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

[Rightwinger]

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.

But he's being tried in Oregon as well.  Finding 7 or more conservative thinkers on a panel of 12 (available to be jurors) in Oregon is like finding 7 ice cubes in the middle of the Sahara. 

 

On that note, I believe there need to be few excuses allowed to get out of jury duty.  The pools are being filled with more folks that are more "available" than with those that have a different mindset more like mine (ours in general at TGO). 

[RobertNashville]

But he's being tried in Oregon as well.  Finding 7 or more conservative thinkers on a panel of 12 (available to be jurors) in Oregon is like finding 7 ice cubes in the middle of the Sahara. 
 
On that note, I believe there need to be few excuses allowed to get out of jury duty.  The pools are being filled with more folks that are more "available" than with those that have a different mindset more like mine (ours in general at TGO).

I would hope and I would suggest that our entire justice system rests on people on a jury being fair...looking at the evidence presented and making a judgment. It's not "easy" to be found guilty of a crime; especially a serious one so if 12 people truly believe this man is guilty I suspect he probably is; not because his jury wasn't stacked with 12 conservatives. I know that when I've been on a jury I wasn't making my decision based on being a "conservative"; I don't see why we should assume liberals are really that different in that regard.

I think it also worth pointing out that if one is concerned about the philosophical leanings of a potential jury (should be ever be charged with a crime) then we should be considering that when we chose where to live...one of the reasons I'm in Tennessee (been here since '96) is because Tennessee is more inline with my personal principles and beliefs and how I view life. ;)

[Worriedman]

http://www.kctv5.com/story/22407866/shots-fired-during-home-invasion-1-person-possibly-shot

 

Kansas City Police say the lady that shot through the door to stop a break-in "acted appropriately".  Guess it makes a big difference where you live.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Worriedman

[Lumber_Jack]

http://www.kctv5.com/story/22407866/shots-fired-during-home-invasion-1-person-possibly-shot

Kansas City Police say the lady that shot through the door to stop a break-in "acted appropriately". Guess it makes a big difference where you live.

A couple years ago and elderly Knoxville man shot an intruder through his back door. They found him dead in the ditch in front of the house. The 2nd perp fled. He was not charged then either.

Notice!!! If you try to break in my house, I'm not waiting for you to succeed, and the shots won't be warnings

[RED333]

Ammo costs to much to fire a warning shot.

The mistake was letting the bad guy leave.

[RobertNashville]

Does what happened in Tennessee or Kansas City really matter here? Not only does every state have different laws but every single prosecutor's opinions/bias/education/community standards and a host of other things also come into play too.  :shrug:

 

I suspect in Texas this would have been a complete non-issue; you can kill people to protect property, sometimes even when it isn't your property and the thugs are running away (but I sure wouldn't try that in TN or most any other state for that matter). ;)

[Worriedman]

Does what happened in Tennessee or Kansas City really matter here? Not only does every state have different laws but every single prosecutor's opinions/bias/education/community standards and a host of other things also come into play too.  :shrug:

 

 

Not trying to be argumentative here, rather trying to understand what I have been told by attorneys and prosecutors here in TN.  I thought I understood that TCA 39-11-611, by statute, gave a non criminal who was where they had a "right to be" and not involved in criminal activity in specified locations, a presumption that anyone who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred may assume to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest. 

The continued insistence that one must be in the grip of a perpetrator, with a shiv in the ribs prior to being justified in TN "before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force." is factually inaccurate, or do I not get the gist of the law as written?   As these are State statues, would they not preempt any "opinions/bias/education/community standards" should one appeal any conviction from a lower court level to one at the State?

 

 

 

 

[RobertNashville]

Not trying to be argumentative here, rather trying to understand what I have been told by attorneys and prosecutors here in TN.  I thought I understood that TCA 39-11-611, by statute, gave a non criminal who was where they had a "right to be" and not involved in criminal activity in specified locations, a presumption that anyone who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred may assume to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest. 

