Bad: homeowner's weapon confiscated...

Bad: homeowner's weapon confiscated...

This is a discussion on Bad: homeowner's weapon confiscated... within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; ...For firing a shot at a home invader... A recidivist home invader no less! In Oregon. The confiscated firearm? An AR 15, of course!... The ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 32
Like Tree34Likes

Thread: Bad: homeowner's weapon confiscated...

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,558

    Bad: homeowner's weapon confiscated...

    ...For firing a shot at a home invader... A recidivist home invader no less! In Oregon.

    The confiscated firearm? An AR 15, of course!... The homeowner? A veteran....

    The charges against the vet? Reckless use of a firearm, menacing, endangerment....

    The perp? Who knows? He'll probably plead to jay walking through someone's house...

    Washington times story: http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...g-shot-burgla/

    Tell me again how good we have it with our ccw laws....

    Pffft!

    Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose


  2. #2
    Distinguished Member Array ArkhmAsylm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    1,406
    -
    You never fire a warning shot...the proper description is, "I missed".
    "Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." -- U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, Re: U.S. vs Emerson (1999)

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,863
    Quote Originally Posted by From the article
    Nobody was injured or killed. But police responding to the burglary call said Corey Thompson, 36, should not have fired to scare off the felon, who was breaking into his home through the back door, The Blaze said.

    Mr. Thompson, who’s a military veteran, said he warned the intruder: “This is the end result. You break into someone’s house, there’s consequences,” The Blaze reported. He then fired a shot from his AR-15, which did not hit anybody.

    But police took his weapon, anyway. They charged Mr. Thompson with unlawful use of a weapon, and menacing and reckless endangering, and seized the weapon on the basis that it was used in the commission of a crime, The Blaze said.

    “There was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting,” Medford Police Lt. Mike Budreau said, in The Blaze report.
    Aside from violent entry to an occupied home and disregarding warnings the occupant is armed and will fire, he means.


    Oregon Revised Statutes, regarding use of force: click.

    161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person. Except as provided in ORS 161.215 and 161.219, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 §22]


    161.215 Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using physical force upon another person if:

    (1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, the person provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that person; or

    (2) The person is the initial aggressor, except that the use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person the intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful physical force; or

    (3) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. [1971 c.743 §24]



    161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

    (1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

    (2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or

    (3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]


    Perhaps the LE believed he was merely defending premises, not his person. But even if the presumption is it's "only" a burglary attempt, ORS 161.219 clearly specifies that burglary in a dwelling (home) justifies use of deadly force. Lest they forget, burglary's a felony (ORS 164.215, 164.225) in Oregon. Of course, it's all subject to interpretation of the "reasonable man" standard, what's deemed is "reasonable" in a situation.

    This is the sort of BS that caused "castle" laws to come about. Ridiculous.

    Medford, hm? One of the growing liberal infestations in the state of Oregon? Say it ain't so! Had this occurred in Grant County (out by John Day), they'd have patted the citizen on the back, hitched up their holstered guns and simply gone looking for the felon.
    Hobo_Hunter likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,836
    Warning shots: never a good idea. If the perp had been carrying, he could have drawn and shot the homeowner, and probably would have gotten away with it as self-defense.

    Doubtless the vet's reaction had to do with his training. Unfortunately what works in combat may not in civilian life. Hopefully they drop the charges and give him his weapon back, I can't imagine a prosecutor wanting to bring this to a jury.
    Secret Spuk, Exacto and Sky Pilot like this.

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,958
    Oddly enough, had the homeowner not yelled at the thief, the thief broke in and the homeowner killed him, the homeowner would likely have fewer legal troubles.

    How unfortunate is that?

    Aside - I wonder what Lt. Budreau would do if someone were breaking into his home.
    Glock2201 likes this.
    -PEF, a Framer with a Steelie...
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    1. All guns are always loaded.
    2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
    3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
    4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

  6. #6
    Distinguished Member Array dben002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Kernersville NC
    Posts
    1,388
    Glad I live in NC........

