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

Status
Not open for further replies.
My belongings are insured. They are not worth hurting anyone over.
My pride will heal. My righteous indignation is not worth hurting anyone over.

I have killed men who had the misfortune of following someone with whom our politicians simply could not agree. I will never really forget the sights, smells, and feelings associated with witnessing the life go out of peoples' bodies. I don't want to go through that again. I don't want my kids to ever see that.

Your THINGS are just THINGS. Your PRIDE is not the same thing as HONOR. Men should know the difference. The gun is for protecting yourself and your family... not to intimidate, not to punish,not to express your anger or make you feel manly or righteous or in control.

Don't be in a hurry to point that thing or make noise with it. If you get it wrong, it's a thing you can never take back and make right.
 
Kansas has no duty to retreat even when defending property.
A "duty to retreat" is not the same thing as saying you will be justified if you make a discretionary choice to shoot someone.

"Stand your ground" laws don't give you latitude to make a choice to fight/shoot/kill someone if you had the reasonable ability to escape from a bad situation. They simply remove the requirement to PROVE you couldn't get away. They reduces the burden of proof on the defender as they establish their claim of self-defense.

But such things are rebuttable. If your testimony or the evidence presented says that you had some reasonable option and you CHOSE to do battle and shoot/kill someone when you didn't have to, the prosecution can still refute your claim of necessity.
 
SabbathWolf said:
Kansas has no duty to retreat even when defending property....
Cite the law -- both statutory and any applicable case law applying it. As a lawyer, it's my impression from your posts here thus far that you really don't understand the law and how it works. This is an opportunity to show that my impression is not correct, but you must do so by proper citation or applicable legal authority.
 
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.

^^Yup.

The gun is for protecting yourself and your family... not to intimidate, not to punish,not to express your anger or make you feel manly or righteous or in control.

Don't be in a hurry to point that thing or make noise with it. If you get it wrong, it's a thing you can never take back and make right.

^^Yup.
 
My belongings are insured. They are not worth hurting anyone over.
My pride will heal. My righteous indignation is not worth hurting anyone over.

I have killed men who had the misfortune of following someone with whom our politicians simply could not agree. I will never really forget the sights, smells, and feelings associated with witnessing the life go out of peoples' bodies. I don't want to go through that again. I don't want my kids to ever see that.

Your THINGS are just THINGS. Your PRIDE is not the same thing as HONOR. Men should know the difference. The gun is for protecting yourself and your family... not to intimidate, not to punish,not to express your anger or make you feel manly or righteous or in control.

Don't be in a hurry to point that thing or make noise with it. If you get it wrong, it's a thing you can never take back and make right.
__________________
In extraordinary sincerity,

T.S.

Read.........Then read again. This is what it is all about. Used properly your brain is your best weapon.
 
My belongings are insured. They are not worth hurting anyone over.
My pride will heal. My righteous indignation is not worth hurting anyone over.

I have killed men who had the misfortune of following someone with whom our politicians simply could not agree. I will never really forget the sights, smells, and feelings associated with witnessing the life go out of peoples' bodies. I don't want to go through that again. I don't want my kids to ever see that.

Your THINGS are just THINGS. Your PRIDE is not the same thing as HONOR. Men should know the difference. The gun is for protecting yourself and your family... not to intimidate, not to punish,not to express your anger or make you feel manly or righteous or in control.

Don't be in a hurry to point that thing or make noise with it. If you get it wrong, it's a thing you can never take back and make right.

I'll even go a step further. If you don't understand what Texan Scott stated so clearly, then you just might want to re-think carrying a gun at all.
 
Posted by SabbathWolf: 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.

If you are referring to the words "Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person's dwelling or occupied vehicle", you are stretching the meaning beyond the law.

But I spoke not of a duty to retreat. Do not confuse assume the legal obviation of a duty to retreat with permitting a citizen to initiate a lethal confrontation. Do not conclude that the law permits the use of deadly force to defend movable, tangible property where you live, or in the vast majority of jurisdictions.

