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.
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”?
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.
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.
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.
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”.
Oh man that would be so cool!
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.
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 fuck 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.