Law and Order: Bergen resident accused of pointing shotgun at person who was looking through his window
John Laverne Robinson, 51, of North Lake Road, Bergen, is charged with menacing, 2nd. Robinson is accused of pointing a shotgun at another person while the person was looking through Robinson's window.
Aaron M. Hatt, 22, of Alexander, is charged with harassment, 2nd, and unlawful possession of marijuana. Troopers responded to a complaint of a domestic dispute in the Town of Pembroke. In route, troopers came upon a young man walking down the center of Gabby Road. He reportedly said he had just argued with a female at the address of the initial complaint. Hatt was taken back to the house and upon investigation, troopers learned Hatt had allegedly been involved with a physical confrontation with the victim. He allegedly possessed marijuana at the time of his arrest.
Connor W. Kelly, 19, of Rushville, is charged with unlawful possession of marijuana. A trooper stopped Kelly's vehicle on Clinton Street Road, Stafford, for allegedly lacking its plate lamp. the trooper noted evidence of alleged recent marijuana use.
Bernard Lee Evans, 43, of Cato Street, Pavilion, was arrested on bench warrants for alleged criminal contempt, 1st, and harassment, 2nd. Evans was held without bail.
Kelly Marie Faro, 37, of Church Road, of Hamlin, was arrested as a fugitive from justice. Faro was arrested on an unrelated matter by Deputy John Baiocco. During his investigation, he discovered an active warrant out of Cuyahoga County for alleged drug possession. Faro is being held without bail pending extradition.
"... while the person was looking through Robinson's window."
Depending on the circumstances, I'm surprised a gun pointed at them was all that person got!!
I would have done the same thing, possibly more to protect my family !! They definitely charged the wrong person. It is pretty sad when you can't even protect your own home and family. Where's the 2nd amendment in this ?
The story says nothing about why the person was looking through the window ... maybe it was a neighbor trying to check on the resident's welfare, maybe it was a niece seeing if uncle was home, maybe it was a real estate agent sent to the wrong house to check it out, or one of another 100 possible explanations ... there's no indication the person looking through the window was engaged in criminal conduct. I have no idea what happened and I'm not assuming anything either way.
I think if I was checking on someone, or seeing if someone was home or a real estate agent, my first thought would have been to knock on the door.
Why should the man in his home be arrested . . ?? I don't think that's right .One should be able to protect ones self and ones property .
you live in New York. New York is king of all nanny states. please understand you do not need to protect yourself, the governors actions show the police will do it for you. if the police fail to protect you, oh well another lost taxpayer. I am afraid to protect myself for fear of arrest, prosecution and incarceration. the governor and his cronies have made my protection illegal. if someone comes into my house unwanted and they are armed, i'm shit out of luck for if I do act I will be arrested and if I don't act, then I become another lost taxpayer......I have 5 years left till retirement and believe me in 5 years I will be out of here as soon as my house is sold....
All I'm saying is ... speculation is kind of useless ... don't like my examples, think of your own.
That said, a relative of the man posted on Facebook that the man was dealing with a possible intruder. I'll try to follow up on Monday.
The only problem I have with your examples Howard is while they are competely reasonable, a reasonable person in those circumstances wouldn't have called the police to have such charges made because they would understand that the error was theirs.
I dont really see this as menacing unless this guy was pointing his shotgun at the person on the sidewalk from a front window.
But like you said we dont have details so it's all speculation.
I wonder if the window was in the front door..... might be a fun way to deal with Jehovah's witnesses>
sounds like there may be more to the story,,,,,,,,,,,,, if not, you are right they arrested the wrong person
Howard, if a person had a reason to be concerned, or for ANY other legit reason, the DOOR would be the way. I'd be interested to know how you would react if Billie screamed because someone was peeping on her!
If I saw someone looking in the window at my wife and I, I would have immediately shot. No question. Period.
And if the liberals (love you Bea) didn't see that as justified, I would have my day in court.
Win or lose, I would take to my grave the knowledge that what I did was right.
I only ask that those of you libs that will certainly vote negative reply with sound and sane reasons. My bet is I'll get 12 negatives with
Bob, I'm one of those libs. However, I do not support someone who commits a crime. As far as I know, a Peeping Tom is commiting the crime, not the person inside their home. My opinion is that the wrong person was arrested.
Bob, spitting out the words "Liberal"or "Lib" as if the label is something contaminated really doesn't bother me. No thumbs down for that slight dig.
If you feel the only recourse is to shoot, then that is your choice. That decision and subsiquent reprecussions are your business, not mine. No thumbs down there.