And do not mislead others here

Whether or not I agree is not the issue. Consult an attorney.
 
I haven't posted here in so long I had to have my username and password emailed to me to log on and post this. I went through the trouble to ask SabbathWolf to reread the law text or consult an attorney. Your misunderstanding may cost you your freedom. And to ask other readers to refer to Sam1911 and Kleanbore posts for solid understanding . This is SERIOUS talk to be spewing misinformation....Thanks
 
Duty to Retreat

The subject of a duty to retreat comes up in discussion from time to time. Many people seem to think that the legal imposition of a duty to retreat is a recent historical development. Still others look for it or for absence of its mention in state legal codes (the "black law") and base their beliefs on what they see or do not see there.

History first: the duty to retreat was age old, going back at least to the era of the English Common Law. The principle was that a man was obligated to "retreat to the wall" before he would be excused for harming another person by using deadly force. This was a product of the age of contact weapons.

More history: all of our states except one adopted the Common Law as it existed at the time that statehood went into effect. The Common Law, though age old, does change over time, through rulings made by judges in appellate (not trial) courts. In fact, the Common Law was the product of learned judges, and not that of elected legislatures or kings or noblemen.

Note that the duty to retreat requires a person to retreat if and only if he or she reasonably believes that retreat is in fact safely possible.

In some states, court rulings have eliminated the duty to retreat. In others, such as Kansas and Texas, to name two examples, state legislatures have eliminated the need for a citizen to provide evidence that he or she had attempted retreat or had been unable to retreat safely.

One cannot rely on the reading of state codes to establish whether a duty to retreat exists unless the legislature of the state in question has enacted something on the subject.

Nor should one ever assume that legal provisions eliminating the duty to retreat give a defender rights they did not have before to provoke another person, or to excuse (we now say justify) the use of force, deadly or otherwise, after having done so.

Given the ability to retreat safely, it remains a very good tactic to do so if possible, and having done so can be very useful indeed in a defense of justification, even where the duty is no longer embodied in the law.

I hope this helps.
 
Firing a shot that might endanger an innocent person is just stupid.
Unfortunately, I've encountered more than a couple of people who disagree completely.

They seem to have a FAR greater desire to avoid shooting a wouldbe assailant than they do to avoid being shot or to avoid accidentally shooting a totally uninvolved bystander.

Once you put me in immediate and credible fear of life and limb, your physical wellbeing ceases to be a consideration at all. It remains of no consequence until the threat you VOLUNTARILY present is neutralized.

I'm NEVER going to endanger myself or uninvolved third parties in order to protect an assailant from the consequences of his own unlawful actions. If necessary, I will shoot him (or them) until they are no longer a threat. Depending upon the circumstances, they may get no warning at all. Being a home invader, armed robber, carjacker, etc. is dangerous. If someone is unwilling to assume the risks attendant with pursuing those "professions", they should seriously consider finding something else to do with their time.

When your life is in immediate and credible danger of the use of unlawful deadly force, you should respond with deadly force, without hesitation or equivocation. If your life is NOT in immediate and credible danger from unlawful use of deadly force, there is no REASON for you to employ deadly force. Hence, neither warning shots nor "shooting to wound" are EVER justified.

If there's a real threat, neutralize it.

If there's NOT a real threat, don't shoot AT ALL.
 
If there's a real threat, neutralize it.

If there's NOT a real threat, don't shoot AT ALL.

While I agree with this about 99%, it should be pointed out that warning shots can be done safely in certain circumstances, have been done safely in certain circumstances, have been used successfully in lots of situations, and there are some people would prefer to do them if at all possible. With that said, in many situations such as this one, they apparently are not done safely or under the proper circumstances by many people. There are people who have been injured by warning shots, and some killed, and they were NOT the person or of the group being warned. There have been at least one, I can recall, being warned that was killed (New Bohemians musician, shooter not charged).

