Man arrested for following Vice President Biden's advice on home invader

Firing a shot that might endanger an innocent person is just stupid. What is even more stupid is that the shooter made the prosecuting attorney's job easy by talking to the police and telling them his version of the events.

The shooter created the charges against himself. Because of his mouth, he had to be charged. This is another fine example of someone talking themselves into possible jail time. Don't people know to shut up?

NEVER offer information. No one ever talks themselves out of jail time, but a lot of stupid, innocent people talk themselves into it. Ask the shooter. He went from potential victim to survivor to chump quickly.

NEVER talk. Offer to cooperate, but ONLY cooperate on the advice of and in the presence of a damn good attorney. Remember, in the heat of the moment, things might not come out right. The police officer might only write down every other thing that is said as well, and what is meant might not necessarily be properly noted. Being tired, scared, or full of unused adrenaline could mess up a story as well, so don't talk!

As citizens, we all have a right against self-incrimination. Don't be afraid to use it.

He went from potential victim? How? He had a gun and the bad guy was walking away when he fired his warning shot. You can't shoot people for simply cutting through your yard.

And spare me that don't say anything to the cops BS.


Now, about the law that was posted:

"We can protect ourselves, our homes, our vehicles and our property here in Kansas too."

"if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm"

Okay, great, but it won't help you if the guy is walking away from you such as in the case under discussion.

Personally I wish we lived in a world where people greatly feared breaking into a house because they might be shot. Many animals we are familiar with attack when you trespass its den, especially when it has offspring.

Don't start trouble, won't be trouble.

Back in 1986, I went to the Armed Forces Communications Electronics Association (AFCEA) conference in Philadelphia. Walking from the hotel to the conference site, a co-worker and I saw a homeless man at a street corner, barefoot, standing in a pool of his own urine, mumbling to himself incoherently.

I would take HIS advice before I took Biden's.

Click to expand...

I would definitely take the homeless man's advice. He strikes me as a man, well grounded.

JohnBT said:

And spare me that don't say anything to the cops BS.

Click to expand...

Dont Talk to Police

I echo the sentiment. DO NOT SPEAK TO THE POLICE. It is their job to investigate and figure things out. Your interjections will likely work against you. SHUT YOUR MOUTH.

Warning shots?

Remember the rules. Be sure of your target and know what is beyond it. An indiscriminate warning shot does not abide by the rules.

I also believe people forget that they are responsible for where the "warning shot" lands or ends up.

You are always in fear for your life. You want to help them, but you can not answer any questions without your attorney present.

JohnBT said:

Now, about the law that was posted:

"We can protect ourselves, our homes, our vehicles and our property here in Kansas too."

"if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm"

Okay, great, but it won't help you if the guy is walking away from you such as in the case under discussion.

Click to expand...

My response was to Sam's post specifically. But thank you for your irrelevant statement just the same.

I am so sorry, I thought you were talking about the thread topic. Imagine that.

So, we have to plan on letting the BG get into the house, and just wait there for him to come crashing through the door? Or, wait until he makes his grand entrance and ask him politely to leave? Has anyone else ran defense drills where you are standing on guard just inside the door just waiting?

Lex Luthier said:

So, we have to plan on letting the BG get into the house, and just wait there for him to come crashing through the door?

Click to expand...

That's one way of looking at it. But it is very wise to comprehend that there are a great many affronts to our wishes and the security of our belongings which someone else may commit against us (theft, trespassing, verbal harassment, vandalism, etc., etc) that do not rise to the standard of justifying a deadly force response like discharging a firearm. And most do not rise to the standard of threatening assault with a firearm/brandishing, either.

Or, wait until he makes his grand entrance and ask him politely to leave?

Click to expand...

This becomes somewhat dependant on your individual state law, but broadly speaking, YES, he has to have crossed some line into actually threatening your life before you [strike]can[/strike] must shoot.

(Remember, we aren't looking for the trigger action that LETS us shoot someone. We're looking for the moment where we decide we have NO CHOICE but to shoot. Important difference.)

Has anyone else ran defense drills where you are standing on guard just inside the door just waiting?

Click to expand...

Of course! That's the whole basis of a sound defensive strategy. Not necessarily standing right inside the door. That's probably not optimal. But definitely using advantage of position to stay safe, analyse the situation, and only shoot if someone forces you to through their immediate, directed, violent action. In many states, that point is when someone begins forcibly breaking into an occupied building. In others, it may be when that intruder is physically threatening an individual occupant with harm. Know your state's laws very clearly.

If your "defensive" drills involve shooting people standing in your yard, or LEAVING your property, you aren't practicing defensive drills anymore.

I had a wise CCW instructor who one time opened his course by saying:

"If you are involved in a shooting incident you will to some degree be a loser, therefore we will teach you avoidence. But if that doesn't work we will show you how to win, and we will do so in that order."

Good advise.

First, nowhere in the article did it say that the shooter took Biden's advice. Biden's advice, while stupid, was explicit in circumstances involving his own home and those circumstances where not met in this case. The issue here isn't about Biden. This is not Biden's fault.

