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

[usmarine0352_2005]

.


I guess Vice President Biden's advice on a warning shot isn't good legal advice.






http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...k&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share+Buttons

.
Military Veteran’s AR-15 Confiscated by Police – But the Reason Why Is the Real Story

May. 29, 2013 7:03pm Jason Howerton

An Oregon man has had rifle confiscated and is facing criminal charges after he attempted to stop a wanted felon from breaking into his home by firing a warning shot.

Authorities say 40-year-old Jonathon Kinsella, a wanted felon, was attempting to flee the scene when he was arrested on outstanding warrants, including for burglary and assault.

Thompson was charged with unlawful use of a weapon, menacing and reckless endangering. The veteran’s AR-15 was seized by police because they claim it was used in the commission of a crime.
.

.

 

[danez71]

Ive been waiting for someone to use the 'Biden said / recommended to fire warning shots' defense.

We'll see.

 

[Old Fuff]

Undoubtedly the Veep will show up to help the defense lawyers when the case comes up in court...

 

[StrutStopper]

I'm sure if it was 2 shots from a double barrel shotgun the outcome would have been different

 

[avs11054]

Ive been waiting for someone to use the 'Biden said / recommended tofire warning shots' defense.

We'll see.

This is the second guy that i know of. The first was shortly after Biden made that great recommendation. I think it happened in West Virginia or New Jersey. Somewhere along the east coast anyways.

 

[GLOOB]

Hmmmm. Maybe this was Biden's intent, all along.

Take your double barreled shotgun and fire two shots in the air. This alerts the neighbors, who call 911, and gives the police the location of a dangerous firearm owner in the commission of public endangerment. Now you can safely wait to be arrested. Most robbers aren't dumb enough to do the same, so you should be out of immediate danger. And that's one more dangerous firearm off our streets.

Since you have used a firearm in the commission of a crime, this trick only works once. Next time your house gets broken into, you should immediately snort some coke and yell "FIRE!"

 

[Grassman]

Here's a tip, don't take Bidens advice on ANYTHING!

 

[kwguy]

Maybe he should have just used blanks for the warning shots.

 

[lpsharp88]

Doesn't Oregon have a castle doctrine?

 

[Deaf Smith]

Biden now has a whole club of advice takers that have gone to jail.

Deaf

 

[medalguy]

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

 

[BigBore44]

The firing of a "warning" shot should only be to give notice that the next round discharged will put a second hole in the perp.

 

[Deanimator]

Here's a tip, don't take Bidens advice on ANYTHING!

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.

 

[JohnBT]

www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130529/NEWS/305290340

Let's see, the bad guy ran into some other man's yard. The resident came out and told the guy he had a gun. Bad guy started walking away from him. Man fired shot.

"Police allege Thompson was not justified in the shooting, as Kinsella never presented a direct threat to Thompson's life."

 

[foghornl]

My "Warning Shot" consists of the 'Snick!' of the fire control group being set to "operate".

 

[WoodchuckAssassin]

So how far along does a thief need to be before I can protect myself and my property?

"He's coming in through the window!"
- He was just a curious neighbor.

"He's stealing my TV and guitar!"
- He was simply admiring the items. It's a compliment.

"He has my wife at gunpoint!"
- He was...he was...hmm. Anyways, I'm sure he had his reasons.


Ridiculous.

 

[Sam1911]

Let's see, the bad guy ran into some other man's yard. The resident came out and told the guy he had a gun. Bad guy started walking away from him. Man fired shot.

"Police allege Thompson was not justified in the shooting, as Kinsella never presented a direct threat to Thompson's life."

Important things to consider in this! At no time when you are not being directly presented with a credible and immediate threat to your life should you discharge your firearm. You can't shoot to keep the guy from leaving. Or to scare him into submission, or to warn him off.

Saying you fired a warning shot simply clarifies that you did NOT feel threatened directly enough to shoot the intruder. And yet you fired the gun, which is a crime in itself (several, actually).

Castle doctrine doesn't matter. Loss of property doesn't matter rolleyes: except in TX under specific circumstances). Trespassing does not matter.

Immediate, articulable, credible threat to your life is what matters*. Anything less is not going to rise to the standard of an "affirmative defense" for discharging a firearm a) in a threatening way toward/near another person, b) in a town/city, c) without control of where that bullet might end up, etc.


(* -- And a few very specific other serious assaults like rape or arson of an occupied structure.)

 

[MedWheeler]

Regardless of what happened, the only purpose of a so-called "warning shot" should be to tell the assailant that you missed, and are about to try again if the threat remains.

