Kenney's shooter charged with threate...

Kenney's shooter charged with threatening woman

There are 756 comments on the www.unionleader.com story from Jan 16, 2008, titled Kenney's shooter charged with threatening woman. In it, www.unionleader.com reports that:

Floyd, 49, will be arraigned next Tuesday in Littleton District Court on a misdemeanor charge of criminal threatening, in connection with an incident Dec.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.unionleader.com.

First Prev
of 38
Next Last

“Honesty and justice for all”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#1 Jan 16, 2008
Okay DTRT, explain this one away.

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#3 Jan 16, 2008
Chris,
I'm researching case law for multiple felony convictions as to federal statues. Even if Floyd's crimes would not have been treated as felonies in NH, the fact remains he is a repeat offender.
I'm comparing Federal and NH law which have some similar guidelines in regard to a person with multiple convictions. I'm paying particular attention to references in regard to firearms possession, use of deadly force in the death of Liko Kenney, and threats of use of a firearm made by Gregory W. Floyd.

This is no less than the 6th time that Gregory W. Floyd has threatened to use a firearm in a confrontation with private citizens and law enforcement, since moving to New Hampshire.

Mr. Gregory W. Floyd has already taken the life of one of New Hampshires citizens on May 11, 2007.

WHO'S NEXT ?
Straight Talk

Palm Beach Gardens, FL

#4 Jan 16, 2008
Well, it was only a matter of time before something else happened with Floyd. Look at his arrogance - he has "friends" on the police force. He KNOWS he walked away with murder.
North Shore

Peabody, MA

#5 Jan 16, 2008
Straight Talk wrote:
Well, it was only a matter of time before something else happened with Floyd. Look at his arrogance - he has "friends" on the police force. He KNOWS he walked away with murder.
This is stunning, but not unexpected news. Clearly, the behaviors he's previously exhibited have not been altered or modified in any way since he shot and killed Liko Kenney. Floyd is a ticking time bomb.
His arrogance is frightening. It is time for his seemingly uncontrollable urges toward violence to be contained in advance of another tragedy. There has been plenty of warning.
KingCast

Winthrop, MA

#6 Jan 16, 2008
If Kelly does not refer this matter to the Federal Authorities the collective will petition Governor Lynch to remove her from office.

18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1).

Simple.
Straight Talk

Palm Beach Gardens, FL

#7 Jan 16, 2008
Lower Slower Delaware wrote:
Chris,
I'm researching case law for multiple felony convictions as to federal statues. Even if Floyd's crimes would not have been treated as felonies in NH, the fact remains he is a repeat offender.
I'm comparing Federal and NH law which have some similar guidelines in regard to a person with multiple convictions. I'm paying particular attention to references in regard to firearms possession, use of deadly force in the death of Liko Kenney, and threats of use of a firearm made by Gregory W. Floyd.
This is no less than the 6th time that Gregory W. Floyd has threatened to use a firearm in a confrontation with private citizens and law enforcement, since moving to New Hampshire.
Mr. Gregory W. Floyd has already taken the life of one of New Hampshires citizens on May 11, 2007.
WHO'S NEXT ?
Truly repulsive that this man was put on a pedestal as a hero while the media slandered Liko Kenny.
voice of reason

South Portland, ME

#9 Jan 16, 2008
One you must first remember, floyd is not guilty until proven such. Right now there is a complaint on the docket for Littleton district court, where he will either plead guilty or not guilty, his rights. If he pleads not guilty, whichy is his right, a court date will be given for a trial. If you look up the statute, and case law relevant to the statute. I'll give you a few points of law, RSA 631:4 A person is guilty of criminal threatening when:
(a) By physical conduct, the person purposely places or attempts to place another in fear of imminent bodily injury or physical contact; or
(b) The person places any object or graffiti on the property of another with a purpose to coerce or terrorize any person; or
(c) The person threatens to commit any crime against the property of another with a purpose to coerce or terrorize any person; or
(d) The person threatens to commit any crime against the person of another with a purpose to terrorize any person; e and f really don't apply. Now after reading the article in the paper, I never saw anywhere he pulled or branished a weapon. So if you look up State v. Fuller, it puts more burden on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

So with that being said, I believe the state will lose it's case against Floyd.

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#10 Jan 16, 2008
VOR,
The permanent restraining order is going to play a major factor in this case. I would also hazard to guess that Judge Vaughan's orders include:

Mr. Gregory W. Floyd is prohibited to handle, carry, or in any way have any contact with firearm.

Mr. Floyd did not have to brandish a weapon to meet the criteria for the meaning of the RSA 631:4 that you cited.

Mr. Floyd's well documented criminal background will come into scrutiny as well. He has used up all his "get out of jail cards."

I suspect that there will be a motion for the Floyd's to surrender all their firearms.