The continued insistence that one must be in the grip of a perpetrator, with a shiv in the ribs prior to being justified in TN "before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force." is factually inaccurate, or do I not get the gist of the law as written?   As these are State statues, would they not preempt any "opinions/bias/education/community standards" should one appeal any conviction from a lower court level to one at the State?

I don't believe one must be in the grip of a perpetrator but as I understand our law, you must reasonably be in fear of imminent death or great bodily injury; the standard of the "reasonable man" comes into play.  As I look at what I know about this incident I just don't see the "imminent fear" necessary; the fact that the former Marine chose to fire a warning shot seems to make that conclusion even more clear for me.

 

There is a "presumption" here in TN however, even that only goes "so far"...someone you don't know standing in your hallway at 3AM is likely fair game to dispatch him to the afterlife; that same person standing in your hallway at 3PM...maybe not so much as any number of other possibilities come into play (was he wearing a tool belt - maybe he is the plumber your wife hired and forget to tell you was going to be there today, etc.) Going to back to 3AM; what if this stranger is a young man your 16 year old daughter had sneaked into the house? While you may still be deemed justified in using deadly force I would sure hate to have to explain that to either my daughter OR the authorities when they show up.

 

I heard this morning in a report that the former Marine in question went outside after the thug and then fired his warning shot (I'm not sure if that's really new information or not but it was new to me).  What that tells me is that this guy was likely in the process of leaving or at the very least, certainly was no longer actively trying to break into the house.  Under those conditions I suspect that even under Tennessee law the Marine at least could be charged.

 

I really do hope this Marine is either found not guilty or that the charge is just dropped but I can't say, based on what we do know about this incident, that him being charged is unreasonable or surprising.

Edited June 3, 2013 by RobertNashville

[bigwakes]

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?

The difference is the guy in the wheelchair is assumed to be "in fear of his life." The problem with a warning shot is you must not be "in fear of eminent death or serious bodily injury" if you don't aim at center mass.

Let's say a neighbor that I really don't like is walking his dog across my lawn and letting his dog take a crap on my walkway. Do I have the right to scare him and his dog away with a firing a shot? I think we would all say no.

Lets take it a step further. What if a person is throwing rocks at my car. Can I scare them away with a warning shot? Again, clear cut no.

The reason in both of these cases is they are not doing something that I believe may kill me. A guy banging or kicking my front door probably won't be able to kill me till he kicks the door open. The soldier in this case was not in fear for his life because he discharged his weapon away from the bad guy and not at him. All the cases being sighted in this thread reference a bad guy being shot at, assuming the person holding the gun was in fear of his or her life. Not sure the folks in Oregon would have an done it differently if the title of the article was "Felon Shot Dead by veteran", but I think that would have changed things a bit. Edited June 3, 2013 by bigwakes

[battleop]

Ammo is to scarce and expensive right now to fire warning shots.

[Worriedman]

The difference is the guy in the wheelchair is assumed to be "in fear of his life." The problem with a warning shot is you must not be "in fear of eminent death or serious bodily injury" if you don't aim at center mass.

I agree he should have shot for center mass if he was going to drop the hammer, or at least said that he did, unless he was simply trying to NOT have to kill the man but use his weapon to stop the threat.  But who knows what is in a man's mind?  I have  brother-in-law who upon his first dove hunt after 4 years in Viet Nam, could not bring himself to pull the head off a crippled bird. He brought it me and laid his shotgun down and walked to his truck and left, never said a word. (we have not talked about it since either, as his Dad, who was a WWII Vet asked me to keep it between us girls.)

I seem to remember recently, a number of "professionals" throwing 102 rounds at a pick-up with two female paper carriers in it, resulting in two hits on the 74 year old and a scraped finger on the other.  This guy would have been far better off to have simply said he missed instead of admitting to firing a "warning shot", I think he could have sold that, Oregon is not that far from California is it? If they do not charge them with not verifying a target, or poor marksmanship, don't think they should charge this guy.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Worriedman