 Author
|
Topic: Another NH man accused of harmless weapon discharge - faces decades in prison (Read 13930 times)
|
|
RidleyReport
|
Sponsor: http://RidleyReport.com/Class - I thought I should post a thread here where folks can discuss the government's over-reaction to an alleged incident at Seabrook. Homeowner (and generous activism supporter) Max Abramson reportedly had some sort of gathering at his place during which an altercation occurred. He was accused of firing a firearm into his home's ceiling during the incident. In a conversation with NewburyportNews.com he indicated that he took action to restore order...but I don't know if he's ever actually admitted to a weapon discharge or if it is confirmed that a weapon was even fired into the ceiling. Jury selection is supposed to be March 12 for felony count charges. In any case, I am surely biased since Max has been an advertiser and since I've had two enjoyable house-sitting experiences for him while he was at sea. But authorities charged him with roughly eight felony counts. Theoretically that could mean what amounts to life in prison, for an incident in which he is not accused of harming others. Maybe they are the ones with the biggest bias problems. Abramson was a cost-cutting member of the town's budget committe at the time and was running for state rep with the same goal. Seabrook P.D. was never in a position to be evenhanded when the man they were investigating....had a desire to limit their funding. Firearms are supposed to be used to restore order; that's what they are for. If Max used his imperfectly, the question is whether it was imperfectly enough for authorities to essentially destroy his life and put taxpayers on the hook for tens of thousands a year in lockup expenses. If he pursued the least bad available curse of action, the question becomes whether authorities are attacking someone for doing the right thing. If you have more details about the situation, feel free to post them here. Authorities just did the right thing in an allegedly similar case where a New Hampshirite fired a weapon for extenuating reasons. Publicity might be required for them to do so in this circumstance. To *learn* more here's Max's recent update on CopBlock.org http://www.copblock.org/tag/accountability/With regard to the Sponsor link... As you may know, I teach a class in "ridleography." That's videography with a YouTube / activism specialty. And you can take it! Learn more by clicking the link at the top. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 02, 2012, 10:23:26 pm by RidleyReport »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Speaking as a professional firearms instructor... ...no, you do not ever fire a gun unless there's a specific target in your sights that actually needs to be shot. I have no idea what particular firearm he used, but even a .22 will go miles, if it doesn't hit anything. A 9mm, or larger, can go through multiple walls before stopping. By all accounts I've heard, this occurred in the basement, so if someone was standing on the floor, above, they could easily have been wounded or killed by a bullet passing up through the floor. While I have little doubt that the Seabrook Police are corrupt (they're cops, after all), I don't see how that could come into play, here. To the best of my knowledge, he's admitted that he fired the shot, and I'm not aware of any claim that someone was floating above him, attacking him, so there is simply no justification for that behavior. If someone is a serious threat to your life, you can display a firearm to convince them to desist. If they continue, you can shoot them. Discharging a firearm in an arbitrary direction - potentially harming innocent bystanders - in order to scare folks away is grossly negligent behavior. It's the sort of thing that cops and other gangbangers do, not the action of any sort of responsible gun owner. I would never support any sort of prosecution under this corrupt system, but if this sort of case were brought before a free-market court, the perpetrator could expect to be working for quite a few years to pay restitution to those whom he threatened with such behavior. Authorities just did the right thing in an allegedly similar case where a New Hampshirite fired a weapon for extenuating reasons. Do you have a link on that one? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
10stateswithnh
|
We don't know if he fired his gun in an "arbitrary" direction.
The other case Dave referred to, has been one of the top stories in the Dover paper - it was a man in Farmington who used his gun to stop a burglar from escaping from his neighbor's house. He was originally given charges that would have meant he, and the burglar, would have similar sentences, but the police got a lot of communication from people and decided to drop the charges. The Farmington man is said, by his lawyer in an op-ed I read a few days ago, to have "deliberately" chosen a direction to fire his gun in which no one could be hurt - he was just getting the guy's attention, and fired the gun into the ground, off at an angle where there was no way it could hit anything or anyone.
