Veteran arrested for warning shot
ROS sends us a link to an article from Medford, OR about 36 year-old Corey Thompson, purportedly a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, who fired a warning shot at a wanted felon, 40 year-old Jonathon Kinsella, who was breaking into Thompson’s home and was subsequently arrested;
Thompson says he grabbed his AR-15 assault rifle and told Kinsella to stop near his back door.
“When I’m dealt with a stressful situation, being a veteran from Iraq and the Afghanistan war, it’s natural. I just jump into combat mode. I told him I’m going to give you a warning shot,” said Thompson.
But police say that was not the right move.
“There was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting. In fact, the suspect was walking away,” said Medford Police Lt. Mike Budreau.
Thompson was charged with Unlawful Use of a Weapon, Menacing and Reckless Endangering.
So, I guess that Thompson learned his lesson. Next time he should just drill the criminal and not waste his ammo on warning shots. It’s interesting that the article doesn’t mention the fate of the fleeing felon.
So how do the police know the criminal was just “walking away”? Did he tell them that? Fucking disgusting….
I’m sure that the misguided police in Medford have confiscated all of Mr. Thompson’s firearms, leaving him defenseless against future attacks. Now all of the local criminals know that they will not be confronted by an armed homeowner at that address. Final Score – Bad Guys 1, Good Guy 0.
“Officer, I was in fear for my life” is the most ideal statement while you are standing over a dead criminal.
The irony is, that by the 2008-2009 ROE for MND North he did the right thing by firing the warning shot. That is what we were trained and told to do. I don’t imagine that has changed very much and speaks volumes to higher standards that we, as hard charging, blood drinking, baby-making soldiers were held too.
There we were taught to use esclation of force (show, shout, shove, shoot) and here doing so will get you in trouble. He shouldn’t have engaged the guy in conversation, he shouldn’t have told him he was giving him a warning shot, he should have just grabbed the AR and fired and ended the threat. But that isn’t what he was trained to do, and now because he did what he was trained to do, he’s in legal trouble.
But I was following orders from the Vice President of the United States. Joe Biden gave Americans explicit rules on dealing with home invasions.
I guess I’m the only one who gets douche chills when someone talks about going into “combat mode” to the press.
Good reason to stay out of Oregon unless or until they get their brains working again.
PH2–Oregon, Washington, and parts of Utah, Colorado, New Mexico are places where people who were just too batshit crazy for California ended up.
There was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting.
On my property, breaking in, not aggressive enough? Good thing we still have “stand your ground” here at least. Hate to think what I’d have to do (run and hide) in states like MA, NY, MD, etc.
“Ding-dong, Avon calling!” at 2 am will get you drilled. Warning shots are for idiots.
The bad guy (that is, the REAL bad guy) was wanted for burglary, assault, harrassment, and contempt of court. He was running away when he jumped a fence and crashed into the Good Guy’s yard. Good guy heard the noise, grabbed his rifle, verbally warned the Bad Guy and, when that didn’t have the desired effect, Good Guy fired a round into the ground. The police heard the shot and arrested them both. Dumb bastards.
You want only ONE side of the story to be told to the po-po: yours! while standing over the corpse of the perp.
I remember us in 2004 being told not to fire warning shots ever except from crew served weapons on the boat. We could fire them at vessels but, on the ground, we were never to fire a warning shot. Granted we did ECP duty most of the time. It’s been long enough I can’t remember if the ROE on convoys was different. On ECP’s the rule was no warning shot.
That said, I can’t imagine how he could be charged for firing at someone breaking into his house.
LT. Buff says that bullets don’t just hit something and absorb. He’s right. They don’t. What a bullet hits does the asborbing. Idiot. Buffy also says that a bullet can hit objects. yes, that’s what they usually do. Idiot. He says they can hit a house. Well, the bullet Good Guy fired didn’t hit a house. Idiot. He says that they can hit a wall. Well, the bullet Good Guy fired didn’t hit a wall. Idiot. He says that they can hit a window. Well, the bullet Good Guy fired didn’t hit a window. Idiot.
In another jurisdiction, the report would have read like this: “An alert homeowner captured a wanted felon today when the fugitive picked the wrong yard to jump into in attempting to elude police.”
