VETERAN’S AR-15 CONFISCATED BY POLICE- And he's facing criminal charges!

[Ronin13]

Short story is- Felon trying to break into a Veteran's house, Vet pulls AR-15 out, tells the criminal he's armed and will be giving him only one warning, and fired a warning shot. Now he's in deep doodoo... Not sure what to think on this one, trying to be objective and see from both sides of the story...

MILITARY VETERAN’S AR-15 CONFISCATED BY POLICE – BUT THE REASON WHY IS THE REAL STORY
An Oregon man has had rifle confiscated and is facing criminal charges (http://www.kdrv.com/man-attempts-to-stop-felon-with-firearm/) after he attempted to stop a wanted felon from breaking into his home by firing a warning shot.
Police in Medford, Ore., say the incident occurred at around 11:30 p.m. on Sunday. Officers responded to an apartment complex in the area after receiving a disturbance call. During their investigation, cops heard a gun shot and a man running away toward the complex’s parking lot.


Authorities say 40-year-old Jonathon Kinsella, a wanted felon, was attempting to flee the scene when he was arrested on outstanding warrants, including for burglary and assault.

Military veteran Corey Thompson, 36, told KDRV-TV (http://www.kdrv.com/man-attempts-to-stop-felon-with-firearm/) that the wanted felon was trying to beak into his home via the back door. Defending his property, Thompson said he warned the criminal that he was armed and he was giving him his one and only warning shot.


“This is the end result. You break into someone’s house, there’s consequences,” Thompson said.


Wielding his AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, the veteran made good on his threat and fired one warning shot. The bullet did not strike the suspect or anyone else.
“When I’m dealt with a stressful situation, being a veteran from Iraq and the Afghanistan war, it’s natural. I just jump into combat mode. I told him, ‘I’m going to give you a warning shot’,” Thompson explained.
However, police later determined he wasn’t justified in firing his weapon. Medford Police Lt. Mike Budreau said “there was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting.”
Apparently, for police in Medford, a wanted felon trying to break into a law-abiding citizen’s home isn’t enough to justify a warning shot.

Thompson was charged with unlawful use of a weapon, menacing and reckless endangering. The veteran’s AR-15 was seized by police because they claim it was used in the commission of a crime.

Thompson said he doesn’t agree with the police’s decision in this case.


“I can see where they’re coming from, with those kinds of ordinances and stuff. I understand yes, I did discharge my weapon but I was careful not to fire it at any body’s residence. It was at the ground specifically,” he added.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/29/police-confiscate-vets-rifle-charge-him-because-he-fired-warning-shot-at-wanted-felon-trying-to-break-into-his-home/
Granted I wouldn't fire a warning shot... But sounds like the police detectives might be siding with the criminal a bit here? [Dunno]

[HoneyBadger]

We live in an age where defending the US Constitution and enjoying your Natural Rights is punishable.

[The Rat]

Warning shots in stateside self defense is a dumb idea all around. We're not doing EOF measures against daydreaming Iraqi drivers anymore here. A totally different AO means totally different ways of doing things.

It's dumb that he had it confiscated, but he shouldn't have expected anything else to happen.

[Chad4000]

I went round and round with a buddy of mine about firing warning shots... lets just say Im not going to do it lol

[davsel]

Though I understand his EOF intent, and his honesty as to the situation, I believe he would have been better off not speaking to the police without an attorney present.

If I ever have to pull the trigger, I will not say a word without an attorney - too difficult to keep up with legal nuances, too easy to get into a world of trouble.


ETA:
Did not our VP recommend this tactic?

[RonMexico]

I understand why he gave the intruder a warning shot..... Some mil member get stuck/develope bad habits from training and shitty ROE/EOF

I think the huge no no was the fact that it was an apartment complex an he didn't know the line of sight behind his target. My guess is if it was in rural America the cops wouldn't have had a problem with it but discharging a firearm in city limits a huge no no.

