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

[Guest TankerHC]

"However, police later determined he wasn’t justified in firing his weapon. Medford Police Lt. Mike Budreau said “there was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting.”"

 

So a convicted wanted Felon is breaking in your back door (In Oregon) and that does not justify firing a warning shot? The Convicted Felon was NOT being aggressive.

 

Thompson (THE VICTIM) 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.

 

 

Another State I need to avoid.

 

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/29/police-confiscate-vets-rifle-charge-him-because-he-fired-warning-shot-at-wanted-felon-trying-to-break-into-his-home/

 

 

 

 

 

[Murgatroy]

This is just anther reason why I don't believe in warning shots.

[xjsnake]

Joe Biden defense of a sort?

[KKing]

Joe Biden defense of a sort?

My exact thought. Not that a veteran would use the advice of Uncle Joe. Not being aggressive? Holy crap

[TNMTBik3r]

I would say unbelievable, but... this type of crap is too common nowdays. A wanted felon breaking into your house is not aggression? I agree with some of the comments, warning shot should have been aimed higher (report said he fired into the ground).

[173rdABN]

Two warning shots to the chest shoulda done the job.

[RichardR]

So he fended off a burglar, only to be robbed by the Medford police?

It is starting to get difficult determining the difference between the good guys & bad guys these days. Edited May 30, 2013 by RichardR

[RobertNashville]

"Warning shots" are for TV and movies.

 

Oregon is becoming a place for whimps and idiots. That aside, I'm not so sure that this veteran would have been treated any differently in Tennessee.

 

if you are justified in giving a "warning shot" then you are justified in shooting to stop the threat; if the threat hasn't reached the point where deadly force is justified then neither is a warning shot. The fact that he gave a warning shot indicates to me this veteran perhaps wasn't sure that this bugler was enough of a threat to justify deadly force and if the veteran who was there wasn't sure then why would the police be???

 

For discussion: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-columns/its-just-the-law/warning-shots/

Edited May 30, 2013 by RobertNashville

[c.a.willard]

I still don't think he should have been charged with a crime for it though.  The person was obviously making an attempt to illegally enter his home and apparently ignored verbal warnings that he was armed and willing to defend himself.  I think this vet made a conscious decision to use the weapon as a deterrent without having to take the life of the felon.  He may have been wrong by the absolute letter of the law, however that law wasn't written for these types of situations.

[Guest PapaB]

You can give a warning shout but warning shots are usually a bad idea.

 

The entire left coast of this country is filled with marshmallow brained idiots. I don't know why conservatives don't abandon the area for life in the real world.

[DaveS]

I think the warning shot by the homeowner was in hopes the moron would change his mind about wanting to come in so he didn't have to shoot him. So that stupid law in itself leads me to believe that a homeowner should allow the bad guy to "come on in" and then end the POSs miserable life! 

 

One "warning shot" fired to the center of the Xiphoid Process would be what he got from me!

 

Dave

[Defender]

"Warning shots" are for TV and movies.

 

Oregon is becoming a place for whimps and idiots. That aside, I'm not so sure that this veteran would have been treated any differently in Tennessee.

 

if you are justified in giving a "warning shot" then you are justified in shooting to stop the threat; if the threat hasn't reached the point where deadly force is justified then neither is a warning shot. The fact that he gave a warning shot indicates to me this veteran perhaps wasn't sure that this bugler was enough of a threat to justify deadly force and if the veteran who was there wasn't sure then why would the police be???

 

For discussion: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-columns/its-just-the-law/warning-shots/

 

I agree with you, but I wouldn't have charged the homeowner with anything, nor taken his gun.  

[RobertNashville]

I agree with you, but I wouldn't have charged the homeowner with anything, nor taken his gun.  

I agree that I don't think he should have been charged but I'm not terribly surprised that he was.

 

http://www.commonsensefororegon.com/measures/oregon-castle-doctrine/

 

From the link above:

 

Currently in Oregon, a homeowner is only allowed to use deadly force against an intruder if the intruder posed an “imminent deadly threat” to either the homeowner or the homeowner’s family. This means that Oregon law forces a homeowner to choose between protecting him/herself and/or the homeowner’s family, and deciding whether an intruder poses an imminent deadly threat. No homeowner should be forced into making such a decision. The Oregon Castle Doctrine makes it clear that you have a right to protect your home.

 

As with all SD shootings, you run the risk of being charged (and if charged your weapon will almost certainly be confiscated) unless it's absolutely and abundantly clear of precisely when a potential threat crossed the line and became an "imminent deadly threat".

 

I hope a jury sees the facts and finds him not guilty.

Edited May 30, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest zort]

ignorance of the law is no excuse. he would have been charged in tn also. that being said i hope he gets off.

[bigwakes]

At the point the guy was breaking in he was damaging property. No risk of life or serious bodily injury occurred until the door or window was breeched by the intruder. No mention of the BG having a gun, so I tend to agree. Not justified in pulling the trigger.

Tough call for the good guy and tough call for the cops too.

[Worriedman]

At the point the guy was breaking in he was damaging property. No risk of life or serious bodily injury occurred until the door or window was breeched by the intruder. No mention of the BG having a gun, so I tend to agree. Not justified in pulling the trigger.

Tough call for the good guy and tough call for the cops too.

I don't think that is how it works in TN.  How then did the guy in the wheelchair in Clarksville or close to Memphis, can't remember which, get by with shooting the Officer through the door?  Or do I dis-remember the facts of that occurrence?

