Posted on 06/01/2013 6:04:07 AM PDT by Innovative
A military veteran is facing criminal charges after firing a warning shot at a suspect trying to break into his house.
"There was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting," Lt. Mike Budreau told KDRV. "In fact, the suspect was walking away."
Thompson explains he was not shooting directly at the suspect, just at the ground.
Thompson has been charged with unlawful use of a weapon and menacing and reckless endangering and had his rifle confiscated.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattle.cbslocal.com ...
Sure, the suspect was walking away, AFTER the warning shot, just before that he was busy trying to break into the house.
In most states, if a suspect acts nuts, and is moving around in a threatening manner...they get one warning from the cops, and then they shoot you. Cops will even shoot the family dog, without much warning.
I suspect the cops are more upset that they didn’t get the call, and a chance to shoot the suspect themselves.
There's the problem. He should have been RUNNING.
Its Washington state, so what do you expect? Kalifornia liberals have moved there and taken over much like Oregon, Idaho and Colorado.
Two words of advice:
“Ambush Predator”
One needs only study nature to change defective natural human behavior to better protect one’s self (which extends to post-incident in society). The 5th doesn’t protect against stupidity.
Warning shots ARE bad. It’s unleashing deadly force in a situation where deadly force is not (yet) warranted; if deadly force WAS warranted, then you wouldn’t be wasting it on a warning.
That bullet is going somewhere. You’d better have a damn good reason for sending it there. Scaring someone isn’t one.
Actually the burglar was running, police Lt. Mike Budreau was misstating the facts:
“Medford authorities, who were already on the scene after receiving a disturbance call, arrested Kinsella after seeing him running out into the parking lot following the gunshot. Police, though, say Thompson was in the wrong for firing his weapon.”
“That bullet is going somewhere. You’d better have a damn good reason for sending it there. Scaring someone isn’t one.”
You should have read the article, or at least the excerpt.
“Thompson explains he was not shooting directly at the suspect, just at the ground.”
That’s what you get when you live in an area of this country that is more concerned about the bums on the street getting their nightly shelter and their SSDI checks cashed each month than a typical homeowner trying to protect himself.
A warning shot indicates that you aren't really in danger, if you are you will really nail the SOB.
I'm sorry that this guy is learning things the hard way but he should have known better.
It appears that the police were more concerned with making an example of a gun owner than they were of defending the public.
Maybe on of the police liked the gun... or disliked the gun.
Either way, their was illegitimate incentive to cause the veteran trouble and considerable grief.
He should have been given an award and urged to attend a class on the use of deadly force.
No coffee yet...
on should be one
their should be there
Maybe there are other errors...
You'd better know where the sights are, and use them!
He was trying to do the sensible thing, scare the burglar away, before he breaks in — I guess the police would have preferred, if he had waited for the burglar to break in, be inside the house, and then shoot him, that would have been self defense - or maybe not, maybe the police would still have thought that deadly force was not justified.
Never fire a warning shot. You do not know where the bullet will go. With an ar-15, that can be several hundreds yards. The cops should have given him a lecture about warning shots and then praised him for stopping a known felon. They should never have taken his weapon away.
” Wasn’t really in danger”
The man made repeated attempts to break in the house. At one point he broke that off and tried to break in the next door neighbor’s house, then came back and resumed his original attempt. All this while the vet was trying to scare him off without having to shoot him. The man was acting in a bizarre way that suggested to the vet he was on some kind of drugs. Talking to him, explaining things was like talking to a zombie-like being. At the last, the vet said to him, I’m going to fire a warning shot. Get out of here, go away. Or the next time I fire I will shoot you. Upon the warning shot into the ground, the intruder ran away. The police - who were called by the vet - arrived. And from then on they have lied about the situation, repeating almost verbatim the perpetrator’s words to them and ignoring the vet’s statement and evidence. In addition, the perp had several outstanding warrants against him for burglary and other criminal issues, but the police have taken his side.
Thanks for the additional information and the real story of what happened.
The reason I have a complete version of what happened is, this vet was interviewed by Hannity on the radio. That beats, all to pieces, a story by “CBS Seattle” which is the basis for this thread.
As the post following yours states, I heard this man interviewed on Hannity’s radio show yesterday. He was able to get out the entirety of what he did, what the perp did and what the cops did. The bottom line is the police were not there and saw nothing. But they took the words of the perp and discounted what this military veteran said. The perp was wanted to face justice for doing the very thing he was doing this time, and still he was treated like a perfectly normal citizen and the vet was treated like a criminal.
I missed Hannity — I am glad he had the vet on his show and let him tell the real, full story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.