So, we have to plan on letting the BG get into the house, and just wait there for him to come crashing through the door?

Click to expand...

Standards vary by state, but most states frown on pre-emptive use of lethal force.

I thought this was a great comment. Obviously it is a goodly bit of misdirection. From the article...

“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.

Click to expand...

I can't think of any situations in Afghanistan where soldiers came under attack where they first threatened a warning shot. "Stop planting that IED at our FOB door or you will get a warning shot!" Come on. You don't threaten warning shots in the military, in combat, and certainly not in civilian life. It makes no sense to anyone.

Kleanbore said:

And everywhere else, also, but let's make darn sure that no one believes that deadly force is permitted for the purpose of protecting property or unoccupied vehicle.

Click to expand...

But it is....here.
It is based on escalation of needed force however.
You can't just go for the kill automatically. That's true.
You pretty much have to talk to the bad guy first, then yell at him, then threaten him, etc...
That's what the law means here about what is "reasonable."
But you have no duty to let somebody walk off with your property.

......................and Alabama!!!!!!!!!http://law.onecle.com/alabama/criminal-code/13A-3-23.html

At fifteen I knew better than to fire at the drunk that frightened me by stumbling through the backyard one night. Even then, without knowing the exact statutory language, I understood you only threatened with a gun or fired a shot if there was a clear threat of death--kill or be killed--and less than that was never justified.

You have to be in a situation where the hypothetical "reasonable person" (in all probability a skeptical prosecutor or jury) would agree that you were in reasonable fear of imminent death or greivous bodily harm from a person with the ability and opportunity to put your life or limb in jeopardy right then, before you can be justified in use of lethal force. Firing a warning shot is a use of lethal force. Firing a warning shot is not a less-than-lethal use of force. Just brandishing a gun without firing must be under circumstances where shooting would be justified.

The various laws on use of force to prevent theft of property or escape of a thief with property do not necessarily justify deadly force; consult an attorney in your area on how the local police and prosecutors treat use of force.

I have known of local cases of running off home invaders with threats of shooting, and the local newspapers have had accounts of homeowners detaining burglars at gun point for arrest by responding officers (the gun being used to prevent attack on the homeowner, apparently not being used just to protect property).

Thompson is on Hannity's radio show right now. His version of the events is that Kinsella's had been a regular trouble maker and had previously broke into his neighbor's house. Kinsella has had a knife on several times. The day of the event, Kinsella was saying he was gonna whip Thompson's a** trying to get Thompson to fight. Thompson talked to him, but Kinsella wouldn't leave and continued threatening him. Thompson warned Kinsella that he was going to fire a warning shot, but waited. Kinsella continued his threats so Thompson fired the warning shot. That's when Kinsella ran so the article is wrong in that aspect. Personally I think Thompson did everything to avoid discharging the weapon. The guy was threatening him and moving back and forth in a menacing manner. I would feel threatened, too. The debate of a warning shot to me is that someone wants to show they'll use the weapon without jumping to lethal force, as long as the warning shot is done with no collateral damage. Thompson, to me, did the right thing as Kinsella was acting threatening and had been known to carry a blade.

It dismays me to see this recurring theme of "just waiting for an excuse to pull the trigger on someone"
Having read in a recent previous thread how less than 10% of people who voted in that thread think that carrying a firearm can cause someone to act in a reckless manner.
Not trying to drag up old arguments, but to me this displays a recurring disconnect on the part of the members of this community.

Being eager to shoot someone over "stuff" displays recklessness, imo.

medalguy said:

Maybe you could just ask the invader if he would go away.

Click to expand...

A week ago or so in Oregon a 911 operator advised a caller to do just that. Budget cuts and all. Here's the/a link. Oh, he kicked the door in and raped her.

http://www.redstate.com/cmndr45/2013/05/30/anatomy-of-a-rape-oregon-911-call/

Kleanbore said:

I will not try to convince you of anything about the law in Kansas. To understand it is your responsibility. You may seek advice from your own attorney.

But do not spread misunderstandings that others may assume to be true.

The use of force law that you cited is framed in two parts; one has to do with the reasonable use of force. The other applies specifically to the use of deadly force. The latter addresses confrontations involving a residence, and of an occupied automobile, and it applies when one has reason to believe that such force is necessary to defend against death or serious harm--only.

At which point, because you could have avoided the situation (i.e., because it was not immediately necessary to use deadly force), you would not be entitled to prevail in a defense of justification. That's a very basic legal principle.

Once a defender has taken action that results in the use of deadly force, he has become guilty of a crime--a serious crime.

No!

Again, consult your attorney.

And until you have done so, be very careful about waving your firearm around.

That does not mean that you can employ deadly force to defend movable, tangible property in Kansas, or in forty eight other states, or in any of the territories.

There are some exceptions in Texas, but they too seem to be widely misunderstood.

Click to expand...

Kansas has no duty to retreat even when defending property. YOU my friend are the one spreading falsehoods. That's just how it is whether you agree or not.