News article - " Man charged for firing warning shot at burglar "
Veteran in Oregon protects home with AR-15, faces criminal charges for firing warning shot
If you take anything away from this story....... shoot or dont shoot.... in the eyes of the law it's better to kill...*cough* stop a threat than it is to fire a warning shot. You always have to remember that the law is not your friend and filter anything you say to them.
"Someone was breaking into my home, in fear of my safety i shot at them but missed. Upon firing the shot, they surrendered"
If you own a gun, you need to take personal responsibility and learn the law regarding guns.
Too much of the law caters to the rights of the criminal.Originally Posted by bu villain
/thread.
This law isn't about catering to the criminal, it's about intentionally shooting a gun in a residential home when you don't feel threatened enough to actually shoot at the criminal. If the criminal is threatening your life, shoot that mother fucker in the face for all I care, but don't pop off randomly in hopes of scaring him. Whether you agree or disagree with the law, don't wait until you break it and then complain about the police enforcing it.
The law is too often a web designed to catch otherwise law abiding citizens who unknowingly break it. A warning shot should not be a violation of the law.
Doesnt effect me though, bullets are too expensive to fire warning shots and i value that single extra round of ammunition more than i do the life of anyone who breaks into my home or intends me harm.
That may be an unintended consequence but I honestly don't think it was "designed" for that purpose. The problem with legislation is that it can't possibly account for all the situations. In this case, the shooter was probably well trained how to fire a shot while taking into account ricochet or wall penetration but it's not necessarily something we want people doing everytime they wake up in the middle of the night because they "heard something".
The "designed purpose" for many laws is buried in the details. If i fire a warning shot and hit the ground, causing no damage to anything but my lawn, i should not be charged.
If i fire a warning shot that goes through my neighbors window, then charge me with that. If my warning shot hits someone, charge me with that.....
You say the "law cant account for all situations".... you're right, so quit making laws based off assumed consequences. Based on the logic of this explanation, can i be charged for drawing a gun without shooting it? if i pulled my gun but didnt have to shoot it, maybe my life wasnt in danger right??? If the warning shot stopped the criminals actions, then it did it's job. You're "stopping a threat" not "killing someone" remember? Based on that police officer's explanation, any shot fired from a rifle would be a violation of the law. If i shoot someone at close range with my AR15, the bullet is most likely coming out the other side. Why not make having any target ammo in your handgun against the law too.... since the same thing could happen.... why not make shooting a burglar from less than 20 yards away a crime??
I agree with you here but that's my libertarian streak. It's our opinion but it is not an absolute right vs wrong question. It is a personal preference toward liberty over safety. We don't get to dictate our value to everyone else.
You bring up a good point which is that laws are always a compromise. At best, they are incentives to nudge behavior in certain directions. We will never have a set of laws everyone will agree on but most everyone believes laws as a whole are necessary. You being of a more libertarian mind, would prefer much less legislation as a general principle but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The more you dismiss others' opinions, the less receptive they will be to yours.
Just keep in mind that statement not a fact, it is simply an opinion that is a reflection of your values but it doesn't correspond to everyone elses'.
Comment means absolutely nothing to me..... the world is full of idiots, you adding their opinions/votes together and telling me they out number me holds little significance.
The government cannot provide you with safety, i feel a lot less safe hearing that people think they can.
Last edited by Sinfix_15; 05-30-2013 at 05:26 PM.
It seems your definition of idiot is anyone who has different values than you. You can saying other peoples opinions hold little significance to you but that doesn't stop them from affecting you. If you actually have any hope for things going in a different direction, you better start caring about other peoples opinions because crying on this forum isn't going to do it.
You support other people's opinions being able to affect my life. You vote for the strengthening of mob rule. That's the democratic way.
I acknowledge the world is going to shit and there's nothing anyone can do about it. It's too late now, democrats have infected society to the point of no return. Entitlement society is spreading like a virus. My goal is to move as far away from entitlement society as i can and hope that i die before the US goes to complete shit.
In limited circumstances yes. This comes from a belief that other people's opinions will affect my life no matter what legislation is on the books.
Then why do you post incessantly about things which no one can do anything about? Is this forum just a place for you to vent your anger and frustration?
He should have started up a chainsaw
Last edited by -EnVus-; 06-01-2013 at 04:00 PM.
If any of you actual read the article, you would see the HUGE difference in stories. The article says the guy was trying to come in the back door. The LT said the guy was hiding in the back yard.
If the guy was hiding in the back yard, and not trying to come break in, Thompson absolutely deserves the charges, maybe even more.
how are you deciding which story to believe, if the crook says he didnt try to break in and the home owner said he did.
If someone is hiding in my backyard, i am going to go speak to them.
You are an idiot and you obviously didnt read and or comprehend what I typed.
If someone is in your back yard and NOT threatening you or trying to break in and you shoot or shoot at him, you should be charged with several crimes. Self defense is just that, self defense. It is not a license to kill someone just cause you dont want them on your property.
I do wonder though if the guy had done everything again except the gun had caps/blanks would it be a chargeable offense ?
possibly, but I dont know nearly enough law to really offer a real opinion.
Ever jumping to conclusions....... i thought you had learned your lesson about this by now......
The stories given contradict each other, i am asking why you're choosing to believe the criminal?
Theoretical scenario.....