[Sawin]

Without knowing the details of the encounter, it's hard to really comment... despite the perp actually being a felon, he hadn't yet broken in to the house so firing even the first shot was probably premature (at face value of the article). I agree it's stupid as hell that the cops would do this to him, Andy and Barney sure wouldn't, but we are all practically guilty until proven innocent this day in age.

[3beansalad]

What a mess, but I've been raised to believe warning shots are a bad idea anyway.

The one positive in the whole story is that the firearm was used somewhat responsibly to stop a criminal. The more of those that make the media the better.

[sandman76]

Isn't this kind of what Dumbass Joe was recommending? Fire through the door.

[Sawin]

Isn't this kind of what Dumbass Joe was recommending? Fire through the door.

hahaha, yep. Sure is :)

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

Isn't this kind of what Dumbass Joe was recommending? Fire through the door.

I do recall the same.

[HoneyBadger]

I wish he would've said that in the interview... Something to the effect of: "I just did what Joe Biden advised me to do when faced with an intruder!"

[Ronin13]

Isn't this kind of what Dumbass Joe was recommending? Fire through the door.
I don't think you can use that defense in court though. "But our Veep said to fire through the door."
Besides, this is why I don't fire warning shots:
http://cdn.firearmstalk.com/forums/attachments/f26/44431d1335386364-home-defense-image-1238996026.jpg

[DavieD55]

They need to drop all the charges against this guy if this story is accurate.

[asmo]

Mistakes in order of importance:

1) living in Medford, OR
2) attempting to rationalize with someone intent on doing you harm
3) firing a warning shot
4) atttempting to rationalize with the police about your actions


The guy is owned, by his own admission is wasnt under immeninet threat -- if he was he wouldn't/couldn't of fired a 'warning' shot.

[3beansalad]

Isn't this kind of what Dumbass Joe was recommending? Fire through the door.

This only applies to double barrel shotguns.

[Zundfolge]

They need to drop all the charges against this guy if this story is accurate.

I imagine they will before all is said and done ... but he can kiss the rifle goodbye (unless he's willing to pay a lawyer 10 times what its worth to fight to maybe get it back).

The lessons I learn from this are thus:



"Warning Shots" should be delivered to COM.
Self defense guns should be considered disposable.
Expect persecution (no that's not a misspelling of prosecution) if the local Law Enforcement agency that will be responding to your self defense shooting has a history of anti-gun attitude (and my guess is that Oregon most police chiefs are Dem appointees).

[Cylinder Head]

Warning shot was a bad idea, but it did stop the crime without loss of life. Unfortunately I can believe the cops made the decision they did. Very rare nowadays to find someone who knows the difference between "ordnance" and "justice".

[10mm-man]

Warning shots in stateside self defense is a dumb idea all around. We're not doing EOF measures against daydreaming Iraqi drivers anymore here. A totally different AO means totally different ways of doing things.

It's dumb that he had it confiscated, but he shouldn't have expected anything else to happen.


Kinda what I was thinking! Gun pointed- Get the f' out. he advances, don't think he is advancing to be your friend and shake your hand. Use the least amount of force necessary, which would not involve shooting a round into the ground.

[ChunkyMonkey]

IF you must shoot, you shoot to eliminate the threat..not to warn - especially if the bad guy is walking away already. There is no reason whatsoever for him to pull that trigger. As much as I sympathize with the homeowner, he made a bad judgement. Hopefully the prosecutor or judge let him off.

[DavieD55]

Warning shot was a bad idea, but it did stop the crime without loss of life. Unfortunately I can believe the cops made the decision they did. Very rare nowadays to find someone who knows the difference between "ordnance" and "justice".

Dont do any burglers any favors i guess.

[tmleadr03]

Let me jump on this bandwagon.

Warning shot?