I can also see where firing a shot in response to a potential bad guy such that when you need to fire, you can't shoot at the actual bad guy because such a shot would definitely pose a danger to others. That may be a time when a warning shot is more prudent. I would never rule out such shooting as a potential option, even if it is an extremely remote option.

Some people do operate under the mantra that it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 and for that, they do sometimes get busted for a potential transgression of the law. Sometimes they beat it and sometimes they don't. Certainly the circumstances were dubious enough at the time to warrant an arrest, be that for warning shots or shooting in conditions of questionable self defense. Thompson may beat this charge. Maybe when he shot into the ground by Kinsella, Kinsella was actively trying to break in to the home. He could genuinely express being in fear for his life. The state laws do not state that useful of lethal force when in fear for your life must me strike the offender.

Maybe Kinsella was on the move AWAY from the door as claimed by the cops and the shot it out in the middle of the yard. If so, then maybe Thompson doesn't beat the wrap. Without the information, it would be hard to know for certain whose claims are most justified in this case. However, I did see where the claim was made that Thompson said he shot near Kinsella.


36 year-old Corey Thompson told NewsWatch 12, he shot a warning shot at Kinsella because he was trying to break in through his back door.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/u...elon-police-confiscate-his-gun/#ixzz2UzRwwdsy

So if he shot a warning shot into the ground AT Kinsella, that shot will be near where Kinsella was at the time of the shooting. After all, Thompson is a Afghanistan combat veteran who has experience firing under stress and if his statements are accurate, placed his shot specifically.
 
Posted by Double Naught Spy: ...it should be pointed out that warning shots can be done safely in certain circumstances, have been done safely in certain circumstances, have been used successfully in lots of situations, and there are some people would prefer to do them if at all possible.
All true, but the question than becomes one of whether a warning shot would be lawfully justified if a shot at the treat were not reasonably believed to be immediately necessary.
 
Cite the law -- both statutory and any applicable case law applying it. As a lawyer, it's my impression from your posts here thus far that you really don't understand the law and how it works. This is an opportunity to show that my impression is not correct, but you must do so by proper citation or applicable legal authority.
Honestly, I don't care if you are a lawyer or not Frank. You could be a divorce lawyer, and you live in California? The difference between "use of force" and use of "deadly force" is pretty much the same thing here in Kansas.

http://www.kslegislature.org/li_201..._article/021_052_0021_section/021_052_0021_k/

(1) "Use of force" means any or all of the following directed at or upon another person or thing: (A) Words or actions that reasonably convey the threat of force, including threats to cause death or great bodily harm to a person; (B) the presentation or display of the means of force; or (C) the application of physical force, including by a weapon or through the actions of another.

(2) "Use of deadly force" means the application of any physical force described in paragraph (1) which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to a person. Any threat to cause death or great bodily harm, including, but not limited to, by the display or production of a weapon, shall not constitute use of deadly force, so long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that the actor will, if necessary, use deadly force in defense of such actor or another or to affect a lawful arrest.

*************************************************************


http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_21/Article_32/21-3213.html

Statute 21-3213: Use of force in defense of property other than a dwelling. A person who is lawfully in possession of property other than a dwelling is justified in the threat or use of force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with such property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof as a reasonable man would deem necessary to prevent or terminate the interference may intentionally be used.

***************************************************************

So there you have it.
"Use of Force" is justified in defense of property here.
And...."Use of Force" also includes using a weapon.
In this case, there is no distinction between force and deadly force.
I don't know how many other ways I can keep saying the same thing.
You and the other Mods seem to think I'm crazy.....lol...but I do know the laws here where "I" live.
I wouldn't presume to preach to you about California law.
Return the favor please.
Are these "proper citations" good enough?
;)
 
Last edited:
While I agree with this about 99%, it should be pointed out that warning shots can be done safely in certain circumstances, have been done safely in certain circumstances, have been used successfully in lots of situations, and there are some people would prefer to do them if at all possible.
I cannot imagine such a situation in which I would ever find myself, either at home or in public.