Edited June 2, 2013 by Worriedman

[vontar]

http://www.commonsensefororegon.com/measures/oregon-castle-doctrine/

 

 

Read the 3rd Paragraph.  Hell, read it all only 4 paragraphs. 

[East_TN_Patriot]

"Warning shots" are for TV and movies.
 
Oregon is becoming a place for whimps and idiots. That aside, I'm not so sure that this veteran would have been treated any differently in Tennessee.
 
if you are justified in giving a "warning shot" then you are justified in shooting to stop the threat; if the threat hasn't reached the point where deadly force is justified then neither is a warning shot. The fact that he gave a warning shot indicates to me this veteran perhaps wasn't sure that this bugler was enough of a threat to justify deadly force and if the veteran who was there wasn't sure then why would the police be???
 
For discussion: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-columns/its-just-the-law/warning-shots/

This speaks directly to my point in the thread discussing whether one can use deadly force to prevent a simple assault. Just cuz you want the law to allow you to use your weapon in a certain way doesn't make it legal, so don't be surprised if you end up in court for using your firearm outside the scope of the law.

[willis68]

At the point the guy was breaking in he was damaging property. No risk of life or serious bodily injury occurred until the door or window was breeched by the intruder. No mention of the BG having a gun, so I tend to agree. Not justified in pulling the trigger.
Tough call for the good guy and tough call for the cops too.

I disagree with you, if some one is attempting to break in your home, what do you think they will do? I have never heard of a wanted Felon just breaking a door down or picking a lock and then turning around and leave after he has opened it. At the point when a criminal tries to enter another persons home, they instantly give up their rights as a citizen and should be treated like the criminals that they are, I think the police need to use some friggin common sense, this is retarded Edited June 2, 2013 by willis68

[KKing]

At the point the guy was breaking in he was damaging property. No risk of life or serious bodily injury occurred until the door or window was breeched by the intruder. No mention of the BG having a gun, so I tend to agree. Not justified in pulling the trigger.

Tough call for the good guy and tough call for the cops too.

I disagree with you, if some one is attempting to break in your home, what do you think they will do? I have never heard of a wanted Felon just breaking a door down or picking a lock and then turning around and leave after he has opened it. At the point when a criminal tries to enter another persons home, they instantly give up their rights as a citizen and should be treated like the criminals that they are, I think the police need to use some friggin common sense, this is retarded

While I agree with you to a point, please don't use that line of thinking of someone attempts to enter your home, you'll find yourself on the wrong side of the law. We can believe and wish what we want, but it doesn't change the way the laws are written. In TN he would have suffered exactly the same fate I believe.

I personally believe that anyone breaking in a home deserves what they get, but I can't act on that feeling should I be in that situation.

For those of you using the argument that the criminal was a felon (playing devil's advocate)...
How did you know he was a felon since some of you are using that as the basis of your justification? That info would only be released after the fact (not that it has any bearing on the outcome of the homeowner being charged or not)

Remember, I think our laws on defending personal property suck Edited June 2, 2013 by KKing

[willis68]

While I agree with you to a point, please don't use that line of thinking of someone attempts to enter your home, you'll find yourself on the wrong side of the law. We can believe and wish what we want, but it doesn't change the way the laws are written. In TN he would have suffered exactly the same fate I believe.

I personally believe that anyone breaking in a home deserves what they get, but I can't act on that feeling should I be in that situation.

For those of you using the argument that the criminal was a felon (playing devil's advocate)...
How did you know he was a felon since some of you are using that as the basis of your justification? That info would only be released after the fact (not that it has any bearing on the outcome of the homeowner being charged or not)

Remember, I think our laws on defending personal property suck

In all honestly it is very unlikely that I will ever be in this situation. My Dogs keep strangers from approaching my home and damn sure wont let anyone close enough to attempt a break in. Having said this when it comes to protecting my family I will do whatever I need to and if that ever means me going to jail for it, then so be it I will sleep peacefully knowing that I kept them safe

[Troutburger]

Isn't that exactly how the vp said we should defend ourselves? By firing 2 blasts...

[Paladin132]

This speaks directly to my point in the thread discussing whether one can use deadly force to prevent a simple assault. Just cuz you want the law to allow you to use your weapon in a certain way doesn't make it legal, so don't be surprised if you end up in court for using your firearm outside the scope of the law.

 

For that matter you better prepare yourself to go to court even within the scope of the law if a firearm is present while you are caught jaywalking in today's atmosphere.

[Guest Emtdaddy1980]

Sounds like a good argument for a triple tap and a drop weapon to be placed next to the perp prior to LE being called.

[RobertNashville]

In all honestly it is very unlikely that I will ever be in this situation. My Dogs keep strangers from approaching my home and damn sure wont let anyone close enough to attempt a break in. Having said this when it comes to protecting my family I will do whatever I need to and if that ever means me going to jail for it, then so be it I will sleep peacefully knowing that I kept them safe

You certainly can do "whatever it takes" to protect your family; just be prepared for the consequences (also understand that different states have different standards).

 

Even with the different standards, in most states, before you can legally use deadly force, there must be an "imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury". Based on both the articles and the "warning shot" I think it's at least reasonable to conclude that the threat hadn't reached that plateau yet and it if hadn't, then it should be easy to understand why the "victim" is now the one facing a criminal charge.