I look outside and see someone peeking in my window. Armed, as i have the right to be..... i walk outside and ask the person what theyre doing. Lets say the guy says "robbing you" or insert anything threatening for the sake of argument.... and walks towards me, i pull out my gun, lets say he says " you're not gonna shoot me pussy " and keeps walking towards me, i fire a shot at the ground, he stops and we wait for the police to come.
When the police arrive, i tell them the story, the guy says to the police " i was just walking by and this guy shot at me "... the guy in my yard was a fugitive on the run and had to climb a fence to get in my yard.
My question is, why do you not believe the home owner's testimony?
The home owner said he was trying to break in, what reason do you have to not believe this testimony.
You then continue with this..... a continuation of you denying the home owner's story.
Really pointless comment.... "if someone is in your back yard and not threatening you or trying to break in...."
The home owner said he was trying to break in.
Tell me where your disbelief comes from please?
You know, because that is what happened in the story i posted. The police chose not to believe the testimony of the home owner, arrested him and confiscated his weapon. I want to know how those police, you, or anyone else decided that what he said was not true.
Last edited by Sinfix_15; 06-02-2013 at 11:35 AM.
I still havent seen the homeowners story. Where does it say the guy was trying to break in? Where is the quote from Thompson saying the guy was in some way a threat, and not just some guy on his property?
Man Attempts to Stop Felon and Charged | KDRV
He clearly said the guy was trying to come in his door.....
You're gonna ruffle some pro gun feathers.
Just saw an old episode of Cops last night where this was kinda similar deal. A man called police saying people are trying to break in. The police arrive and he is held up inside with a gun thinking that people are after him. Well police knock on his door and he fires through the door thinking it was robbers just 1 single shot. He gets arrested and charged with firing his weapon
rightfully so.
i guess the moral of the story is to make sure there is no "other side of the story"
Again, you fail at reading comprehension. I never mentioned believing one story or another.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
My opinion.... if there's a "he said she said" , you go with the "he said" of the person who belongs on the property and not the person who doesnt. The guy had no business being in his yard, it's on him to prove why he was there and what he was doing....
A very different article says much different things. I am still not going to offer an opinion because the info I have is conflicting. I personally think that if you believe your life is being threatened, you dont fire a warning shot.
Great way to get locked up. My advise to you, learn the GA gun laws and their proper use.
My comment had no relation to gun use or gun laws. When police arrive on a scene and have two stories being told to them, one by the occupant of a home, another by a fugitive who is on their property, i feel inclined to believe the home owner. The police do not know what happened, yet they appear to believe the criminal's testimony that he wasnt doing anything wrong.
How do you know thats what happened? You posted 2 articles, neither of which tell much of what happened. The ONLY consistency in the 2 articles is the LT saying Thompson wasnt in danger at the time he shot.
I dont know what happened. How do they know if he was in danger or not? A criminal was in his yard and according to him, trying to enter his home, sounds like danger to me.
If you're in actual danger, the only warning shot should enter the offenders flesh at some point. He wasnt in danger at all. He seems like one of those "2nd amendment thumpers" who happened to see an opportunity to back up all that "2nd righter" BS that gets slung around all over the Internet. He wanted to be an Obama hating pro gun conservative advocate, and look what happened? He got gut checked by reality. He got his gun taken away like a little baby back biatch. Part of me hopes they keep it from him.
This line coming from someone who poses as an intelligent person. Not worthy of a legitimate response.
There is a VAST difference between state-sponsored racism and you bitching about not getting your way. There is ZERO equivalence
There is no difference..... "state sponsored racism".... in your words, how would you describe the DOJ, EPA, IRS targeting people for their religious and or political beliefs........
That isnt the "institutional racism" i always hear black nationalist talk about??... you know, how the black man cant be racist because he has no power over the white man.. yada yada yada horse shit.... news flash... the IRS, EPA, DOJ has power over everyone.....
Sounds like a perfect example to me.......
I am speaking out against the government abusing it's power to oppress the beliefs of those who oppose them. Martin Luther King would probably pat me on the back. Every american should be against this government's abuse of power.
Last edited by Sinfix_15; 06-06-2013 at 07:03 AM.
Targeting people for their religious or political beliefs by investigating their request for a free tax ride? Yes. That's exactly the same as being systematically jailed, hosed, and segregated because you have a different skin color.
No. You'd get laughed at. It's not the same. It's not even in the same ballpark. Denying someone a tax exempt status is not the same as denying someone basic human rights. Not even close, sorry.I am speaking out against the government abusing it's power to oppress the beliefs of those who oppose them. Martin Luther King would probably pat me on the back. Every american should be against this government's abuse of power.
EVERY SINGLE PERSON who gets on a platform about how they shouldn't be paying taxes, and then requests a tax exempt status should be investigated to the fullest extent possible. I don't care if you claim to be conservative or liberal.
Why do you believe denying a tax exempt status suppresses your beliefs as a conservative? Can you still hold those beliefs without a tax exemption?
Just to clarify, I am not asking you to never post anything that is against Obama. I'm only asking that you don't bring Obama into every single thread. Also I'm asking to tone down the personal attacks. There is no need to call anyone an idiot or moron even if you think they are. It just gets in the way of having a reasonable discussion and will only make the "true believers" more defensive.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