Any situation in which a warning shot is going to allegedly be "justified" is going to be a situation in which shooting to stop the threat would be MORE justified. That being the case, why should I incur risk to MYSELF to REDUCE risk to a violent assailant? And that's what it almost invariably comes down to. Are you willing to risk death or great bodily harm to yourself in order to reduce risk of same to a violent assailant? My answer always has been, is now, and always will be "NO".
 
SabbathWolf said:
...So there you have it.
"Use of Force" is justified in defense of property here.
And...."Use of Force" also includes using a weapon.
In this case, there is no distinction between force and deadly force.
I don't know how many other ways I can keep saying the same thing.
You and the other Mods seem to think I'm crazy.....lol...but I do know the laws here where "I" live.
I wouldn't presume to preach to you about California law.
Return the favor please.
Are these "proper citations" good enough?...
Actually, you've just proved my point that you don't understand the law.

Firing a gun will be considered deadly force. Firing a gun is "...the application of any physical force described in paragraph (1) which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to a person...." The statute specifically excepts display of a gun from the definition of deadly force, not the actual firing of the gun.

Furthermore, the matter at issue is the duty to retreat, not the distinction between "force" and "deadly force." See post 54:
Frank Ettin said:
SabbathWolf said:
Kansas has no duty to retreat even when defending property....
Cite the law -- both statutory and any applicable case law applying it. As a lawyer, it's my impression from your posts here thus far that you really don't understand the law and how it works. This is an opportunity to show that my impression is not correct, but you must do so by proper citation or applicable legal authority.
So you didn't even answer the question asked.
 
I agree with 98% of what Texan Scott said except "The gun is for protecting yourself and your family... not to intimidate" You bet I carry a gun to intimidate as a means of protecting me and mine without having to shoot someone. If intimidation doesn't work the final step is shooting them.
LL
 
That's totally wrong Frank.
I'm afraid it's you that doesn't understand.
And a few dead cattle rustlers around here have proved it to me.
The owners did NOT go to jail.

As described under "Use of Force".....the application of force via a weapon is legal.
The only difference is that threats and such does "not" constitute Deadly Force.
Read all that again please.
 
SabbathWolf, there may be no nice way to put this, but you are terribly wrong when you attempt to argue that the fact that force may lawfully be used to prevent or terminate unlawful interference with property means that deadly force may also be so used.

Nor are you anywhere near correct when you say that there is no distinction between deadly force--force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, and force--physical force, simply because physical force may also involve a weapon.

You are correct in citing the words "such as a reasonable man would deem necessary". And there's the rub: the use of deadly force to defend property other than a dwelling or occupied automobile would not be judged necessary by a reasonable man. Let me restate that: it is not judged reasonable. People have been charged and convicted for using deadly force to defend property in Kansas.

You will not find that in the statute. It isn't there. You see, Kansas law is based on the common law except where the legilature has enacted laws to the contrary. The common law does not permit the use of deadly force to defend poperty, nor has the Kansas legislature decided otherwise.

That's the way the law works. And that's why a layman's reading of the black law is not something on which to rely. One has to know the common law--the longstanding precedent and the most recent relevant appellate decisions. It is also a good idea to know the jury instructions.

So no, you do not understand the law in Kansas, and no, your citations are not "good enough". Nor can they be. You are trying to substantiate something that simply is not true.

Your trying to argue the point wrongly and without proper foundation does not serve our cause. Other members are advised to disregard such irresponsible arguments, and you, SabbathWolf, are again advised to consult an attorney.
 
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
.

They even tell you that, "Anything you say can and will be used against you..."
 
"They even tell you that, "Anything you say can and will be used against you..." "

They might actually say that, but only after they decide to arrest you. Do you want to be arrested? You do? Then don't talk to the police and certainly don't tell them you were the victim and the basics of the situation.
 
SabbathWolf, there may be no nice way to put this, but you are terribly wrong when you attempt to argue that the fact that force may lawfully be used to prevent or terminate unlawful interference with property means that deadly force may also be so used.

