Better to make an example out of him and teach the rest of the public not to use firearms to defend their homes.
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
: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.
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
I stand by my original statement, but agree with this. My guess is that the charges will be downgraded significantly or dropped altogether.
Maybe the perp should help pay for this guys defense because he warned him instead of killing him?!
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.
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:
[i]"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"[/i]
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.
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! 
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.
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 