[BushMasterBoy]

We could do some "internet activism" and bombard the police with emails of our concerns. http://www.ci.medford.or.us/sectionindex.asp?sectionid=7

[OneGuy67]

[QUOTE=Sawin;1155169]Without knowing the details of the encounter, it's hard to really comment... despite the perp actually being a felon, he hadn't yet broken in to the house so firing even the first shot was probably premature (at face value of the article). [QUOTE]

I agree. I watched the TV news video and they showed the area in which the encounter occurred to include the door he was alleging to try to gain entry into. No damage to the door at all. So, it wasn't like the suspect was putting a shoulder into the door and was physically breaking into the apartment. If he was jiggling the door knob and looking through the window, does that warrant a round being fired? Additionally, since we are dealing with another state, I am up on their defense of home laws. If it would have happened here and the suspect did not gain entry, our "Make My Day" statute would not apply and there could be a chargeable offense.

[Rabid]

I would much rather shoot the ground then make a mess of my house, having to stay in a hotel while my house is a crime scene, avoid defending my self against homicide charges and avoid being sued if intruder some how lives. Even in a make my day state it is not cut and dry if you shoot somebody.

[buckshotbarlow]

never ever listen to smoking joe biden. Wait till the bad guy gets actually in the house, while your on the phone with 911. It'll be a lot less painful for you...

[MarkCO]

"I was acting on the advice of attorney Joe Biden" might have been an answer...just sayin'. Maybe Uncle Joe will represent him Pro Bono.

[davsel]

I encountered the same type of burglary situation years ago while stationed in San Antonio. I was home for lunch, two guys came to the front door and I watched them through the peep hole. They started around the side of the apartment, so I grabbed my shotgun from the bedroom. I came into the living room and they were already at the back sliding glass door. One was trying to open it, and the other was peering in at my stuff. I aimed the shotgun at them and they bolted over the fence.

I remember thinking at the time about firing a shot over their head, through the door because I was pissed. I remember trying to get the door unlocked and open in order to fire a shot into the air because I was pissed and did not want to ruin my door. In the end, the cops caught them, I ID'd them, and they got busted for trespassing.

The cop that showed up at my apartment advised me that I should have waited around the corner in the hallway, allowed them to break in, and shot them in the living room.

I sometimes miss Texas.

[Ridge]

Firing warning shots in a densely populated area is a sure way to get someone killed unintentionally.

[Colorado_Outback]

If I ever have to pull the trigger, I will not say a word without an attorney - too difficult to keep up with legal nuances, too easy to get into a world of trouble.

THIS.



The cop that showed up at my apartment advised me that I should have waited around the corner in the hallway, allowed them to break in, and shot them in the living room.


And this.

[losttrail]

ETA:
Did not our VP recommend this tactic?

Yes, but with a shotgun and for only hearing noises on the other side of the door.

[Zundfolge]

Firing warning shots in a densely populated area is a sure way to get someone killed unintentionally.

Yep.

In most cases, in an urban or suburban environment "Warning Shots" are a clear and absolute violation of Rule #4.

Additionally, in an urban/suburban environment the legal threshold of when you have a clear legal right to discharge a firearm is pretty much the same threshold as when you have the clear legal right to shoot someone.

[Bailey Guns]

I'll add my .02 cents. Based on the OP and what I know about Oregon law which is pretty much nothing:

1) The fact this guy is a veteran is irrelevant to the facts of the situation. In my opinion it's added only to encourage others to be sympathetic to his plight...as is the sensationalistic headline about his gun being confiscated. That's typical/standard procedure in a firearm related offense.

2) There's no such thing as a warning shot, FFS. There is no legal justification for it that I'm aware of in Colorado (though, depending on the circumstances and location it may not necessarily be illegal), I doubt there is in Oregon. The guy was an idiot to fire his AR-15 in an apartment bldg.

3) I totally understand the Reckless Endangerment charge. I think that's probably appropriate given what we know from the OP. I don't know about the other charges, but I suspect the officers considered the elements of each offense before arresting the guy.

4) The veteran needs to come to grips with the fact he's in Oregon...not Afghanistan or Iraq.

5) Burglar-boy better find a new line of work before he becomes a statistic. Eventually he'll get good at breaking down doors and the next guy might not be a dumbass.

[Ridge]

Well said, Bailey.