I imagine Max would be similarly responsible. What is most ridiculous about this case, is that several of the people who were at his house, without his permission, are known to have criminal records involving actual violence, and some of them were heard to threaten people explicitly, one had already drawn blood from another person, and none of THEM were charged with anything. It's not only a bias against gun owners that this demonstrates, but also a personal bias against Max for daring to cut the police budget.
I'm curious about how you would set the amount of restitution owed to someone who could have been hurt by someone but wasn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Bryce in Rochester
States I have lived in:
PA, DE, WA, ME, SC, NY, GA, UT, CO, NH as of Sep 2011!
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
We don't know if he fired his gun in an "arbitrary" direction. There's no indication that he fired it in a safe direction. Unless he installed a bullet trap in the ceiling, there's no way that the ceiling qualifies as a safe direction. I presume that, if he did fire into a proper bullet trap, he would have made mention of that... The other case Dave referred to, has been one of the top stories in the Dover paper - it was a man in Farmington who used his gun to stop a burglar from escaping from his neighbor's house. He was originally given charges that would have meant he, and the burglar, would have similar sentences, but the police got a lot of communication from people and decided to drop the charges. The Farmington man is said, by his lawyer in an op-ed I read a few days ago, to have "deliberately" chosen a direction to fire his gun in which no one could be hurt - he was just getting the guy's attention, and fired the gun into the ground, off at an angle where there was no way it could hit anything or anyone. Thanks. There's really no comparison, though, between shooting into dirt (which will generally stop bullets in a safe manner), away from anyone other than yourself and the perpetrator, versus firing inside an occupied structure. I imagine Max would be similarly responsible. I don't. I've seen him with guns, and he's always struck be as someone who does not behave responsibly. But that's really not relevant, since his behavior in this case is known. What is most ridiculous about this case, is that several of the people who were at his house, without his permission, are known to have criminal records involving actual violence, and some of them were heard to threaten people explicitly, one had already drawn blood from another person, and none of THEM were charged with anything. It's not only a bias against gun owners that this demonstrates, but also a personal bias against Max for daring to cut the police budget. Not really relevant. If he had shot one of them, that might come into play. I highly doubt you will see any gun rights groups coming out in support of his behavior. I'm curious about how you would set the amount of restitution owed to someone who could have been hurt by someone but wasn't. The victim determines the restitution necessary to heal the damage the victim suffered. Threatening someone with a deadly weapon would tend to be pretty serious, and is actual harm. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bazil
|
If he fired the bullet straight up with the foreknowledge there was no one above him then I see no crime. A bullet moving straight up will come down at terminal velocity, which is some where in the hundred mile an hour zone, not enough to injure anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"If it ain't broke, fix it till it is!"- The government | "Politicians are like diapers, they need to be changed often, and for the same reasons!" - a friend
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
If he fired the bullet straight up with the foreknowledge there was no one above him then I see no crime. A bullet moving straight up will come down at terminal velocity, which is some where in the hundred mile an hour zone, not enough to injure anyone. A) Plenty of folks are injured and even killed by falling bullets. Firing into the air is grossly negligent. B) According to all accounts, he fired it into the basement ceiling. Below the potentially-occupied first floor. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
RidleyReport
|
Thanks for the discussion on this. There is more info from Max now available at http://www.facebook.com/events/149624178488082/That's the event page for his jury selection on March 12. If it were me in this situation and I wanted to draw attention to my allegations of , I'd probably schedule a demonstration to occur beforehand and invite at least 150 people with an expectation of at least a few attending. Regarding this debate...which is generally healthy but possibly not healthy for Max.... One question I have would be this: Is there proof that he fired into the ceiling? If so then I guess the question becomes "how safe or dangerous would that have been in this circumstance be?" If not, was firing in that direction the safest of many unsafe options? If it wasn't the least-bad option, was it a split second decision? If not, is there proof that it was not? How many of us make perfect decisions on that kind of uber-deadline? What would have happened...how many people would have been hurt...and how severely...had Max done nothing? Could he have been held liable, if he had done nothing? What kind of injuries would likely have been sustained had Max intervened without the firearm or (assuming he discharched it) if he had intervened without firing? Did any of us have to pay Max to take his allegedly imperfect course of action? Are we paying authorities to have Max threatened? Can a government court be fair in a case against a man who wants to limit government courts? While gun safety and Max's degree of it is worth discussing, I'm more concerned with these questions than with the smaller question of whether Max is perfectly safe in an imperfect situation. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TJames
|
It sounds like Max was being negligent and often that dose justify legal action, but many cops do fire guns for attention as well. I wonder if they are held to the same standards. I think many are held to stricter standards but I suspect they wouldn't face punishment this heavy. Can anyone tell me definitively?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
They can face both internal and external punishment...
