View Full Version : Warning shot gets Vet in trouble.
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/
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.
Guess he should have shot the perp instead.
Guess he should have shot the perp instead.
Warning shots waste expensive ammo. ;)
Warning shots are a bad idea. Make clear, loud, verbal warnings and then if the perp keeps coming, he made the decision to get put down.
It's a shame the officers can't see this for what it was and let it go.
Remember Joe Biden advocating shooting warning shots with a shotgun a few months ago as a reason why we don't need "assault rifles"?
Remember Joe Biden advocating shooting warning shots with a shotgun a few months ago as a reason why we don't need "assault rifles"?
He just should have used a double barrel shotgun.....:rolleyes:
A warning shot wasn't a good idea in a crowded apt complex.
I love how the ignorant term "assault rifle" is still being thrown around.
RogerinTPA
05-30-13, 11:40
Here in FL, apparently warning shots are proof that you are not in fear of your life. You then become the threat by firing a warning shot. There are several cases where the victim fired a warning shot and went to jail.
I happen to agree and he could have been arrested in AZ as well. Warning shots are generally not permissible. I will be willing to bet that this guy has never looked into his states laws in regards to self defense and use of force. Had he actually fired directly at the perp he could have claimed he was in fear of his life and chances are he would have walked away.
Thompson was charged with unlawful use of a weapon, menacing and reckless endangering.
I'm not sure that I totally disagree with the charges. Warning shots are reckless and dangerous. You're either justified to use deadly force or you're not.
I would call Joe Biden as a witness for the defense.
You're either justified to use deadly force or you're not.
Exactly.
If he was justified and fired a warning shot and the perp ran, should he still be arrested?
I guess I should add if the round didn't go somewhere that could have injured an innocent.
Don't forget, most people don't have the training and or the heart to put another human being down. If he fired into an apartment building, then shame on him...
Exactly.
If he was justified and fired a warning shot and the perp ran, should he still be arrested?
I guess I should add if the round didn't go somewhere that could have injured an innocent.
Don't forget, most people don't have the training and or the heart to put another human being down. If he fired into an apartment building, then shame on him...
In the article he states he fired into the floor to avoid collateral. Under stress he reverted to his escalation of force training.
I can't think of a situation where a warning shot is justified. I suppose it's possible, but unlikely. Firing a round is use of deadly force. If the assailant exhibited ability, opportunity and jeopardy to cause death or grave bodily harm to the defender or someone under his care, the defender was justified in shooting to stop the assault.
If the assailant had not yet demonstrated ability, opportunity and jeopardy, a warning shot merely wastes ammo and endangers someone downrange. Shooting into the ground? Ricochet potential.
The defender may be a stand up guy, but on the face of it (and I realize I do not have all the facts), he made a mistake.
I would call Joe Biden as a witness for the defense.
That'd be awesome.
If only for the court to say on record that the VP doesn't understand the law.
Guy should have gotten wise and just said he feared for his life and "missed".
That'd be awesome.
If only for the court to say on record that the VP doesn't understand the law.
Oh man that would be so cool!
Warning shots are a bad idea. Make clear, loud, verbal warnings and then if the perp keeps coming, he made the decision to get put down.
It's a shame the officers can't see this for what it was and let it go.
Problem is not everyone is smart enough to know when to believe you.
I'm conflicted on this one.
On the one hand, I completely agree with the idea that if "necessary force can apply, then apply it." Bad guys dead and one version of events for the police.
On the other hand I can imagine dozens of scenarios that would involve people I'd really rather not have to shoot and I can think of dozens of examples where deadly force "can apply" but responsible use of a "warning shot" would downgrade the situation.
The problem of course is the history of the warning shot. Used to be done all the time. Then some dickface lawyer successfully prosecuted somebody for shooting an imminent threat by arguing that he maybe could or should have fired a "warning shot." And that is all it took to create another stage in the "legal obstacle course of defensive shooting" that exists today.
The cost of the current legal gymnastics is now we pretty much have to shoot people where other options might exist.
I can't think of a situation where a warning shot is justified. I suppose it's possible, but unlikely. Firing a round is use of deadly force. If the assailant exhibited ability, opportunity and jeopardy to cause death or grave bodily harm to the defender or someone under his care, the defender was justified in shooting to stop the assault.
If the assailant had not yet demonstrated ability, opportunity and jeopardy, a warning shot merely wastes ammo and endangers someone downrange. Shooting into the ground? Ricochet potential.
The defender may be a stand up guy, but on the face of it (and I realize I do not have all the facts), he made a mistake.
Really? I can imagine dozens of scenarios where deadly force is authorized (armed intruder) but I have significant enough advantage in the situation to not have to shoot yet.
And for some people, verbal warnings are enough to generate compliance, but lots of people freeze up, panic or try to think of a way out of the situation and a warning shot can often speed them along to the "don't **** around" realization you are hoping for.
The real problem is it's hard enough to get your typical homeowner to "shoot responsibly" in a real world defensive situation to begin with. Asking them to attempt things like warning shots "responsibly" is a pretty tall order.
Is shooting a pen flare at someone illegal?
No harm, no foul. Waste of time and tax dollars to arrest and attempt to prosecute him.
No harm, no foul. Waste of time and tax dollars to arrest and attempt to prosecute him.
Better to make an example out of him and teach the rest of the public not to use firearms to defend their homes.
Moose-Knuckle
05-30-13, 18:16
Here in FL, apparently warning shots are proof that you are not in fear of your life. You then become the threat by firing a warning shot. There are several cases where the victim fired a warning shot and went to jail.
You ain't kid'n . . .
Florida's 4th Judicial Circuit state attorney Angela Corey (assigned to the Trayvon Martin case) prosecuted this case as well. The NAACP was starting to get invovled until the Martin case broke, now they are as silent as the grave on this other one.
Florida woman sentenced to 20 years in controversial warning shot case
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing
I still think it's totally outrageous that someone can't fire a warning shot that might prevent the fatal one, and get prosecuted for it. Somethings just wrong with that.
Not that anyone threatening me or my family is going to get one...
yep, they are going to milk this one for all it's worth.
Deadly assault weapon
Citizen reverting to combat mode when he gets stressed
Discharging a weapon
His defense really is going to come down to. The Military trained me and the VPOTUS instructed all of America to do this.
I think the guy made a huge mistake in judgement. The legal side I have no idea. He shouldn't be having to deal with this but that's not the world we live in.
Needs to get a lawyer and STFU. Can't really claim ND now.
Hope it wasn't a Noveske. They ain't giving that shit back.
My bet is that it doesn't make it to trial.
Apparently warnings shots aren't illegal in Oregon: http://www.nwcn.com/news/oregon/Warning-shots-fired-after-fight-involving-50-inmates-at-Oregon-prison-135069563.html
Is shooting a pen flare at someone illegal?
:lol: That would scare the sh*t out of some people haha. I miss those things.
You do realize that what be legal for LE is not necessarily legal for your average citizen, right? When I worked for DOC I think (stress think) that warning shots were allowed, but that was over 15 years ago so I am not 100% sure.
I guess it would be too hard for someone to actually research the Oregon Revised Statutes to give an answer.
My bet is that it doesn't make it to trial.
Apparently warnings shots aren't illegal in Oregon: http://www.nwcn.com/news/oregon/Warning-shots-fired-after-fight-involving-50-inmates-at-Oregon-prison-135069563.html
Alaskapopo
05-31-13, 02:10
You do realize that what be legal for LE is not necessarily legal for your average citizen, right? When I worked for DOC I think (stress think) that warning shots were allowed, but that was over 15 years ago so I am not 100% sure.
I guess it would be too hard for someone to actually research the Oregon Revised Statutes to give an answer.
Warning shots are not allowed in any SOP I have seen in the state when I was writing our use of force policy. Still I would not throw this guy to the wolves. Slap him on the wrist with a misdemeanor reckless endangerment charge and probation.
Pat
Article from Washington newspaper where a guard fired a warning shot in the air to thwart an escape. No mention of repercussions or legality.
Also, let me be clear. I didn't say he should be BBQ'd. But, with firearms ownership and CCW also comes responsibility.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003934673_webescapeattempt08m.html
Warning shots are not allowed in any SOP I have seen in the state when I was writing our use of force policy. Still I would not throw this guy to the wolves. Slap him on the wrist with a misdemeanor reckless endangerment charge and probation.
Pat
Still I would not throw this guy to the wolves. Slap him on the wrist with a misdemeanor reckless endangerment charge and probation.
I stand by my original statement, but agree with this. My guess is that the charges will be downgraded significantly or dropped altogether.
steyrman13
05-31-13, 09:21
Maybe the perp should help pay for this guys defense because he warned him instead of killing him?!
You do realize that what be legal for LE is not necessarily legal for your average citizen, right?
Not with regards to the use of deadly force, as far as I'm aware.
I guess it would be too hard for someone to actually research the Oregon Revised Statutes to give an answer.
I did, prior to my previous post. I came up with nothing.
My only recollections of ever seeing anything, anywhere about warning shots have always been in policy statements, not laws. Things along the lines of "warning shots pose a risk of harm to bystanders and/or property and shall not be used".
Where people get hemmed-up over warning shots is in being charged with reckless endangerment, or similar. I've never heard of a criminal case where the allegation was that the warning shot in and of itself was illegal.
Here's a statement from a DA in NH regarding a case from 2012: '"My review of this situation was based on the circumstances under which the shot was fired and whether other citizens were placed or may have been placed in danger of serious bodily injury. The facts available at the scene on Saturday supported the charge of felony reckless conduct, but subsequent facts discovered since have led me to believe that such a charge under these circumstances would be unjust,' Velardi said in a news release."
For the record: I am no way, no how supportive of the use of warning shots. I've written several use of force policies and they all expressly prohibit the use of warning shots.
My only recollections of ever seeing anything, anywhere about warning shots have always been in policy statements, not laws.
Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205, 1279 & n. 89 (7th Cir. 1984).
...found that warning shots are not deadly force.
Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205, 1279 & n. 89 (7th Cir. 1984).
...found that warning shots are not deadly force.
For those who don't care to read the whole thing, here's the relevant section from the case, part of which was an excessive force claim (civil case, not a criminal charge) that specifically focused on the use of warning shots by pursuing police officers:
"359
Through special verdict question A1 the question of unreasonable or excessive force was submitted to the jury, the district court providing a substantial instruction on the issue.88 Plaintiffs do not allege, nor do we hold, that the district court's formulation of the excessive force determination in the jury instructions was inadequate or improper. Instead plaintiffs argue that as a matter of law the warning shots fired by Grady and Krause are per se excessive force. This Court declines to create such a per se rule. The district court did not abuse its discretion in submitting the question of excessive force to the jury, to be resolved in light of all the facts and circumstances. Moreover, the record clearly indicates that the warning shots were fired only after Daniel Bell ignored the officers' repeated requests to stop, and the warning shots were truly warning shots, purposefully fired directly upward into the air. 89"
The footnote is: "Under Model Penal Code Sec. 3.11(1) (Proposed Official Draft 1962), deadly force can be inferred in the event that one '[p]urposely fire[es] a firearm in the direction of another person or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be' (emphasis added), but '[a] threat to cause death or serious bodily harm by the production of a weapon or otherwise, so long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute deadly force.'
Looks like the judge interpreted "or otherwise" to include warning shots.
No harm, no foul. Waste of time and tax dollars to arrest and attempt to prosecute him.
Bingo. Wanted felon in custody, innocent life and limb preserved, no third party injury or property damage.....
Bingo. Wanted felon in custody, innocent life and limb preserved, no third party injury or property damage.....
Common sense would say to let it go, but hey... I have a better idea. Why not spend enough taxpayer money to repair a bridge by prosecuting this guy and keeping him in prison for years on end instead! :(
Bingo. Wanted felon in custody, innocent life and limb preserved, no third party injury or property damage.....
NO! He must be punished!!!
I disagree. In Arizona if you discharge a firearm within city limits and it isn't in self defense then you can be charged with a felony.
Not with regards to the use of deadly force, as far as I'm aware.
I did, prior to my previous post. I came up with nothing.
My only recollections of ever seeing anything, anywhere about warning shots have always been in policy statements, not laws. Things along the lines of "warning shots pose a risk of harm to bystanders and/or property and shall not be used".
Where people get hemmed-up over warning shots is in being charged with reckless endangerment, or similar. I've never heard of a criminal case where the allegation was that the warning shot in and of itself was illegal.
Here's a statement from a DA in NH regarding a case from 2012: '"My review of this situation was based on the circumstances under which the shot was fired and whether other citizens were placed or may have been placed in danger of serious bodily injury. The facts available at the scene on Saturday supported the charge of felony reckless conduct, but subsequent facts discovered since have led me to believe that such a charge under these circumstances would be unjust,' Velardi said in a news release."
For the record: I am no way, no how supportive of the use of warning shots. I've written several use of force policies and they all expressly prohibit the use of warning shots.
steyrman13
05-31-13, 15:21
I disagree. In Arizona if you discharge a firearm within city limits and it isn't in self defense then you can be charged with a felony.
But the felon could argue (in a thank you sort of manner since his life was spared with a warning shot, rather than shot to death) that the Defender fired the warning shot in the felon's Self Defense to prevent him from attacking the Defender in the first place which would then use deadly force in his furthering of Self defense ;)
Sorry. But whatever you were trying to say makes no sense to me.
But the felon could argue (in a thank you sort of manner since his life was spared with a warning shot, rather than shot to death) that the Defender fired the warning shot in the felon's Self Defense to prevent him from attacking the Defender in the first place which would then use deadly force in his furthering of Self defense ;)
steyrman13
05-31-13, 19:53
Sorry. But whatever you were trying to say makes no sense to me.
I am saying the felon is probably glad that the victim fired a warning shot looking back on the situation now because the felon is still alive. I'm not saying it is right or a good thing however
Can you still argue qualified immunity at your war crimes tribunal for treating lady liberty like an underage prostitute? Just following orders didn't work for the nazis, but maybe they didn't try the qualified immunity angle.
I disagree. In Arizona if you discharge a firearm within city limits and it isn't in self defense then you can be charged with a felony.
An ND in AZ within city limits is a felony?
We aren't talking about an ND or an AD. We are talking about the firing of warning shots. This is what it states under ARS 13-3107.
A. A person who with criminal negligence discharges a firearm within or into the limits of any municipality is guilty of a class 6 felony.
There are numerous exemptions, but yes if someone reported it and if it was pressed it is entirely possible.
An ND in AZ within city limits is a felony?
We had a police captain fail to clear an AR, shot a water pipe in the local station on accident, flooded it.
You know what happened to him?
Nothing.
... besides probably the shame, hazing and inability to make critical remarks against anyone without being reminded of "the incident".
YMMV
Alaskapopo
06-01-13, 03:13
We aren't talking about an ND or an AD. We are talking about the firing of warning shots. This is what it states under ARS 13-3107.
A. A person who with criminal negligence discharges a firearm within or into the limits of any municipality is guilty of a class 6 felony.
There are numerous exemptions, but yes if someone reported it and if it was pressed it is entirely possible.
Criminal negligence is a mental state where the person should have been aware of the risk but was unaware. Not sure an accidental ND would fall into that. I know it would not stick here. But it depends on the circumstances.
Pat
You are probably right. The warning shot scenario is anyones guess. Next week when I am in Alaska I will touch one off accidentally and see what kind of response I get. :D
Criminal negligence is a mental state where the person should have been aware of the risk but was unaware. Not sure an accidental ND would fall into that. I know it would not stick here. But it depends on the circumstances.
Pat
Magic_Salad0892
06-01-13, 07:23
IIRC, the law is the same here as in AZ regarding discharges.
I think they should drop the charge, but a warning shot is a felony in Oregon. I actually think you'd get charged with endangerment or something, but I don't really know.
However, it wouldn't/won't even make it to trial here. They'd drop it "in the interest of justice".
My take:
Give him a lecture on the law and fine him $40.
"One man with courage makes a majority."
I'm not sure that I totally disagree with the charges. Warning shots are reckless and dangerous. You're either justified to use deadly force or you're not.
And they are intentionally missing your target which has a whole set of possible negative ramifications.
We aren't talking about an ND or an AD. We are talking about the firing of warning shots. This is what it states under ARS 13-3107.
A. A person who with criminal negligence discharges a firearm within or into the limits of any municipality is guilty of a class 6 felony.
There are numerous exemptions, but yes if someone reported it and if it was pressed it is entirely possible.
That supports my earlier point about warning shots not being defined in most places. Warning shots aren't specifically mentioned or defined in your ARS 13-3107. A DA would have to make the case that under the specific circumstances, the firing of a warning shot(s) constituted some form of criminal negligence or endangerment.
I think they should drop the charge, but a warning shot is a felony in Oregon. I actually think you'd get charged with endangerment or something, but I don't really know.
Under what statute? I looked and didn't find anything. I'm not being argumentative, I'm genuinely interested in knowing.
A. A person who with criminal negligence discharges a firearm within or into the limits of any municipality is guilty of a class 6 felony.
Laws like that are almost always cancelled out by further laws that speak to the defense of one's person or property. In fact they have to be or you couldn't even shoot inside your home.
Also I don't see hoe this guy was criminally negligent. He did no harm and he intended to do no harm. In fact 100% of his actions were to do no harm while preserving his person and property.
I think at least one of those LEOs simply has an agenda saying the AR is too high pressure and dangerous, so he would of course push that criminal negligence point to support his ridiculous conclusion.
This is not the same as shooting a stop sign on a Friday night.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.