Perhaps other neighbors who have also had negative encounters with Mr. Floyd will come forward in support of Ms. Boisevert.
Straight Talk

Palm Beach Gardens, FL

#11 Jan 16, 2008
voice of reason wrote:
One you must first remember, floyd is not guilty until proven such. Right now there is a complaint on the docket for Littleton district court, where he will either plead guilty or not guilty, his rights. If he pleads not guilty, whichy is his right, a court date will be given for a trial. If you look up the statute, and case law relevant to the statute. I'll give you a few points of law, RSA 631:4 A person is guilty of criminal threatening when:
(a) By physical conduct, the person purposely places or attempts to place another in fear of imminent bodily injury or physical contact; or
(b) The person places any object or graffiti on the property of another with a purpose to coerce or terrorize any person; or
(c) The person threatens to commit any crime against the property of another with a purpose to coerce or terrorize any person; or
(d) The person threatens to commit any crime against the person of another with a purpose to terrorize any person; e and f really don't apply. Now after reading the article in the paper, I never saw anywhere he pulled or branished a weapon. So if you look up State v. Fuller, it puts more burden on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
So with that being said, I believe the state will lose it's case against Floyd.
Wouldn't Floyd's behavior fit under "A"?
KingCast

Winthrop, MA

#12 Jan 16, 2008
voice of reason wrote:
One you must first remember, floyd is not guilty until proven such. Right now there is a complaint on the docket for Littleton district court, where he will either plead guilty or not guilty, his rights. If he pleads not guilty, whichy is his right, a court date will be given for a trial. If you look up the statute, and case law relevant to the statute. I'll give you a few points of law, RSA 631:4 A person is guilty of criminal threatening when:
(a) By physical conduct, the person purposely places or attempts to place another in fear of imminent bodily injury or physical contact; or
(b) The person places any object or graffiti on the property of another with a purpose to coerce or terrorize any person; or
(c) The person threatens to commit any crime against the property of another with a purpose to coerce or terrorize any person; or
(d) The person threatens to commit any crime against the person of another with a purpose to terrorize any person; e and f really don't apply. Now after reading the article in the paper, I never saw anywhere he pulled or branished a weapon. So if you look up State v. Fuller, it puts more burden on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
So with that being said, I believe the state will lose it's case against Floyd.
Would that Floyd had given Liko Kenney those same rights before he shot the windshield.

Also, too bad that habit evidence is relevant:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/ACRule40...

And that habit or pattern evidence was not present in Fuller:

http://www.nh.gov/judiciary/supreme/opinions/...

Is that the threat in Fuller was conditional on someone's return to Fuller Ford:

"We therefore need not address the defendantís argument that he could not have been convicted because his threat regarding the victimís contact with his wife and son was conditional."

And also not present in Fuller:

Floyd has a pattern and practice of this activity to which I have alerted relevant counsel:

"All of us have made mistakes in our lives; in Mr. Floyd's case the behavior extends beyond a mistake; there is a pattern, a pattern of past violence, paranoid behavior and excessive anger. While no one can predict the future, I feel Mr. Floyd is capable of showing up at Lafayette Elementary School or at a neighbor's house with an automatic weapon"

And oh, yeah:

Even should he not be convicted, that has squat to do with 18 U.S.C. 1922(g)(1), and I just got off the phone with the U.S. Attorney's office about that, seeing as he has admitted to willfully violating that law on prior occasion:

http://aycu12.webshots.com/image/40731/200551...

Peace out.
voices of reason

Lincolnville, ME

#13 Jan 16, 2008
Lower Slower Delaware wrote:
VOR,
The permanent restraining order is going to play a major factor in this case. I would also hazard to guess that Judge Vaughan's orders include:
Mr. Gregory W. Floyd is prohibited to handle, carry, or in any way have any contact with firearm.
Mr. Floyd did not have to brandish a weapon to meet the criteria for the meaning of the RSA 631:4 that you cited.
Mr. Floyd's well documented criminal background will come into scrutiny as well. He has used up all his "get out of jail cards."
I suspect that there will be a motion for the Floyd's to surrender all their firearms.
Perhaps other neighbors who have also had negative encounters with Mr. Floyd will come forward in support of Ms. Boisevert.
But if you look up State v. Fuller, it puts more of a burden on the state to prove in fear of. The state needs to prove he had the means to put her in extreme fear. I can threaten you by saying I will kill you, but the elements are not there. I do not have the means to carry out my threat. A defense attorney will make an agrument that Floyd could not put Ms. Boisevert in extreme fear for her safety.
voices of reason

Lincolnville, ME

#14 Jan 16, 2008
Threatening to pull a gun and being able to pull a gun are two completely different things. Where Ms. Boisevert did not actually see a weapon she cannot testify that he did actually have a weapon in violation of USC 18. His threat of pulling a gun, actually the same as State v. Fuller, a threat of returning to a place. Both are conditions that were never met. So how can you have extreme fear when those condition was never met?

