Franconia man fires 'warning shots'

[Palerider]

http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/loca...t-burglar.html

A Franconia Township resident, discovering the second break-in at his house in the last few weeks, fired "warning shots" from a shotgun early Sunday morning in the direction of a fleeing burglar.

Franconia police said the investigation is ongoing and wouldn't say if the homeowner would be charged with a firearms violation or if they believed the two burglaries were related.

For now, police are seeking the man who burglarized the home on the 300 block of Oak Drive about 2:30 a.m. Sunday. The homeowner told police he heard a noise in his kitchen and when he went to investigate, saw a man run out the kitchen door after taking money that had been left on the table.

The homeowner chased him through his back yard and fired several rounds from a shotgun in his general direction before calling police.

Officers from Lower Salford, Souderton and Telford assisted in the search in the area around Oak Drive and Reliance Road. A police canine from Quakertown was also used for tracking but the suspect was not found.

Since the door to the home was not locked at the time of the incident, police are urging all residents to lock and secure all entry doors to their homes at night.

Additionally, outdoor lighting that is left on during the night can act as a deterrent. Any suspicious persons or noises need to be reported to the police immediately by calling 911.


Lucky he didn't hit him...

[MichaelJ]

I don't condone what he did, but dammit when are people going to learn how not to incriminate themselves.

[knight0334]

http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/loca...t-burglar.html

A Franconia Township resident, discovering the second break-in at his house in the last few weeks, fired "warning shots" from a shotgun early Sunday morning in the direction of a fleeing burglar.

Franconia police said the investigation is ongoing and wouldn't say if the homeowner would be charged with a firearms violation or if they believed the two burglaries were related.

For now, police are seeking the man who burglarized the home on the 300 block of Oak Drive about 2:30 a.m. Sunday. The homeowner told police he heard a noise in his kitchen and when he went to investigate, saw a man run out the kitchen door after taking money that had been left on the table.

The homeowner chased him through his back yard and fired several rounds from a shotgun in his general direction before calling police.

Officers from Lower Salford, Souderton and Telford assisted in the search in the area around Oak Drive and Reliance Road. A police canine from Quakertown was also used for tracking but the suspect was not found.

Since the door to the home was not locked at the time of the incident, police are urging all residents to lock and secure all entry doors to their homes at night.

Additionally, outdoor lighting that is left on during the night can act as a deterrent. Any suspicious persons or noises need to be reported to the police immediately by calling 911.


Lucky he didn't hit him...

I dont know... I'd have to weigh this in my head at the moment..

Warning shots will get you into trouble more often than not. Never give warning shots..

Commonwealth v. Chermansky, 242 A.2d 237, 239 (Pa. 1968), we reiterated that “[a] private person in fresh pursuit of one who has committed a felony may arrest without a warrant. And in Pennsylvania we have always followed the common law rule that if the felon flees and his arrest cannot be effected without killing him, the killing is justified.” However, we narrowed the types of felonies for which the rule was applicable and held that:

from this date forward the use of deadly force by a private
person in order to prevent the escape of one who has
committed a felony or has joined or assisted in the commission
of a felony is justified only if the felony committed is treason,
murder, voluntary manslaughter, mayhem, arson, robbery,
common law rape, common law burglary, kidnapping, assault
with intent to murder, rape or rob, or a felony which normally
causes or threatens death or great bodily harm.

[Palerider]

He left my house, he's running away through my yard, I don't know if he physically took anything. I have NO sympathy for the burglar. I just don't see any upside for the shooter.

Knight, thanks for the Commonwealth V Chermansky legalese, that's why I love this forum...learning.

[ungawa]

I don't condone what he did, but dammit when are people going to learn how not to incriminate themselves.

If we lived in Texas or Florida I would condone what he did.

But I live in PA. So what he did was evil. In PA, you can't use a gun to prevent someone from running off with even your family's most precious treasures. The moral thing to do is to let them go unopposed. You'll never get them back and the robber will not meet a cop this time.

