Pelham Mass Chief: ‘Improperly stored arsenal’ described in trial

[HARRYM]

I believe #56 was my first post in the thread BTW.

You are confusing two points.

One being I believe that he is being pursued for that Westfield case and the missing 17 antique firearms he was supposed to sell for some family.....and who the heck knows what else. But I have been crystal clear here in that the firearms storage case was a red herring.

And two my own personal "opinion" in that being stupid and injuring yourself is not the same as being stupid and having a role in a death. Sometime being stupid leads to negligent decisions that cross the line into a criminal charge. My own personal belief at that time was that he met that bench mark.

- - - Updated - - -

*****
from what I understand he wasn't even there.

He was at the club but left a 15 yr old in charge.

 

[JayMcB]

I believe #56 was my first post in the thread BTW.

You are confusing two points.

One being I believe that he is being pursued for that Westfield case and the missing 17 antique firearms he was supposed to sell for some family.....and who the heck knows what else. But I have been crystal clear here in that the firearms storage case was a red herring.

And two my own personal "opinion" in that being stupid and injuring yourself is not the same as being stupid and having a role in a death. Sometime being stupid leads to negligent decisions that cross the line into a criminal charge. My own personal belief at that time was that he met that bench mark.

- - - Updated - - -



He was at the club but left a 15 yr old in charge.

Well, I'm sure he's glad you weren't on the jury then. Prior bad acts don't apply.

This is a miscarriage of justice. Plain and simple. The storage law was twisted and bullshit to start off with, and the addition of this conviction as any type of precedent endangers the freedom of every firearm owner in the Commonwealth

Karma is another matter entirely

 

[rwl1955]

I believe #56 was my first post in the thread BTW.

You are confusing two points.

One being I believe that he is being pursued for that Westfield case and the missing 17 antique firearms he was supposed to sell for some family.....and who the heck knows what else. But I have been crystal clear here in that the firearms storage case was a red herring.

And two my own personal "opinion" in that being stupid and injuring yourself is not the same as being stupid and having a role in a death. Sometime being stupid leads to negligent decisions that cross the line into a criminal charge. My own personal belief at that time was that he met that bench mark.

- - - Updated - - -



He was at the club but left a 15 yr old in charge.

******
I knew the RO was a 15yr.old, thanks for correcting me.

 

[HARRYM]

Well, I'm sure he's glad you weren't on the jury then. Prior bad acts don't apply.

This is a miscarriage of justice. Plain and simple. The storage law was twisted and bullshit to start off with, and the addition of this conviction as any type of precedent endangers the freedom of every firearm owner in the Commonwealth

Karma is another matter entirely

It could be me....I'm 63 an internet blogging is not something I do well. I thought I was clear in that I would have found him guilty of negligent conduct resulting in the 8 yr old shooting himself.

I would not have convicted him of the phony firearms storage case.

 

[HARRYM]

To be further clear he was found not guilty in the Westfield case. That case is over and the decision is the law. I didn't agree with it but I accept it, we are a nation of laws. I would not go after him over that case, the jury spoke....I just believe others have not let it go.

 

[zboys]

I've followed this post from the start and am still lost at Why they wanted to hang him so badly. We're there other issues not publicized?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This is the kind of case where any normal person with a clean record would probably be offered a CWOF or, at worse, a plea deal. I wonder if he was offered anything or if they were out to get him from the start.

I stash trigger locks anywhere I might need to temporarily store a gun - kitchen drawer, car, etc.

 

[rwl1955]

so much for friends. His first mistake was staying in town, his second was staying in this anti-gun State.

 

[Palladin]

Guilty on 12 counts. Sentencing Friday (Today?)

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/na...uzi_death_case_convicted_of_unrelated_charges

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If he is sentenced for the crime he was convicted of, he will not get jail time - no priors; nothing to indicate he is a risk to the community.

On the other hand, if he is sentenced for the crime which he was found not guilty of years ago, he will need soap on a rope.

Sort of like the 30 years OJ got which allegedly had nothing to do with his murder acquittal. (Yeah, right)

 

[Len-2A Training]

Hmm, check out the first/only comment on the sentencing article above. Chris Zani! Any relation to MSP Lt. Zani who handles certification of instructors, etc. ??

 

[Uzi2]

 

[Uzi2]

Massachusetts Criminal Justice System, the most efficient railroad in the state.

 

[amm5061]

Massachusetts Criminal Justice System, the most efficient railroad in the state.

Sure runs smoother than the Commuter Rail.

 

[Dadstoys]

I've followed this post from the start and am still lost at Why they wanted to hang him so badly. We're there other issues not publicized?

There has to be.
To go this long and this hard after him, he crossed someone up he shouldn't have.