 

[loose noose]

In my firearms classes I emphasize you never shoot a warning shot regardless of the circumstances, nor shoot into a crowd, a moving vehicle, a fleeing misdemeanor person, nor a fleeing felon unless of course you are a Police Officer and the fleeing felon poses a threat of near future great bodily injury, or death. In fact the only time a weapon can be discharged is if you or another person is about to meet his demise.

 

[herrwalther]

It seems to me at least that there are quiet a few facts missing from this case. And I don't trust the Blaze's reporting skills at all, since they seem a bit too tin foil hat for me. Now I know why warning shots are a no no in the military: risk of collateral damage is too high, shoot to kill instead.

 

[22-rimfire]

Guess if they used a double barrel shotgun, it would have been okay?

This recent news story about the woman in Oregon who called 911 to report that her home was being broken into... Sheriffs department/911... sorry, we don't have anyone to come to your home. You're on your own. People need to get used to the fact that we have been on our own for a long time when it comes to defending ourselves or property.

 

[Sam1911]

This recent news story about the woman in Oregon who called 911 to report that her home was being broken into... Sheriffs department/911... sorry, we don't have anyone to come to your home. You're on your own. People need to get used to the fact that we have been on our own for a long time when it comes to defending ourselves or property.

Of course we are.

That's not really at issue. What's at issue is that when you discharge a firearm (at someone, near someone, in a threatening way, in city limits, and so forth) you must have a reason that matches your state's standards for excusing that act, which is a crime otherwise. Generally speaking your life has to be in IMMEDIATE danger if you don't stop that person from harming you RIGHT NOW. Firing a warning shot fails that test in every way.

(Oh, and protecting your property does not rise to that standard, either. Not in TN, not in PA, not in any state except TX, and then under very specific circumstances.)

 

[lpsharp88]

Important things to consider in this! At no time when you are not being directly presented with a credible and immediate threat to your life should you discharge your firearm. You can't shoot to keep the guy from leaving. Or to scare him into submission, or to warn him off.

Saying you fired a warning shot simply clarifies that you did NOT feel threatened directly enough to shoot the intruder. And yet you fired the gun, which is a crime in itself (several, actually).

Castle doctrine doesn't matter. Loss of property doesn't matter rolleyes: except in TX under specific circumstances). Trespassing does not matter.

Immediate, articulable, credible threat to your life is what matters*. Anything less is not going to rise to the standard of an "affirmative defense" for discharging a firearm a) in a threatening way toward/near another person, b) in a town/city, c) without control of where that bullet might end up, etc.


(* -- And a few very specific other serious assaults like rape or arson of an occupied structure.)

So if the shot would not have been a warning shot, but rather a shot meant to hit the person breaking in, everything would have been ok?

 

[Sam1911]

Well, that's impossible to say for sure. If the guy DIDN'T need to shoot to defend his life, then he DIDN'T NEED TO SHOOT. Shooting the intruder as he was leaving wouldn't have put the "defender" in any better stead than firing the warning shot, to be sure.

Now, there could be instances where this gets quite grey, but if you say, "I fired a warning shot" you're basically opening yourself up to immediate charges against you. You've just admitted, "I shot my gun to threaten him, but didn't feel my life was in immediate danger yet."

Certainly if the comment that the intruder had already turned and started to leave is at all true, the defender never should have even touched the trigger.

 

[SabbathWolf]

Of course we are.

That's not really at issue. What's at issue is that when you discharge a firearm (at someone, near someone, in a threatening way, in city limits, and so forth) you must have a reason that matches your state's standards for excusing that act, which is a crime otherwise. Generally speaking your life has to be in IMMEDIATE danger if you don't stop that person from harming you RIGHT NOW. Firing a warning shot fails that test in every way.

(Oh, and protecting your property does not rise to that standard, either. Not in TN, not in PA, not in any state except TX, and then under very specific circumstances.)

Not just Texas...
We can protect ourselves, our homes, our vehicles and our property here in Kansas too.
It "used to be" that you could still get in trouble for firing a shot within city limits even if you were lawfully defending any of the above.
However, our governor just did away with that BS too a few months back.
We can threaten to shoot, shoot a warning shot, or actually shoot the perp here if truly needed.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=713319&highlight=kansas

21-3211: Use of force in defense of a person; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.

(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person.



21-3212: Use of force in defense of dwelling; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon such person's dwelling or occupied vehicle.
(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force to prevent or terminate unlawful entry into or attack upon any dwelling or occupied vehicle if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or another.

(c) 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.



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.