[MichaelJ]

If we lived in Texas or Florida I would condone what he did.

But I live in PA. So what he did was evil. In PA, you can't use a gun to prevent someone from running off with even your family's most precious treasures. The moral thing to do is to let them go unopposed. You'll never get them back and the robber will not meet a cop this time.

Damnest things about morals, they work on a sliding scale depending on who you are around. If I wish to consider this forum a community, I think morality would dictate that the thief had a sub moa grouping in his back. It galls me to no end that so many of us have a gut reaction to hold well back off to the correct side of the law in these cases, like some yin/yang cycle with the f-tards who consistantly stray over the line.

I feel the just thing would be to visit upon that thief the same feelings of dread, helplessness and fear that the theif has visited upon any number of victims. However, I also feel that it's best we allow the authorities to handle it, due to the hostile legal climates.

[Steve_NEPhila]

I believe strongly in the following two statements:

The first warning shot is for center of mass.

Shooting someone for stealing some of your shit is not cool.

It really is that simple. I have lots of shit, most of us have lots of shit and we have the ability to buy more shit. My insurance covers my shit. So my shit is not really that important. This does not mean that I will let someone have my shit, nope. I will fight to keep my shit, no doubt. But I would never shoot at someone attempting to flee after possibly stealing some of my shit.

[Philbert]

Commonwealth v. Chermansky, 242 A.2d 237, 239 (Pa. 1968), we reiterated that “[a] private person in fresh pursuit of one who has committed a felony may arrest without a warrant. And in Pennsylvania we have always followed the common law rule that if the felon flees and his arrest cannot be effected without killing him, the killing is justified.” However, we narrowed the types of felonies for which the rule was applicable and held that:

from this date forward the use of deadly force by a private
person in order to prevent the escape of one who has
committed a felony or has joined or assisted in the commission
of a felony is justified only if the felony committed is treason,
murder, voluntary manslaughter, mayhem, arson, robbery,
common law rape, common law burglary, kidnapping, assault
with intent to murder, rape or rob, or a felony which

Obligatory IANAL, but I think it's dangerous to quote this snippet of the court's decision without a couple of relevant points. First, common law burglary is not simple burglary. It is defined something like:

"The breaking and entering the house of another in the night time, with intent to commit a felony therein, whether the felony be actually committed or not"

I'm not sure of the exact PA definition but I believe night time has something to do with it. And that probably has a strict legal definition.

Secondly, while it is legal to shoot a fleeing felon if that is necessary to effect his arrest, you do so at your own risk - if you hit an innocent victim, or it turns out that the "felon" wasn't guilty of the crime you thought he committed (even on a technicality) you are looking at murder charges, regardless of the reasonableness of your beliefs or the lack of intent to kill the bystander.

[Brillfan]

I believe strongly in the following two statements:

The first warning shot is for center of mass.

Shooting someone for stealing some of your shit is not cool.

It really is that simple. I have lots of shit, most of us have lots of shit and we have the ability to buy more shit. My insurance covers my shit. So my shit is not really that important. This does not mean that I will let someone have my shit, nope. I will fight to keep my shit, no doubt. But I would never shoot at someone attempting to flee after possibly stealing some of my shit.

Good point. Material things can usually be replaced. Most of my material things I either don't use or I forgot they even exist. A human life can never be replaced. Taking a life for the sake of a few material things does not make an equation.

[Kramer]

"Good point. Material things can usually be replaced. Most of my material things I either don't use or I forgot they even exist. A human life can never be replaced. Taking a life for the sake of a few material things does not make an equation."


You better hope that the criminals in your area don't read this statement or your house will get cleaned out in short order!

Most people work hard for their money and "stuff" and I don't think that many will just stand there and wave goodby to their stuff while it's being carried off.

As far as insurance companys go they usually pay squat when your place is robbed or they only pay a percentage/ depreciation for what you claimed was stolen. Yeah I know someone will say "blah blah I have 100% coverage" but I call B.S.

Also keep in mind that "warning shots" are usually considered reckless endangerment.