    North Carolina hasn't always had such a liberal self-defense law, however. On Dec. 1, 2011, the new law regarding the use of deadly force against an intruder went into effect, extending the use of deadly force to motor vehicles and the workplace. The change also eliminates the duty to retreat and provides protection from criminal and civil liability.

    "A lawful occupant within his or her home, motor vehicle, or workplace does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder," it states
    ItalianSteel and Bonernor like this.
    There are two types of people who carry concealed weapons...Responsible ones and Irresponsible ones...which are you...

  7. #7
    Distinguished Member Array BadgerJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic
    Posts
    1,530
    Maybe the burglar was a friend of Medford Police Lt. Mike Budreau, who was just trying to turn his life around and needed some start up money and a TV?
    Sky Pilot likes this.

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array shadowwalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Ghost Ridge USA
    Posts
    2,170
    After I read story this morning I called my kids and ask do you remember what I told you when you must protect yourself, there answer double tap. I said you have learned well grasshopper
    Sky Pilot, pittypat21 and airslot like this.

  9. #9
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,863
    Given ORS 161.219 covering firing upon a felon burgling a dwelling, perhaps they're charging him with bad aim instead? Hey, it's Oregon, not Montana (the land of perpetually good aim).
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  10. #10
    Distinguished Member Array DefConGun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,685
    Crazy. I'm glad I'm in KY.

  11. #11
    VIP Member
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,637
    There was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting,” Medford Police Lt. Mike Budreau said, in The Blaze report.
    That is why I love our castle doctrine, if someone is trying to break into your home it is automatically assumed they intended you harm and you are justified in stopping the threat by whatever means necessary.
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    There is much more to the story. The perp was not in the act of breaking into anyone's home when the warning shot was fired.



    Knowing that there were warrants out for his arrest, Kinsella had tried to escape from officers when he saw them arrive at the apartment complex, police said.

    He ran into the backyard of Cory Thompson's apartment and tried to climb over a fence but fell. The 36-year-old Thompson stepped out to investigate, his AR-15 rifle in his hand, police said.

    "I don't think we can really fault him for wanting to investigate armed with a gun," Medford police Lt. Mike Budreau said.

    Thompson pointed the rifle at Kinsella, and told him he was armed, police said.

    Kinsella started to walk away, and Thompson fired a shot. Police do not believe Thompson intended to hit Kinsella. No one was hit by the bullet.

    "It definitely sped him up," Budreau said of the shot that sent Kinsella running.

    Police allege Thompson was not justified in the shooting, as Kinsella never presented a direct threat to Thompson's life.
    Arrest, firing of AR-15 follow 911 call | MailTribune.com

    Why does "veteran of two wars" have any bearing on this case?

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,558
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    There is much more to the story. The perp was not in the act of breaking into anyone's home when the warning shot was fired.



    Arrest, firing of AR-15 follow 911 call | MailTribune.com

    Why does "veteran of two wars" have any bearing on this case?
    Thanks for the update... it will be interesting to see if there's any follow up to this story in the press...

    "Veteran of 2 wars" is part of the conditioning of the public to understand why vets pose a danger and shouldn't have guns, PTSD and inadequate checkbook balancing make them a danger to themselves or others...
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,968
    Regardless of the law it sounds like poor judgment. Everybody that has any experience knows that once the bullet leaves the barrel it is out of your control. Firing into the ground or in the air induces risks that are beyond your control. Folks that have shot with tracers can attest to this. All those shot down range just don't settle softly into the back stop all the time.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  15. #15
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,930
    Quote Originally Posted by msgt/ret View Post
    That is why I love our castle doctrine, if someone is trying to break into your home it is automatically assumed they intended you harm and you are justified in stopping the threat by whatever means necessary.
    Remember, we also still have the original common law (stronger legally) that says your permitted to shoot to PREVENT unlawful entry.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

911 call woman has no gunintruder 2012

,

corey thompson,given new gun?

,

cory thompson oregon gun intruder

Click on a term to search for related topics.