Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Military Vet Faces Charges For Firing Warning Shot At Suspect Trying To Break Into Home
CBS Seattle ^ | 5/30/13 | CBS Seattle

Posted on 06/01/2013 4:31:44 PM PDT by BigEdLB

MEDFORD, Ore. (CBS Seattle) — A military veteran is facing criminal charges after firing a warning shot at a suspect trying to break into his house.

KDRV-TV reports that 36-year-old Corey Thompson fired a warning shot from his AR-15 rifle at 40-year-old Jonathon Kinsella after he tried to break into Thompson’s house through the back door.

(Excerpt) Read more at seattle.cbslocal.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; US: Oregon
KEYWORDS: evilbureaucrat; thugprosecutor; totalitarian
When will we wake up and realize that the people whose salaries we pay are against us?
1 posted on 06/01/2013 4:31:45 PM PDT by BigEdLB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB

Didn’t VP Biden recommend this sort of thing? :-/


2 posted on 06/01/2013 4:34:00 PM PDT by Rightwing Conspiratr1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB

Only thing he did wrong was missing the target.


3 posted on 06/01/2013 4:34:22 PM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB

He should have fired 2 shots in the air with a shotgun instead>


4 posted on 06/01/2013 4:34:52 PM PDT by umgud (2A can't survive dem majorities)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB

He should face charges.
“Warning shot”? Really?

Book him, Dano.


5 posted on 06/01/2013 4:35:39 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB

Military trining taught that the warning shot should land at the top, center, shirt, button.


6 posted on 06/01/2013 4:36:41 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Should be... Warning shot missed. Hit right between the eyes...


7 posted on 06/01/2013 4:38:01 PM PDT by BigEdLB (Now there ARE 1,000,000 regrets - but it ore leave, and visiting Niagra Fallsmay be too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB

or clean the ear wax out, from ear to ear....


8 posted on 06/01/2013 4:41:08 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB

Medford used to be one of the most conservative places on the wes coast. Now it’s full of Californians.


9 posted on 06/01/2013 4:45:38 PM PDT by aimhigh (Guns do not kill people. Abortion kills people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB
From the article:

“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.”

If the cop's statement is correct, then the citizen was in the wrong. It is one thing if the suspect is advancing on you. But you simply shouldn't be shooting at anything if the suspect is truly fleeing. The danger of a ricochet far outweighs any good that the shot will do.

That being said, give the citizen a summary ticket (no misdemeanor, no felony), and let it go at that.

10 posted on 06/01/2013 4:47:49 PM PDT by Leaning Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB
Any time you fire a warning shot you are in the wrong. Either you fear for your life and are justified in using deadly force, and you shoot until the threat ends, or the situation does not call for deadly force and you do not discharge your weapon.

Ignore "Shotgun Joe's" advice to his wife. It is wrong, it is stupid, and it is illegal advice.

11 posted on 06/01/2013 4:52:12 PM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB
I was always taught that "warning shots" were to be aimed at the center mass of the closet available target.

Oh Yeah, and Double Tap...

12 posted on 06/01/2013 4:55:44 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
Any time you fire a warning shot you are in the wrong.

You better tell the Navy and the Coast Guard. They still using warning shots to stop fleeing suspects.

/johnny

13 posted on 06/01/2013 4:58:37 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Yup. Reckless endangerment.


14 posted on 06/01/2013 4:59:33 PM PDT by lightman (Buzzed and buggered bath house Barry: the Benghazi bungler.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo; All
Either you fear for your life and are justified in using deadly force, and you shoot until the threat ends, or the situation does not call for deadly force and you do not discharge your weapon.

With all due respect Yo-Yo, this is oversimplified thinking. Sometimes you cannot be sure of outcome of a given situation, particularly when you don't have all the facts of a situation.

15 posted on 06/01/2013 5:10:49 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB

I seriously doubt the average cop is against us, but, you can take it to the bank there is some political appointee that is trying to make a name for himself.


16 posted on 06/01/2013 5:13:53 PM PDT by depressed in 06 (America conceived in liberty, dies in slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

With the high cost of ammo I no longer fire warning shots.


17 posted on 06/01/2013 5:31:08 PM PDT by TNoldman (AN AMERICAN FOR A MUSLIM/BHO FREE AMERICA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TNoldman

Now that’s funny.


18 posted on 06/01/2013 5:33:49 PM PDT by umgud (2A can't survive dem majorities)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB

OK. patriots, here’s the target:

“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.”

Find out where the neo-Nazi, criminal-loving Lt. Mike lives.

Sell this puke no food, no water and no shelter. Make it known to Lt. Mike that the wimp can no longer live in the community without serious consequences to his well-being.

Our Founders ran Tories like Lt. Mike out of town on a rail.

Clean out your neighborhoods, patriots.


19 posted on 06/01/2013 7:08:33 PM PDT by sergeantdave (No, I don't have links for everything I post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB

Time to move south.


20 posted on 06/01/2013 7:32:04 PM PDT by Iron Munro (Obama-Ville - Land of The Freebies, Home of the Enslaved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB

Warning shots are unwise, and in populated areas, dangerous to innocent people.


21 posted on 06/01/2013 7:40:27 PM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
With all due respect Yo-Yo, this is oversimplified thinking. Sometimes you cannot be sure of outcome of a given situation, particularly when you don't have all the facts of a situation.

