Iraq vet charged with firing gun to scare suspected burglar

[BHOWPE]

Man Attempts to Stop Felon and Charged | KDRV

Corey Thompson says that when he saw Jonathon Kinsella allegedly attempting to break in through the back door of his Medford, Ore., apartment, he grabbed his AR-15 and fired a warning shot. But pulling that trigger is why cops went after Thompson, an Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran, instead of Kinsella, a wanted felon. Police confiscated Thompson's rifle and charged him with unlawful use of a weapon and reckless endangering. "There was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting," police Lt. Mike Budreau said (because apparently breaking and entering is cool if you do it politely). "I did discharge my weapon," Thompson said. " But ... it was at the ground specifically."

Absolutely unbelieveable!!!

 

[Cavman]

He should have just listened to old joe and used a shotgun. Then he would have been fine

 

[GNRPowdeR]

So, let the guy break in & then shoot him / at him? Lawyers are amazing creatures when it comes to how things are phrased...

 

[eldirector]

Another reason why you do not fire warning shots, and do not fire to injure. You ALWAYS fire to stop the threat.

Either you are in danger, or not.

Of course, I'm not up on Oregon's self-defense laws. For all I know, they might be better than Indiana's. From the looks of the Police Lt.'s comment, though, they are not.

 

[ultra...good]

Note to self, no warning shot, no matter what Biden recommends.

 

[searpinski]

Ridiculous. I also like how the news article makes it a point to call out the fact that it was an AR-15 assault rifle. They should have just said "evil rifle." I can see though, why the police would be upset that he shot a rifle in an apartment complex. I feel that it's unlikely the projectile would ricochet enough to go through his walls and hurt someone but we don't know what was around his apartment. I guess he was supposed to, just like GNR said, wait till the guy comes in and then shoot him...but with a pistol or shotgun.

 

[Mac-1917]

Oregon may have had a few Sheriff's thumping their chests over 2A but trust me it's anything but 2A friendly.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

"Assault rifle bullets" will skip, but pistol bullets won't? Hmmm...

Yeah, don't know OR's laws, but warning shots are seldom a good idea. I won't say "never", there's always that one oddball scenario, but it would be exceedingly rare.

 

[mrjarrell]

Dupe.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._arrest_homeowner_for_defending_his_home.html

 

[HoughMade]

Yes, a dupe....and as I mentioned elsewhere, this case is nowhere near simple and obvious. Some things don't add up.

 

[indykid]

I guess it comes down to using a shotgun as specified by the Vice President of the United States. If you use a shotgun in home, and get arrested for defending yourself, it would be interesting to see Biden summoned. Of course he will use executive privilege to let you hang out to dry.

 

[HoughMade]

I'm just trying to figure out how he could fire into the "ground" while he was inside and a guy was trying to get through the door.

 

[Pinchaser]

Sounds like someone who has no business being in possession of a firearm. We don't fire "warning shots...."

 

[Boonl1776]

Yet another example of why I'm thankful we have elected prosecutors in Indiana. A cop can arrest anyone, but its a prosecutor's exclusive decision to charge. If a rural prosecutor in Indiana decided to charge this vet, how would the next election go for him?

 

[HoughMade]

The "vet's" story does not make sense to me. Neither does a warning shot.

....and what is the relevance of his military service?

 

[mrjarrell]

....and what is the relevance of his military service?

Sympathy from some folks.

 

[HoughMade]

Yup.

 

[88GT]

Can someone tell me why, other than the legal implications, warning shots are inherently evil?

 

[mrjarrell]

Can someone tell me why, other than the legal implications, warning shots are inherently evil?

Nope. Can't tell you. If someone was trying to get in my house and a warning shot could scare them away, without me having to go straight to shooting someone, I'd fire a warning shot. I'd much rather scare someone away than kill them. A warning shot is not inherently evil in my book. No need to kill when you don't have to.

I am reminded of the warriors creed from a series I read many years ago.

Do not hurt when holding is enough
Do not wound when hurting is enough
Do not maim when wounding is enough
And kill not when maiming is enough
The greatest warrior is he who does not need to kill

 

[rnmcguire]

Dumb. The Army doesn't teach Soldiers to take warning shots. He should of known better.