 

[nstassel]

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/09/former_pelham_chief_edward_fle.html

He took a dive before sentencing

 

[AHM]

I would assume the Glock handgun the warrant was for was located in an easy (non-attic) area of the house and probably discovered early in the search.

Question for the police and attorney types: When a search warrant is issued for a very specific item, and that item is found, does the authority for a continued search end or does the warrant allow the police to fish the entire pond even after their catch?

An interesting question, which probably has a SCOTUS answer.

On the other hand, they probably claimed they uncovered evidence of additional crimes (unsecured guns) during the search, and the new evidence was of a type to indicate that there might be additional similar violations (more unsecured guns) if they kept on searching.

On the third hand, the warrant was for the Glock with laser and any other evidence that might prove relevant to the assault charge. Perhaps unconstitutionally vague (is this hypothetical additional evidence bigger than a breadbox? Can they dig up the lawn and tear out drywall in search of this additional evidence? Are they allowed to do body cavity searches on house occupants)? But it means that even after the cops found the laser Glock, they didn't have to claim the raid had morphed into a warrantless exigent search for unsecured guns because they were still looking for amorphous unspecified evidence about the assault. (Like what - hearing aid batteries for the laser? The instruction manual? A bill for drinks at the social club)?

---

Hope his attorney at least weeded out the most violently hardcore moonbats during vetting.

I think the only real hope is that the NoHo-ites on the jury are just as much anti-cop/anti-establishment as the are anti-gunowner.

Since the defendant is a retired cop, if the jury is anti-cop/anti-establishment and they don't like the DA either, they'd be faced with Kissenger's Dilemma:

It's a pity they can't both lose.

---

... Why wasn't she charged with unsafe storage, alone or in addition to her husband?

If any guns were left behind in the house after the successful search,
has his wife had to have kept them locked against him with keys/combos
owned only by her? Or...

I wonder where all those guns are?

Can he sell them to fund his legal bills?

...did they all go to Village Vault by now?

 

[Uzi2]

Sure runs smoother than the Commuter Rail.

Well sure it does, they operate it and ride on it.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

On the other hand, they probably claimed they uncovered evidence of additional crimes (unsecured guns) during the search, and the new evidence was of a type to indicate that there might be additional similar violations (more unsecured guns) if they kept on searching.

The appropriate action would be to secure the scene to prevent evidence tampering, and then apply for another warrant.

is this hypothetical additional evidence bigger than a breadbox?

It could easily mean confiscating his computers and all digital media to see if he engaged in any conversations about the alleged incident.

 

[AHM]

The appropriate action would be to secure the scene to prevent evidence tampering, and then apply for another warrant.

That's definitely the conservative approach. Oooh, check this out:

The plain view doctrine allows an officer to seize, without a warrant, evidence and contraband that are found in plain view during a lawful observation. ...
For the plain view doctrine to apply for discoveries, the three-prong Horton test requires:...

3. the incriminating character of the object to be "immediately apparent."​

That implies to me that manipulations of apparently secured guns to evaluate their locks invalidate them as evidence. Examples: tugging a padlock to see if it springs open; turning over a gun with a trigger lock and discovering the key in the lock; ...

It could easily mean confiscating his computers and all digital media to see if he engaged in any conversations about the alleged incident.

Excellent point.

 

[weekendracer]

if I KNEW the DA had a hard on to lock me up...i would be storing my guns so squeeky cleanly that they could take a video for use in the Basic Fireams Safety course of my setup. Why did this guy beg for them to arrest him?

If I knew the local DA had a hard on for me, I'd f'ing move.

I get the 'good jobs are there' argument, but if you know you are a target, at least be a moving target.

 

[Dadstoys]

If I knew the local DA had a hard on for me, I'd f'ing move.

I get the 'good jobs are there' argument, but if you know you are a target, at least be a moving target.

Your not kidding
Martha's method was , we don't care about the conviction , we just want to break you.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The plain view doctrine allows an officer to seize, without a warrant, evidence and contraband that are found in plain view during a lawful observation. ...

Yes, but I don't think the plain view doctrine would allow a search of the entire premises without a warrant because contraband was found and seized in plain view.

 

[EJFudd]

If I knew the local DA had a hard on for me, I'd f'ing move.

I get the 'good jobs are there' argument, but if you know you are a target, at least be a moving target.

I think you need to put this in the context of the timeline since the 2008 machine gun shoot incident. He was found not guilty in that case in January 2010. The Peter Terapulsky laser incident happened more than 4-1/2 years later on Saturday, August 2, 2014. The Fleury home raid was nearly 6 weeks after that on Thursday, September 11, 2014. How much did Fleury know or suspect that he was in trouble with the law again on September 11, 2014 before his arrest and the raid? Apparently not a whole lot. In fact, apparently nothing unless he was secretly told something by someone either doing the investigation or at least aware of it. Fleury's response to the Chief's telephone request that he come down to the station to take a look at a gun for sale suggests to me that Fleury knew absolutely nothing about the shit that was about to go down on him that day.

Despite the immense amount of latent hatred that was still out there for this man since 2008 and since the 2010 not guilty verdict, I don't think he thought he was a target of the DA any longer after so many problem-free years had passed. And whatever impression the August 2, 2014 laser incident may have left in his mind, it must not have been very significant. The fact that he was later found not guilty of the alleged assault tends to support that speculation. The fact that Peter Terapulsky now regrets all the legal trouble he initiated is even more telling.

 

[Uzi2]

I think you need to put this in the context of the timeline since the 2008 machine gun shoot incident. He was found not guilty in that case in January 2010. The Peter Terapulsky laser incident happened more than 4-1/2 years later on Saturday, August 2, 2014. The Fleury home raid was nearly 6 weeks after that on Thursday, September 11, 2014. How much did Fleury know or suspect that he was in trouble with the law again on September 11, 2014 before his arrest and the raid? Apparently not a whole lot. In fact, apparently nothing unless he was secretly told something by someone either doing the investigation or at least aware of it. Fleury's response to the Chief's telephone request that he come down to the station to take a look at a gun for sale suggests to me that Fleury knew absolutely nothing about the shit that was about to go down on him that day.

Despite the immense amount of latent hatred that was still out there for this man since 2008 and since the 2010 not guilty verdict, I don't think he thought he was a target of the DA any longer after so many problem-free years had passed. And whatever impression the August 2, 2014 laser incident may have left in his mind, it must not have been very significant. The fact that he was later found not guilty of the alleged assault tends to support that speculation. The fact that Peter Terapulsky now regrets all the legal trouble he initiated is even more telling.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall in the offices of everyone concerned in this case......I'm quite sure I'd be building a multi rope gallows....and not for Ed Fleury.

 

[Palladin]

I don't understand why his defense didnt include his wife, she never should gave left the house. But was forced to leave by the PD, thereby creating the crime of unsecured firearms

 

[Uzi2]

I don't understand why his defense didnt include his wife, she never should gave left the house. But was forced to leave by the PD, thereby creating the crime of unsecured firearms

The bigger question is: How could a jury of supposedly normal IQ people not see this?

This is a prefect case for jury nullification and the jury should have been informed of this option and exercised it vehemently.

 

[JayMcB]

I don't understand why his defense didnt include his wife, she never should gave left the house. But was forced to leave by the PD, thereby creating the crime of unsecured firearms

The fact that his freedom and PP status is in jeopardy is awful. the fact that the situation was manufactured by the police is worse.

Add into that as a result of this jury instruction - the fact that the 6 locked cases holding 6 unloaded firearms I have packed for my range trip may not be 'secure' because someone could 'easily break into it' is the chilling thing.

 

[Uzi2]

The fact that his freedom and PP status is in jeopardy is awful. the fact that the situation was manufactured by the police is worse.

Add into that as a result of this jury instruction - the fact that the 6 locked cases holding 6 unloaded firearms I have packed for my range trip may not be 'secure' because someone could 'easily break into it' is the chilling thing.

The fact that his freedom and PP status is in jeopardy is not only awful, its unconstitutional. The entire safe storage issue is BS.

 

[EJFudd]

I don't understand why his defense didn't include his wife, she never should gave left the house. But was forced to leave by the PD, thereby creating the crime of unsecured firearms

The defense did use the "licensed wife was home alone watching the guns" defense. It didn't work or at least it didn't work on all 22 of the allegedly exposed guns. It may have been a factor in the 10 acquittals but that still left 12 guilty verdicts... enough to further bankrupt him, take away his gun rights & collection and put him away for the rest of his life. Unbelievable but true, although some believe the sentence will be far less. The real goals were the felony conviction, a little House of Correction time, confiscation of his collection and forever PP status.

I don't believe the defense was ever really based on a "cops forced her from the house" defense. I believe the prosecution acknowledged that she was home with the guns. I believe it went more to that dubious "under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user" wording, further refined by the wording "under the control of a person if the person is sufficiently near the firearm to immediately prevent its unauthorized use" (or similar) from case law. In other words, yes she was there with the guns but not close enough to them at all times to meet the enhanced criteria.

Remember that the prosecutor dismissed all the testimony of the wife as simply the words of a clueless, loving wife just trying to protect her dastardly evil husband who likes killing children... and, apparently, the jury bought it.