With all due respect to you, Amendment10, I will allow you to construct any strawman argument you wish that would justify a warning shot. The military doesn't teach warning shots. The police doesn't teach warning shots. If the situation justifies discharging a weapon, you shoot to stop the threat. If it does not justify stopping the threat, then it does not justify discharging your weapon at all.

22 posted on 06/01/2013 7:47:57 PM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
With all due respect Yo-Yo, this is oversimplified thinking. Sometimes you cannot be sure of outcome of a given situation, particularly when you don't have all the facts of a situation.

Hard to equate a maritime engagement and a civilian shooting.

23 posted on 06/01/2013 7:50:13 PM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
Law enforcement and self defense can be done by state actors, or individuals. If I stop a criminal trespass as an individual, I am engaging in both.

/johnny

24 posted on 06/01/2013 7:53:39 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

A civilian should not use justified discretion?


25 posted on 06/01/2013 8:04:15 PM PDT by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB
However, if you live in an area where it's legal to fire your gun on your property, you can get away with firing a round into the ground once the perp has left. If the perp is withing hearing range (like one was some years ago when my wife fired the shot), he will likely leave your home alone and hit others again (as happened back then).

Our perp was just lucky he had just broke in and did a check out the window as my wife pulled in. he left through a side door and she missed seeing him. Else, his head would be hanging on the wall above my computer....she's a good shot.

26 posted on 06/02/2013 4:01:33 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
Law enforcement and self defense can be done by state actors, or individuals. If I stop a criminal trespass as an individual, I am engaging in both.

Absolutely agree. I mistakenly didn't copy correctly your comment regarding the Navy and Coast Guard using warning shots during maritime engagements when I replied.

Again, law enforcement or self defense at the individual level never justifies a "warning shot."

Drawing a weapon? Yes. Pointing a weapon? Yes. Firing a warning shot either into the air or into the dirt in front of the suspect? Never. Shooting across the bow of a speeding boat suspected of smuggling drugs? Sure.

27 posted on 06/02/2013 4:57:01 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RedHeeler
A civilian should not use justified discretion?

A warning shot is neither discreet or justified.

28 posted on 06/02/2013 4:57:50 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB

The charges against this vet, who was justifiably defending himself, are nothing short of criminal.

Criminal law enforcement hardly inspires respect for the law.


29 posted on 06/02/2013 5:46:48 AM PDT by man_in_tx (Islam is a Hate Crime. (Blowback: Faithfully farting towards Mecca five times daily!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Firing a warning shot either into the air or into the dirt in front of the suspect? Never.

////////////

Says who?


30 posted on 06/02/2013 5:48:31 AM PDT by man_in_tx (Islam is a Hate Crime. (Blowback: Faithfully farting towards Mecca five times daily!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Big difference between a 5-inch gun and an AR...


31 posted on 06/02/2013 5:50:28 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
I think they use .50s in the main.

/johnny

32 posted on 06/02/2013 5:51:36 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: man_in_tx
Says who?

If you're on a ranch in the middle of nowhere in TX, go for it. But if you live in an incorporated area, your Texas state law and city or county ordinances say 'no.' (Texas Penal Code Section 42.12 plus local ordinances of whatever city or town you're in.)

But then Texas is the only state that allows one to shoot at a fleeing felon if the felon is making off with property in the nighttime (Texas Penal Code Section 9.42(2)(B) but you can't shoot during the daytime!)

33 posted on 06/02/2013 6:19:59 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Thank you for the legal posting. Very informative. Was familiar with the day/night distinction on fleeing robber, but the refresher was good.

However, is not the term “reckless” subject to interpretation, such that a crack lawyer might — in some cases, at least — get someone off who had fired a warning shot?

In other words: Who says “warning” must necessarily equate to “reckless” in every case other than on the high seas?


34 posted on 06/02/2013 8:32:07 AM PDT by man_in_tx (Islam is a Hate Crime. (Blowback: Faithfully farting towards Mecca five times daily!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: man_in_tx
I'm not saying that if you fire a warning shot in downtown Dallas because a mugger was coming after you with a knife and said "I dare you to shoot me" when you pulled out your weapon, but you couldn't bear to kill the 14 year old punk without giving him some chance to run away, that you wouldn't be found not guilty at trial.

What I am saying is that you will correctly be charged, go to trial, and suffer tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees by doing so, just as the subject of this thread is going to go through.

Look at the Zimmerman case and all he has gone through for what should have been simple matter of a justifiable defense of his life.

No sir, as for me and mine, the gun stays in the holster until I feel my life is threatened. Then and only then does it comes out, and if the threat doesn't end when it sees me pointing my weapon at him/her, I shoot for center of mass until the threat stops. The warning was my screaming "STOP!" as I drew my weapon.

35 posted on 06/02/2013 9:26:06 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

No sir, as for me and mine, the gun stays in the holster until I feel my life is threatened. Then and only then does it comes out, and if the threat doesn’t end when it sees me pointing my weapon at him/her, I shoot for center of mass until the threat stops. The warning was my screaming “STOP!” as I drew my weapon.
////////////////////

Well articulated position. Rightly or wrongly (and, I believe it is the latter), one will in all likelihood be sued to (financial) death — a risk not worth taking for most.


36 posted on 06/02/2013 9:40:16 AM PDT by man_in_tx (Islam is a Hate Crime. (Blowback: Faithfully farting towards Mecca five times daily!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson