- Janq