Nor are you anywhere near correct when you say that there is no distinction between deadly force--force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, and force--physical force, simply because physical force may also involve a weapon.

You are correct in citing the words "such as a reasonable man would deem necessary". And there's the rub: the use of deadly force to defend property other than a dwelling or occupied automobile would not be judged necessary by a reasonable man. Let me restate that: it is not judged reasonable. People have been charged and convicted for using deadly force to defend property in Kansas.

You will not find that in the statute. It isn't there. You see, Kansas law is based on the common law except where the legilature has enacted laws to the contrary. The common law does not permit the use of deadly force to defend poperty, nor has the Kansas legislature decided otherwise.

That's the way the law works. And that's why a layman's reading of the black law is not something on which to rely. One has to know the common law--the longstanding precedent and the most recent relevant appellate decisions. It is also a good idea to know the jury instructions.

So no, you do not understand the law in Kansas, and no, your citations are not "good enough". Nor can they be. You are trying to substantiate something that simply is not true.

Your trying to argue the point wrongly and without proper foundation does not serve our cause. Other members are advised to disregard such irresponsible arguments, and you, SabbathWolf, are again advised to consult an attorney.
You guys are so off base in regards to the laws "here," that it isn't even funny.
How they are other places.....I have no idea and don't really care.

The use of Deadly Force is already described under Use of Force and included as part of it.
Use of Force "includes" the use of a weapon and deadly force if needed.

Deadly Force alone however, does not include making threats.
Yet Deadly Force sites Use of Force as it's foundation.
They both include the actual application of using a weapon.
It's the same exact thing minus making threats first.

Why this is so complicated for you guys to comprehend...I just have no idea.
Either way, I'm tired of arguing with people who just don't get it and never will.
I think I'll go mow the grass.
:D
 
All true, but the question than becomes one of whether a warning shot would be lawfully justified if a shot at the treat were not reasonably believed to be immediately necessary.

It has been a few years since I researched this, but I don't expect the laws to have changed. At the time, I could not find any states where warning shots were legal outside of circumstances justifying the use of lethal force. Maybe somebody knows better or has some obscure law reference, but I never found any.

So for like Texas, you could fire a warning shot at a person breaking into your shed in the middle of the night because under Texas law you could shoot them under the same circumstances, or you could shot for a person attempting to break into your home where you can voice being in fear for your life. You could not fire a warning shot at a person trying to break into the soda machine at the gas station during the day (assuming the gas station wasn't yours) or at a person verbally harassing you as neither of those situations would justify use of lethal force.

So if by your comment, Kleanbore, you mean to imply that Thompson knowingly shot in a situation where a shot to the threat wasn't immediately necessary (probably the only legal justification for use of lethal force in that locality), then I would believe that Thompson's arrest to be fully appropriate and that he isn't likely to have a successful legal defense that will find him innocent of the charges.
 
Last edited:
Sabbethwolf is pretty much alone in his opinion that one can use deadly force purely to protect property.

More importantly, the Law doesn't go into effect until July first, it's not in effect yet. And all of it's ramifications have not yet been adjudicated, meaning who ever tries it will be in court for a long, long time. If not in jail for misunderstanding the laws meaning.

When I talked to one of the legislators who was working on this bill, nothing about defending property was discussed, and I find it unlikely that the intention is to make shooting car thieves or cattle rustlers justified.

I have some idea what it was suppose to be about, but not being a lawyer, decline to speculate.

I really, really suggest that SabbethWolf get some real good legal advice before he or anyone else, attempts to shoot a suspected thief.

Believe me, I do sympathize with shooting thieves caught in the act, but there are real moral and legal problems doing so.
 
Last edited:
"They even tell you that, "Anything you say can and will be used against you..." "

They might actually say that, but only after they decide to arrest you. Do you want to be arrested? You do? Then don't talk to the police and certainly don't tell them you were the victim and the basics of the situation.

Are you asking me, am I "you"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top