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#15 Jan 16, 2008
voices of reason wrote:
<quoted text>
But if you look up State v. Fuller, it puts more of a burden on the state to prove in fear of. The state needs to prove he had the means to put her in extreme fear. I can threaten you by saying I will kill you, but the elements are not there. I do not have the means to carry out my threat. A defense attorney will make an agrument that Floyd could not put Ms. Boisevert in extreme fear for her safety.
Given Mr. Floyd's physical size, and his preponderance for violent physical behavior is threat enough. Just because Mr. Floyd may or may not have had a gun doesn't mean he wasn't or isn't capable of carrying out a threat. I think May 11, 2007 proves that point.
Ground Zero

Bullhead City, AZ

#17 Jan 16, 2008
Here is what Miss Ellie had to say about Floyd. He's very capable of violence without remorse.

Eleanor Lovett, a clerk at the Franconia Village Store, said Floyd came in yesterday looking for copies of the newspaper. When she told him they were sold out, he said, "I'm the guy that shot that kid," according to Lovett.

"Just like that," Lovett said, "like it was a rabbit" that he shot.

Lovett said she knew Kenney and was "freaked out" by Floyd's easy demeanor.
Wondering

Merrimack, NH

#18 Jan 16, 2008
Not to mention Floyd's comment that "I wouldn't miss, either".

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#20 Jan 16, 2008
Thanks Chris....
I'm slowly getting back up to speed, and able to spend more time researching daily. My GOD the recent events could not have been better choreographed than if we had the late Alvin Ailey do it himself.
I truly hope that this recent event involving Mr. Floyd and another citizen he has threatened opens the eyes of the local, county, state, and federal investigative branches of the law enforcement.

The warning signs and pattern of criminal and social misconduct dating back over 30 years by Mr. Floyd are as clear a the Prudential Building from atop the majestic Mt. Washington.
Straight Talk

Palm Beach Gardens, FL

#21 Jan 16, 2008
voices of reason wrote:
Threatening to pull a gun and being able to pull a gun are two completely different things. Where Ms. Boisevert did not actually see a weapon she cannot testify that he did actually have a weapon in violation of USC 18. His threat of pulling a gun, actually the same as State v. Fuller, a threat of returning to a place. Both are conditions that were never met. So how can you have extreme fear when those condition was never met?
Oh puh-leeze......this is a joke. In case you didn't know the state of NH looks at the history of a person in the courts whether they acknowledge they do or not. Not to mention the fact that threatening to RETURN to a place is a whole lot different than saying you will pull a gun on someone and that you don't miss once you shoot.
voices of reason

South Portland, ME

#22 Jan 16, 2008
How can someone threaten to pull a gun, and have no means to do such. If she saw a gun she might have reason to be placed in extreme fear. Hey, you have no reason to start calling names. If you want to place a gentleman's wager, say a public apology, the state will not win this case. Looking at his size, please, look at his photo of may 11, he is a broken down old man, and a defense attorney will bring all his medical problems up and she could have retreated to her automobile.
Straight Talk

Palm Beach Gardens, FL

#23 Jan 16, 2008
Mrs. Boisevert cannot testify to the fact that he did not have a gun either and as he is accustomed to picking citizens off like he is rabbit hunting, I think the courts will recognize that she indeed felt threatened.

I know someone that works for the state of NH w/domestic violence and I surmise that Mrs. Boisvert will maintain that restraining order and that the courts consider Floyd a serious threat. If I am wrong I will big enough to say so when the time comes but let us all wait and see.
North Shore

Peabody, MA

#24 Jan 16, 2008
voices of reason wrote:
How can someone threaten to pull a gun, and have no means to do such. If she saw a gun she might have reason to be placed in extreme fear. Hey, you have no reason to start calling names. If you want to place a gentleman's wager, say a public apology, the state will not win this case. Looking at his size, please, look at his photo of may 11, he is a broken down old man, and a defense attorney will bring all his medical problems up and she could have retreated to her automobile.
Retreating to an automobile in the presence of Mr. Floyd is not advisable....that's when he does his shooting.

I have no pity for the "broken down old man" who can snap-to in an instant when he turns a gun on his target.

I believe he's threatened, and performed, at least once too often, lest we forget his self-admitted "43 kills". Frightening.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 38
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Littleton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
I <3 John Green (Sep '13) Jan 17 babyblonde 27
MR conspiracy theory Jan 17 babyblonde 16
Tj maxx Jan 17 Mel 2
"TO TELL THE TRUTH" The Quest for True Identities (Apr '14) Jan 12 babyblonde 52
Dirtbag and Maura Murray (Feb '12) Jan 12 babyblonde 147
Alden Jan 8 Findmaura 1
A plea for information - Do you know what happ... (Sep '16) Dec '17 babyblonde 2

Littleton Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Littleton Mortgages