“But police say that bullets from assault rifles can skip”… Notice how the reporter leads into the sound bite of the officer talking about ricochets, but that officer doesn’t actually say assault rifle? Any weapon has the potential to ricochet!
It could have been a legitimate paraphrase, but this is the kind of out of context BS that the Left loves to propagate.
I reckon Rules of Engagement have changed.
On all the jobs I’ve worked, we were specifically ordered to NEVER fire a “warning shot”, and in a couple of the federal installations I worked at, we had orders to “shoot to kill”.
Also, as far as I know (because not every department is identical), police are routinely trained to continue firing until the subject falls to the ground and stops moving.
@8 Sparky, in MA shooting them in face on and making sure they fall and stay in your home is the safest method….if that doesn’t work there is always the flooded quarry and some cinder blocks, no one will come looking for a missing sh1tbag…
Never give them a warning….
Life here in Oregon is full of crazy.
I’ve got my conservative friends, but on the western side of the state it’s cereal bowl time. Nothing but flakes, fruits and nuts. The eastern side of the state is better. Tougher weather, tougher living, less nonsense.
LESSON LEARNED:
When you feel your life and or the life of another is in danger of serious bodily harm and or death. Shoot first, hire a good lawyer second, and third be capable of articulating your actions.
Spontaneous comments about training, war and combat mode never helps.
Not saying anything is always better … let your record and training speak for itself!
Any questions?
Sounds like he assisted the police in the apprehension of a criminal! Give the man an award.
I’m probably going to get run over rough-shod for this, but I don’t agree with what Thompson did. If you are capable of warning the perp, you do so verbally. The gun is there to back up the warning with force. You do not “warn” with a weapon. A fired round goes somewhere, as was indicated above. If you’re not firing at the perp, what are you firing at? What Thompson did was reckless.
You have to know the climate of your state as far as using a weapon in self-defense goes. YOU are not going to be the exception to the laws of your state. Ever. What you WILL do if you disobey the law (particularly where lethal force is concerned) is go to jail.
“Halt!” BANG!”Or I’ll shoot!….hmm, bet THAT hurt” is the proper sequence of sounds in an event like this.
Regardless of the unholy flap over George Zimmerman, this why the castle doctrine and stand your ground should be national law.
Apparenly as CBSenior observed above, a warning shot from a double-barrel is OK, but from a scary ‘assault weapon’ it is dangerous.
I wonder if there’s more to this story. If there’s not it doesn’t sound great for the police of that city. The guy sounds a lot more level-headed in his interview than I’d probably be in that situation. He doesn’t sound at all like some kind of scary nut who pops off warning shots every time kids cut across his lawn or anything like that.
Also given the term ‘combat mode’ I’m surprised the press didn’t take the ‘he’s caught the PTSD!’ angle here.
The laws in my state are specific regarding this matter. If the guy is making a “violent and tumultuous entry” into your home, deadly force is authorized. If he is no longer a threat to you or someone else i.e. walking away, you aren’t allowed to shoot him.
Warning shots are considered deadly force. Oregon is not Iraq, so the same ROE do not apply. He should have kept his mouth shut about that. Being educated about the rules of deadly force in your state is crucial if your going to use your gun.
This issue was decided by the Supreme Court in regards to a law enforcement response to a similar situation in Tennessee vs. Garner. It’s called the fleeing felon rule. Basically, you can’t shoot a guy, felon or not, if they are fleeing, unless they are placing someone else in immediate jeopardy.
From the information in John’s blog post, it seems like he used deadly force to effect a citizen’s arrest, not stop a home invasion.
@20: For all we know, he fired the warning shot into the ground. If he did fire into the ground, I say “no harm, no foul”.
As for lethal force; I have been told by my carry permit instructor, who talks with criminal defense attorneys often, that the law is what those 12 people in the jury box say it is on that particular day. It doesn’t matter what is written in the books, but what those 12 people interpret it to be, and that changes daily.
Every one of my ROE’s as long as I was in stated very clearly no warning shots. Deadly force was authorized in my state if the same situation happened to me; either way, this is total BS.
@ 24 …
You say: “It’s called the fleeing felon rule. Basically, you can’t shoot a guy, felon or not, if they are fleeing, unless they are placing someone else in immediate jeopardy.”
I say: “Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”
That is a more accuarate way to put it!