I have good friends who do not share my ideaology just as much as I can't share theirs. Yet, we find common cause and work to make those successful.
Enjoy counting the thumbs up and down. Mine isn't there.
What I find interesting is that someone assumes that simply because someone is liberal that they do not have guns and would not use them.....
I have no issue with a homeowner defending his/her turf. I believe both liberals, conservatives and raccoons alike would agree. What we don't know in this specific situation overwhelms what we do know. Example: we have no idea what the relationship between the two parties might be. The "visitor" could have been an out-of-town relative, a neighbor, an ex-wife, a mother-in-law, a process server; who knows. We don't know if the "visitor" knocked or rang the doorbell prior to peering in the window. The "visitor" may have been privileged with regular access to the premises. All of us have stopped by a friend's house and done some investigating to determine why no one answered the door. There is not enough information provided to draw any conclusions about the circumstances, the mindset of either party or anything else for that matter. Call it a gut-feeling; if the person in the crosshairs had been a prowler, the charges would have gone in the other direction.
The main reason police carry guns is to protect themselves. How can they protect YOU when they are not at the crime scene until after the crime has been committed ? You are right Dave, if you don't protect yourself, you are sh_t out of luck, and probably dead.
I ask again, where is the 2nd amendment here ?
The incident happened 16 months ago and the person who was looking through the window was beating on John's door. John called 911 while the person was beating on door and threatening to harm John. The 911 operator told John to yell to the person he has a gun to protect himself. The man then stopped beating on the door and proceeded to look into his windows. The man then left John's house and the police NY State police were looking for him. The man finally turned himself in 6 hours later and was charged. The NY State police didn't charge John with any crime. The other guy, however was. Now 16 months after the fact, the Genesee co sheriff office has charged John!
Again CM Barons, how likely is it that the people in the scenario you proposed...
an out-of-town relative, a neighbor, an ex-wife, a mother-in-law, a process server; who knows. We don't know if the "visitor" knocked or rang the doorbell prior to peering in the window.
Are gonna call the police and have you charged with pointing a gun at them? Most wouldnt as they know it was a misunderstanding.
As for process servers they arent allowed to go around a property to look in windows and such. If you look up NYS and process servers there is alot of info like this.
Though it may sound redundant, it should be noted that all professional process servers must respect defendants and plaintiffs equally. No
matter how difficult a Respondent may be, the process server must never engage in activities intended to harass or to press the Defendant
such as stalking, illegal surveillance, touching Defendant's mail or other property, knocking or ringing Defendant's door too many times,
telephoning Defendant too much or verbally or physically assaulting Defendant. If the process service job cannot be effected because
Defendant is not willing to accept process, the process server must leave the premises and document the circumstances of evasion of
service for a future affidavit of attempted service. In the end evading service may provide additional breathing time to Respondent but it may
hurt his credibility at trial. So evading service only works against the service evader.
Failing to comply with local laws and common sense may subject the process server and whoever hired him to sanctions, jail or civil
lawsuits. Under extreme circumstances, process servers have been attacked or even killed allegedly because of trespassing into private
property. Federal laws, State laws and local laws allow process servers to visit Defendants and to attempt service on them even if
Defendants are unwilling to accept process. Also anybody who interferes with service of process may be subject to civil and/or criminal
Amazing, Kyle, you knew all that off the top of your head. Of course we all know people never do what they’re “not allowed” to do.
I wonder if this supposedly happened at night, or during the day….if I saw a face at the window in the middle of the night I’d scream bloody murder and then maybe get charged with disturbing the peace.
I think this may be one of those rare occasions where local law enforcement would be wise to clarify what the circumstances were for two reasons. First, owners of firearms should not be left to believe that they are likely to be charged for protecting their own home. Second, would be peeping toms, predators, and other ne're-do-wells should not be encouraged thinking that home owners are likely to feel restrained by that threat.
Kyle, Even the information offered by Ms. Whalin offers little insight into the relationship between the parties, the intent of the visitor or why subsequent charge was executed. If I wanted to flesh out some theories, I'd consult the so-called experts that have weighed-in on the missing Malaysian passenger plane, keeping the conversation alive over at CNN (Constant Nattering Network). In lieu of calling the Psychic Hotline, I'll wait for Howard to report on how the local JP rules.
How about this example.... A disgruntled ex- is harassing somebody at their home. The resident fears for their life, so whips out their gun. The disgruntled ex- calls the police about the gun pointed at them.
C'mon folks... With just a tad bit of imagination, we can speculate our way to a new Jackie Collins novel!
..or we could wait for more information before concluding "they should've shot'em!" ;-)