[Kraven251]

[QUOTE=Sawin;1155169]Without knowing the details of the encounter, it's hard to really comment... despite the perp actually being a felon, he hadn't yet broken in to the house so firing even the first shot was probably premature (at face value of the article). [QUOTE]

I agree. I watched the TV news video and they showed the area in which the encounter occurred to include the door he was alleging to try to gain entry into. No damage to the door at all. So, it wasn't like the suspect was putting a shoulder into the door and was physically breaking into the apartment. If he was jiggling the door knob and looking through the window, does that warrant a round being fired? Additionally, since we are dealing with another state, I am up on their defense of home laws. If it would have happened here and the suspect did not gain entry, our "Make My Day" statute would not apply and there could be a chargeable offense.

If he broke a window, or showed intent to enter the domicile after being warned, our Castle laws will protect us. This has been tested, and it stood in court.

As many have said, this guy screwed up, I do feel bad for him, but he was dumb. Metal to meat or don't waste the round.

[OneGuy67]

If he broke a window, or showed intent to enter the domicile after being warned, our Castle laws will protect us. This has been tested, and it stood in court.

As many have said, this guy screwed up, I do feel bad for him, but he was dumb. Metal to meat or don't waste the round.

If you have any case law on this, I would like to review it. Breaking a window does not constitute the ability to use the affirmative defense.

[Kraven251]

If you have any case law on this, I would like to review it. Breaking a window does not constitute the ability to use the affirmative defense.

I stated that poorly, it is breaking the window, while displaying intent to enter, such as reaching an arm into the home. Let me see what I can do with my google-fu to find it. This was a case from a few years ago where an older/elderly man killed a man that had broken a window and was not yet fully inside the home, the arm counted etc. Intent vs. Letter

[Skip]

I'll add my .02 cents. Based on the OP and what I know about Oregon law which is pretty much nothing:

1) The fact this guy is a veteran is irrelevant to the facts of the situation. In my opinion it's added only to encourage others to be sympathetic to his plight...as is the sensationalistic headline about his gun being confiscated. That's typical/standard procedure in a firearm related offense.

2) There's no such thing as a warning shot, FFS. There is no legal justification for it that I'm aware of in Colorado (though, depending on the circumstances and location it may not necessarily be illegal), I doubt there is in Oregon. The guy was an idiot to fire his AR-15 in an apartment bldg.

3) I totally understand the Reckless Endangerment charge. I think that's probably appropriate given what we know from the OP. I don't know about the other charges, but I suspect the officers considered the elements of each offense before arresting the guy.

4) The veteran needs to come to grips with the fact he's in Oregon...not Afghanistan or Iraq.

5) Burglar-boy better find a new line of work before he becomes a statistic. Eventually he'll get good at breaking down doors and the next guy might not be a dumbass.


1) It is relevant to the RoE he instinctively uses to confront a deadly and dangerous situation when the heart is racing and the adrenalin is pumping. It also demonstrates he has a certain amount of training when it comes to firearms.

2) There may be no modern legal justification, but most decent folks still think it's proper protocol before ending the life of another human being. This is one lesson everyone can learn; no warning shots. You either deploy lethal force and end the threat or you don't.

3) The criminal is the one who created the wreckless endangerment. Let's say the vet ending up dropping the guy without a warning shot and one of those rounds goes straight through the bad guy, through the wall, and kills a kid sleeping in an adjacent apartment.

Who gets the manslaughter/murder charge?

So why does it make sense to criminalize responding to a deadly situation instead of putting the blame on the criminal where it belongs?

4) Easier said than done. There are lots of guys struggling with this right now--you can't just turn it off.

5) Agreed, but I wouldn't consider the vet to be a dumbass--he was just ignorant of the fact that our laws no longer follow logic or basic morality. Ironically, it is the "system" that makes these encounters more deadly by removing a once commonly accepted tool; the warning shot.

We had a similar situation in CoS this week when a woman fired on an invader and scared him off. She wasn't charged with anything. The dynamics of that situation aren't all that different from this one--just that LE looked at it differently.