So though they may not be held guilty of a crime... they can still be punished under employment guidelines.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
maxxoccupancy
|
None of the witnesses said that a weapon was fired into the ceiling. The police invented that allegation and repeated it to the media without correction. Several witnesses stated that there was a drunken brawl with blood on the floor, one woman wielding a knife threatening to kill one or more people. Witnesses also stated to police and investigators that an area gang leader also tried to grab the gun. The criminal rap sheet for attendees is 87 pages long. This does not include convictions in Mass or other states, which involve at least two convictions for attempted murder, not including other members of that gang.
New Hampshire case law lacks any more egregious misuse of the "Reckless Conduct" statute under RSA 631:3. Reckless Conduct has been one of those troublesome "catch all" laws that does not require proof of harm to others, that prosecutors have used abusively to go after gun owners for years. Never before has a homeowner, alleged to have fired a weapon in a safe direction outside, into the ground, where no one else is even alleged to be, in order to prevent intruders with long violent criminal records from injuring or killing people in his home, been threatened with life in prison where no evidence whatsoever exists that he even did anything to endanger anyone else.
As far as I am aware, it has never happened in the history of New Hampshire. Jury selection is scheduled for Monday, March 12th. Opening arguments are set for Tuesday, March 13th.
This needs media attention.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We're in need of volunteers to help out with Freedom Expo. PM one of the organizers (like me) if you'd like to help.
"The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property." Freedom Expo is at Trinity Parish House, Seabrook, April 27, 2013! (right next to the Post Office)
|
|
|
|
Jeff LaGrange
|
LOL, I saw Max, Seabrook, "ran for office" and automatically thought it was our Maxxoccupancy. I thought we were going to have to have a bail money bomb for you!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"No nation however powerful, any more than an individual, can be unjust with impunity. Sooner or later, public opinion, an instrument merely moral in the beginning, will find occasion physically to inflict its sentences on the unjust... The lesson is useful to the weak as well as the strong." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1804.
"It is the trade of lawyers to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour." - Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Given that there would be a, you know, bullet hole in the ceiling, that would be a hard allegation to invent.
Firing a gun into the ground with only you and the bad guy around, as the guy in Farmington did, is negligent behavior. Bullets can ricochet off stones and such.
Firing a gun into the ceiling, ground, or anything other than a bullet trap, with other innocent individuals around, is grossly negligent and reckless behavior.
If you aren't justified in shooting someone, you should not be firing your gun. Any competent defensive firearm use instructor will tell you that.
As I said, I can't see many - if any, at all - pro-gun-rights groups picking up on this. While libertarians will certainly say that this shouldn't be dealt with in the Statist courts, no one with any sense is going to actively come out in support of behavior like that.
Also, the assertion that prosecutors have used RC to go after gun owners for years, followed immediately with a sentence claiming that this sort of thing never happens, makes no sense at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
TJames
|
Maineshark, I am about as libertarian as they come but I think there is a role for public courts, as long as they don't violate NAP.
I say a little tiny government is essential for freedom. Once it starts to tax we are screwed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Maineshark, I am about as libertarian as they come but I think there is a role for public courts, as long as they don't violate NAP.
I say a little tiny government is essential for freedom. Once it starts to tax we are screwed. Once it says, "I am the only government, and you have no other choice," it has violated the NAP. For a government to be compliant with the NAP, it cannot assert a coercive monopoly; it must be part of the free market, subject to competition from other entities. That way, it has to stay honest, because it will lose subscribers if it starts misbehaving. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
