Military Vet Faces Charges For Firing Warning Shot At Suspect Trying To Break Into Home

CBS Seattle ^ | 5/30/13 | CBS Seattle

[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.

[familyop]

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

[Yo-Yo]

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.

[Yo-Yo]

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.

[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.

/johnny

[RedHeeler]

A civilian should not use justified discretion?

[trebb]

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.

[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.

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.

[Yo-Yo]

A civilian should not use justified discretion?

A warning shot is neither discreet or justified.

[man_in_tx]

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

Criminal law enforcement hardly inspires respect for the law.

[man_in_tx]

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

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

Says who?

[Smokin' Joe]

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

[JRandomFreeper]

I think they use .50s in the main.

/johnny

[Yo-Yo]

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!)

[man_in_tx]

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?

[Yo-Yo]

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.

[man_in_tx]

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.