[Kraven251]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/01/28/no-charges-to-be-filed-against-colorado-man-who-shot-intruder/

This isn't the example that I knew of, but this is similar in scope.

[Kraven251]

We had a similar situation in CoS this week when a woman fired on an invader and scared him off. She wasn't charged with anything. The dynamics of that situation aren't all that different from this one--just that LE looked at it differently.

http://www.guns.com/2013/05/29/colorado-springs-woman-shoots-at-nike-sporting-intruder-video/ similar but different, and a whole other host of issues of continuing to shoot after he was fleeing

"As she saw the man’s Nike-sporting foot coming through the window, she fired at him. He initially hid behind a tree, but once Richter hit the tree he was hiding behind with one of the five shots she fired, he took off running down the street."

[Skip]

http://www.guns.com/2013/05/29/colorado-springs-woman-shoots-at-nike-sporting-intruder-video/ similar but different, and a whole other host of issues of continuing to shoot after he was fleeing

"As she saw the man’s Nike-sporting foot coming through the window, she fired at him. He initially hid behind a tree, but once Richter hit the tree he was hiding behind with one of the five shots she fired, he took off running down the street."

That part in red is exactly what you say! No need to mention a warning shot. She saw him, feared for her safety, and fired at him. Good shoot!

Now if CoS PD wanted to make a case on her shooting while the suspect is fleeing, they probably could try...

[clublights]

I stated that poorly, it is breaking the window, while displaying intent to enter, such as reaching an arm into the home. Let me see what I can do with my google-fu to find it. This was a case from a few years ago where an older/elderly man killed a man that had broken a window and was not yet fully inside the home, the arm counted etc. Intent vs. Letter

I recall that case too ..


Kid was drunk/high .. wrong house .

This is a similar one ...

http://www.fox21news.com/news/story.aspx?id=252001#.Uae7DJX89UQ

[Ronin13]

I agree. I watched the TV news video and they showed the area in which the encounter occurred to include the door he was alleging to try to gain entry into. No damage to the door at all. So, it wasn't like the suspect was putting a shoulder into the door and was physically breaking into the apartment. If he was jiggling the door knob and looking through the window, does that warrant a round being fired? Additionally, since we are dealing with another state, I am up on their defense of home laws. If it would have happened here and the suspect did not gain entry, our "Make My Day" statute would not apply and there could be a chargeable offense.
The way I was taught on this- treat your home like the endzone on a football field- if they break the plane they're technically inside your home, and from there you can judge if they are a threat and fire if needed. Until that point, they are not inside your home/occupied domicile and you're not justified in shooting. Granted this is advice from an attorney friend of Rich Wyatt's. [Coffee]

[OneGuy67]

I recall that case too ..


Kid was drunk/high .. wrong house .

This is a similar one ...

http://www.fox21news.com/news/story.aspx?id=252001#.Uae7DJX89UQ


Um, it is the same story.


The DA is interpreting the law as the reach into the residence is the breach into the dwelling. I've worked with Dan May recently and he seems to be a really good guy. I have no issue with his interpretation of the law in this particular case.

[Bailey Guns]

1) It is relevant to the RoE he instinctively uses to confront a deadly and dangerous situation when the heart is racing and the adrenalin is pumping. It also demonstrates he has a certain amount of training when it comes to firearms.

RoE on the battlefield mean nothing in a civilian shooting. The defense can argue that, of course, but I certainly wouldn't count on it being a valid defense. And the headline was indeed inflammatory in my opinion.

2) There may be no modern legal justification, but most decent folks still think it's proper protocol before ending the life of another human being. This is one lesson everyone can learn; no warning shots. You either deploy lethal force and end the threat or you don't.

Well, that's only relevant if the "decent folks" are all on the jury. I consider myself to be "decent folk" and there will be no warning shots from me in a lethal force encounter. This case will most likely illustrate it's not only a bad idea it's most likely illegal. If someone has created a situation for me that warrants a lethal response I'm not aware of any protocol, decent folks or not, that requires a warning shot because it's proper.

3) The criminal is the one who created the wreckless endangerment. Let's say the vet ending up dropping the guy without a warning shot and one of those rounds goes straight through the bad guy, through the wall, and kills a kid sleeping in an adjacent apartment.

I agree the criminal is wrong as well and I don't think anyone is arguing that he's innocent. But in your hypothetical situation the vet would most likely be looking at 1 or 2 counts of some sort of murder or manslaughter. Apparently he wasn't justified in shooting. That's the whole point of why he was arrested. Not to mention the civil liability issues he'd be looking at.

Who gets the manslaughter/murder charge?

So why does it make sense to criminalize responding to a deadly situation instead of putting the blame on the criminal where it belongs?

You still have to act according to the law even when using force to defend yourself from a criminal. The vet wasn't facing a deadly threat when he fired...at least according to the arresting officers. Again...I didn't read anywhere where the wannabe burglar won't be held responsible for whatever offense he committed. He was arrested, after all, trying to flee the scene.

4) Easier said than done. There are lots of guys struggling with this right now--you can't just turn it off.

Well, then if it isn't turned off there are consequences. I understand and I sympathize...but that doesn't change the facts.

5) Agreed, but I wouldn't consider the vet to be a dumbass--he was just ignorant of the fact that our laws no longer follow logic or basic morality. Ironically, it is the "system" that makes these encounters more deadly by removing a once commonly accepted tool; the warning shot.

Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. Granted...calling him a dumbass may not have been warranted. But I disagree that what he did was logical. And I don't recall warning shots being a commonly accepted practice (especially in an apt bldg) since I've been around...and that's over 50 years...and I grew up in TX.

We had a similar situation in CoS this week when a woman fired on an invader and scared him off. She wasn't charged with anything. The dynamics of that situation aren't all that different from this one--just that LE looked at it differently.

Didn't hear about that so I can't comment.

[clublights]

Um, it is the same story.


The DA is interpreting the law as the reach into the residence is the breach into the dwelling. I've worked with Dan May recently and he seems to be a really good guy. I have no issue with his interpretation of the law in this particular case.


I thought the one I was really thinking of was in denver not CoS and the shooter was an elderly fellow...

I agree with the DA's choice I was just pointing to a story

May seems like an OK guy.. we did some campaign work with him the last cycle

[Dingo]

Stories like this, and the general bleeding-heart, progressive, and litigious nature of our society as a whole, are training us to do one thing: ENSURE that it's our word against a dead man's. 10 years ago, I was of a mindset that it would be better to wound someone, or fire a warning shot. Too many stories of home owners being sued by the motherless filth invading their home, and being chargedby progressive police officials with an eye for politics.

Bottom line: enter my home unannounced, you get one chance to identify yourself. If I don't know you, you're dead.

[Squeeze]

All the "anti-gunners" will side with the poor criminal who was just doing what he had to do to make a living. The evil homeowner with a treacherous black rifle should be hung, tarred & feathered according to their "rules". It's been said and I'll say it again, the f**king political correctness is sucking the lifeblood right out of America. God help any of us if we ever have to be the ones to pull a trigger in defense of our own lives.

[fj605]

"I have my father's gun and a scorching case of herpes." (Jennifer Grey - in Ferris Beuller's Day Off)

Why not meet the intruder at the door? I may not be a good shot but I know I can drive tacks when the muzzle of my gun is touching the target.

[Colorado_Outback]

If you have any case law on this, I would like to review it. Breaking a window does not constitute the ability to use the affirmative defense.

It happened here in Springs a couple years back.

Sunday night after a broncos game this guy was so hammered he was trying to enter the wrong house. Homeowner is afraid and calls 911, on the phone with them for a while when the guy starts to make his way through the back door after attempting the front. Homeowner shoots and kills him through the door.
I cant remember if they dropped the charges or if he was tried and found innocent.. looking for the article now..

[OneGuy67]

It happened here in Springs a couple years back.

Sunday night after a broncos game this guy was so hammered he was trying to enter the wrong house. Homeowner is afraid and calls 911, on the phone with them for a while when the guy starts to make his way through the back door after attempting the front. Homeowner shoots and kills him through the door.
I cant remember if they dropped the charges or if he was tried and found innocent.. looking for the article now..

Already posted, don't waste your time.

[Colorado_Outback]

Doh. I see it now, couldn't remember that dudes name.

[TFOGGER]

To paraphrase Master Yoda of the Jedi Order: Shoot, or shoot not; there is no "warning".

[Skip]

[snip]



Snipping that quote cause it's huge.

1) If a guy is put in life/death situations, for his country, and then put in the same situation under different conditions, he is going to respond the same way UNLESS he is trained otherwise.

How many vets are coming back and training like that? If I'm on that jury he gets that consideration when the defense brings it up.


2) The reason I said "decent folks" wasn't to malign you. There are old school people who believe in warning shots because they believe they should do everything possible to avoid a shoot before shooting. It wasn't so long ago in this state, warning shots were commonly used to scare off cattle thieves.


3) In my hypothetical situation, the criminal (home invader) should be charged under the "felony murder rule."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

In CO, criminal tresspass = felony

The reason for this law is pretty straight forward... If a person is killed during the commission of a crime, even if the criminal didn't intend for him to be killed and didn't directly kill him, the criminal is criminally liable for that murder. The criminal put these events into motion--and he had a thousand opportunities to rethink that.


4) I agree there are consequences, but this is a little ridiculous. If the vet heard fireworks and went nuts, that's one thing. This vet was initiating a rational, albeit techincally illegal, response to a real and deadly threat. There was a time when LE understood they have a level of discretion they may exercise.


5) I agree, ignorance is no excuse, however our modern legal system is a complete mess. This guy had fractions of a second to react and it was late at night.

----

In my mind, I have a hard time finding fault with someone who responds to violent crime (or the intent of violent crime) provided the response is the slightest bit reasonable. I think this puts an unfair burden on law abiding people when the criminal has no such burdens. In this case, the criminal was a wanted felon. Why do we have a legal microscope over the vet/shooter and yet never examine the failures of the criminal justice system in putting that felon on the street in the first place?

That DA is going to put the vet on trial and ask for a conviction when his office was likely repsonsible for the violent felon being released.

This criminal was also wanted for burglary and assault. He wasn't there to chat--so why did LE give him the benefit of the doubt by saying “there was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting.”

This doesn't seem right to me at all.

I sincerely hope if I am ever in that situation, I have enough wits about me to respond correctly. And more importantly, consult an attorney before providing a statement beyond "he tried to break in, I was in fear of my life, and I fired my weapon at him."

[Rucker61]

This criminal was also wanted for burglary and assault. He wasn't there to chat--so why did LE give him the benefit of the doubt by saying “there was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting.”

If I were the defense attorney, I'd subpoena Biden and have him requote his instructions to the country.

[USAFGopherMike]

THIS.



And this.

Yep. Would save the homeowner and the taxpayers tons. If you're dumb enough to be a criminal, you're dumb enough to die in my living room.

[10mm-man]

Snipping that quote cause it's huge.

(SNIP) ha! Copy cat what can i say!


Dang good points, and you have me re thinking my harshness for the VET. F'n criminal caused the issue, not the vet. I now agree with you, even if the vet's judgement wasn't the best at the time. Hope the prosecution sees it that way as well.

[Irving]

If the two people are close enough to hear each other, then the verbal warning is already the warning. If you use a verbal warning, then put out a "warning shot" as a second warning, you are just showing that you weren't willing to make good on your first warning, and probably won't on the second either.

[Superorb]

ETA:
Did not our VP recommend this tactic?

Thompson should sue Biden.

[waxthis]

Though I understand his EOF intent, and his honesty as to the situation, I believe he would have been better off not speaking to the police without an attorney present.

If I ever have to pull the trigger, I will not say a word without an attorney - too difficult to keep up with legal nuances, too easy to get into a world of trouble.


ETA:
Did not our VP recommend this tactic?

This*^^