Particularly considering the outcome of the courts ruling!
In addition, the fleeing felon rule has nothing to do with Tenn vs. Garner. Although since Tenn vs. Garner the common law theory of fleeing felon and Tenn vs. Gardner are often compared.
Fleeing felon rule has been on the books in common law for … ah … long time. Way before 1984 incident and 1985 ruling.
Former FED LEO
Still in the Business
@25 Old Trooper, I was taught that there is no such thing as a “warning shot” — it’s reckless use of deadly force.
While I respect what your instructor told you, and what the defense attorneys know about juries, in the end, what I do with a gun is up to me to justify. If I can’t justify what I’ve done with a weapon, all the laws, attorneys, and juries in the world aren’t going to do much harm where my situation is concerned. When you bring a weapon to bear, you’ve decided that the issue has come to life-or-death. At that point, you better be able to explain yourself, because no one else will be able to if you can’t.
And finally:
All this talk about fleeing felon and Tenn vs. Garner generally applies to LEOs and Peace Officers and not some idiot having a stress induced mild PTSD flash back to Iraq or Afganistan that causes him to go into combat mode (by way of his Warning Shot Training Course – WSTC) and begin blasting off a round in to the ground!
maybe I am a cynic but that “going into combat mode” comment sure sounds REMFish to me…. anyone have any idea what this guy actually DID?
3 s’.
Shoot, Shovel, Shut-up!!!
This guy should get away with this. He was following the Veep’s advice of firing a shot off in the air. That should get him a Presidential Pardon if he’s convicted. :p
Nik … you have a valid point here!
For those that are not aware also, if you research state stautes, you may be pleasntly surprised to learn there are laws in place that specifically state that if you conceal carry or not, you have no duty to retreat if you interupt a felony in progress. Those are the “stand your ground” the gun grabbers are jabber jawing about and want to repeal. Their biggest reason is, lets say, MCPO NYC is out on patrol on the roads I live and travel on, has pulled a carload of felonious critters (or a solo) over and opened fire on by any of them. Be that as it may, lets say should I happen along and MCPO NYC is in need of immediate help, I would not face conviction nor prosecution for drawing my sidearm and going to the aid of MCPO NYC, a duly sworn, law enforcement officer whose life is in danger before any LEO backups could arrive.
If you would like to learn more, check out Georgia Packing or Georgia Open Carry.
@28: I guess I have a problem calling a warning shot “deadly force”, because what are you bringing deadly force to bear on? The ground? I have always been taught, whether as a kid, in the Army, or as a carry permit holder that if you point it at someone, you are bringing deadly force to bear, however, I don’t see where pointing at the ground is bringing deadly force, unless we are now going to say that we were bringing deadly force to bear on mother earth.
That’s just my 2 cents YMMV
@ 27,the Garner decision redefined the common law fleeing felon rule which was antiquated and in need of updating at the time Garner was decided. State laws regarding the use of force, the ones that I am aware of, generally follow along the same lines as the Garner decision. I have no idea what Oregon’s law says. In my state, you would probably be arrested for firing a warning shot in this case. There must be an immediate threat to you, someone else, or a forcible entry into your home to justify deadly force.
“U.S. Law [edit]
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). The justices held that deadly force “may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”
What I paraphrased, and what you quoted are the same thing, IMO. At least that was what I was trying to say. You are correct, your quote is more accurate.
My intent was to show that it’s generally frowned upon for anyone, LEO or civilian to use deadly force against someone walking away from you, unless there is an immediate threat.
Two warning shots, center of mass. Repeat as necessary.
@35 OT–a town over from me a couple of years ago, we had a gent who was initially charged with reckless endangerment (a Class B felony punishable by 3 1/2-7 years in prison) for firing a warning shot into the ground as a perp was coming out of his neighbor’s house. Nevermind the charges were eventually dropped–it still took him MONTHS to get his guns back and the arrest expunged from his record.
And yes, the DA was a jackhole for pushing the charge.
Unfortunately, this is my neck of the woods. Though, thankfully, it is waaaaaaay south, closer to the California Values.
The criminal (the actual one who was trying to break in) has a laundry list of priors and was arrested while fleeing the scene. One of those priors is possession of a deadly weapon.
I’m still waiting for a couple of my State Police friends (buddies from the Guard) to get back to me about all the charges being filed, but what they did is wrong on so many levels it isn’t funny. This is the same area where the alphabet soup of law enforcement organizations (except for the FBI) busted the Mexican Cartel drug manufacture ring AND where Al Qaeda tried to open a training camp.
@35 If that bullet you’ve fired ricochets, you will be held responsible for what it hits. While the ground normally will stop a round, if it hits a rock or concrete or anything hard, it can cause spalling, or rebound or ricochet. I’ve been on the receiving end of spalling, and I’ve seen a rare case of rebound, both on a shooting range. It can and does happen.
And, if you’re holding a weapon, you’re bearing it. Whether or not it’s loaded, or you fire it or not, you’ve “brought a weapon to bear.” The presence of a weapon under the circumstances given above indicates the person handling it has made the decision that deadly force may be necessary; it doesn’t matter where it’s pointed.
At 36 … easy day .. we are all right!
It is a good discussion!
@40: “And, if you’re holding a weapon, you’re bearing it. Whether or not it’s loaded, or you fire it or not, you’ve “brought a weapon to bear.” ”
I’ll remember that the next time I’m out hunting. I hope I don’t cross paths with you, because I wouldn’t want to be accused of “bringing a weapon to bear”.
@42 Talk to the hunters who have been shot dead by other hunters, and see if they think a weapon was “brought to bear.” I never, and I mean NEVER, assume anyone holding a gun is harmless — because they’re not. And it’s people that forget the power they hold in their hands that kill people accidently.
@41, It is a good discussion!
@43: Well, you’re talking to one right now (although I wasn’t shot dead and I haven’t figured out how you would possibly talk to one that has been shot dead, unless you were bringing in a strawman in an attempt to win an argument that isn’t about winning or losing, but rather a matter of opinion). That’s why I quit hunting for 20 years. I guess my point is if you’re that afraid of weapons, then maybe you should stay indoors and only come out to get in your armored car to go to the grocery store and don’t forget to go full battle rattle when you get there.
@45 That’s a terrible thing to be on the receiving end of, and I’m glad you survived, Old Trooper. My remark was sarcastic and to make a point; obviously, you can’t ask the dead anything.
You can respect guns and their power without fearing them. I simply think that Thompson made an error in judgement with his warning shot. He was probably trying, in his own way, to avoid shooting someone.
@26, In 2005 our ROE allowed warning shots if time allowed. It would go ground then hood, and if that failed you unloaded on the driver’s side of the windshield. Obviously if a car was speeding at us and we didn’t have time for steps #1 and #2 we went straight to #3. I never had to shoot a warning shot at a person on foot because their intent was pretty obvious.
@36 Take out the word “immediate” from your paraphrasing of Tenn v Garner and you will be good. Immediate threat is not a requirement, whether that subject poses a significant threat either now or later is the critical requirement.
@ PintoNag
You say: “You can’t ask the dead anything.”
I say: Not true. Today Washington DC is filled with ZOMBIES (the walking dead). Although we can ask all we want all day long … they never seem to answer!
@46: Thanks, but it is something that happens all to often in hunting country. A while back, a little girl was sitting in her living room watching Saturday morning cartoons and a stray round from a hunter came through the living room wall, struck her and killed her. The hunter was charged with manslaughter, rightfully so, because he wasn’t paying attention to his surroundings and didn’t know what was beyond the deer he was shooting at. In my case, I was on our family’s land and a hunter on his own land thought I was a deer (he was one of those rocket surgeon “sound” hunters) and since there were trees and brush between us, he hadn’t identified his target, before bringing his weapon to bear. There’s always retards in the woods during hunting season, but I have never come across another hunter who wasn’t carrying his weapon properly i.e. pointed at the ground or laying in his arms pointing away from people. Now, Darth Cheney should have known better, when he blasted his buddy, but, again, he didn’t have proper awareness of where the members of his hunting party were before he started blasting.
As for Thompson; yes, he did make an error in judgement, in my opinion, but I think he shouldn’t be treated as a criminal for it and the focus should be on the bad guy. If anything, he did the cops a favor by stopping the bad guy for them, because it sounds like they didn’t have eyes on him when Thompson got his attention and they only reacted to the gun shot.