Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: really need Napoleonic code on ones property...guy arrested for firing a warning shot

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    really need Napoleonic code on ones property...guy arrested for firing a warning shot

    However, police later determined he wasn’t justified in firing his weapon. Medford Police Lt. Mike Budreau said “there was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting.”

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...into-his-home/


    Wonder what the cop would do if it was in his house?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Never fire a warning shot, only chest and head-shots in defense of life. I see the Judge tossing the case.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  3. #3
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317
    I was just going to post this in the Oregon section, ya beat me to it.

    I agree that this is stupid, his charges (unlawful use of a weapon, menacing and reckless endangering) are probably more jail time (if max) than the felon will get for the attempted breaking and entering. Give him a ticket for safely discharging into the ground and a lecture.

    That said... NO WARNING SHOTS! Either you (or your family or others) are in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm OR NOT.
    If not, escape, evade, retreat, or find cover/concealment in a good defensive position ready to protect yourself & your family.
    If so, center mass until threat is stopped, there is no "warning shot" or "shoot to wound".

    To para-phrase Yoda... "Shoot (center mass to stop) or shoot not, there is no warning.
    Last edited by Lord Sega; 05-29-2013 at 09:12 PM.
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

  4. #4
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    However, police later determined he wasn’t justified in firing his weapon. Medford Police Lt. Mike Budreau said “there was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting.”

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...into-his-home/


    Wonder what the cop would do if it was in his house?
    Probably wait for the guy to enter, you know the problem with the cops is, they are thinking "what if that was me (LE) trying to break that guys door down?"

    If someone tried to break into my house I would open the door to identify who it was before I would fire the best shot I could. But that is me. I don't want my door jamb broken in.

    Warning shots are never a good idea, and blind warning shots (I am assuming his back door is like mine, solid wood) are even a worse idea. I would not vote to convict if on the jury though.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    The police are imbeciles. The guy fires a warning shot, avoiding taking a life, and he gets charged.

    Oh, I can't wait to read the next story where those cops recite how they protect the public and want to save lives.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member NagChampa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Saint Helens, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    The police are imbeciles. The guy fires a warning shot, avoiding taking a life, and he gets charged.

    Oh, I can't wait to read the next story where those cops recite how they protect the public and want to save lives.
    +1

    the cops would never get prosecuted for doing the exact same thing, in fact they would declare themselves heroes.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Bringing chargers against a veteran and law abiding homeowner is a total waste of tax payer money.
    The police need to wake up and go find some real criminals to harass.
    Unreal.

    CCJ

  8. #8
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    There is more to this story it appears.

    The police are reporting that the homeowner fired his warning shot while the perp was walking away. No one has reported as to how they know that (perp said it, police saw it, homeowner opened his yap) so it's impossible to say whether the charges are valid or not.

    Further, the homeowner needed to keep his yap shut as he gave a news interview that was NOT what I would consider "in his best interest".

    Of the charges listed in the media
    1) Unlawful use of a weapon
    2) Menacing
    3) Reckless endangerment

    I don't see "Unlawful Use" (ORS 166.220) sticking.

    166.220 (2)(b) offers the following exception: (b) Persons lawfully defending life or property as provided in ORS 161.219

    And 161.219 seems to not prohibit the homeowners actions.


    161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

    (1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

    (2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or

    (3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]


    The homeowner says the perpetrator was first attempting to kick in his door then tried to break into a neighbors home. If that is true (the police are reported to say "we didn't find any evidence of an attempted break in") then 166.220 would appear to not apply. NOTE: this is the ONLY felony charge.




    "Menacing" is 163.190 which states:

    163.190 Menacing. (1) A person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.

    (2) Menacing is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §95]


    Note that thre are no exceptions listed, such as self-defense, defense of another, etc. Situations in which a person would be wholly justified in doing exactly what the menacing statute prohibits. As such, I feel it is unenforceable on constitutional and common law grounds. Unless every person who has, in defending themselves or another, is prosecuted for violating this section, it cannot be applied to others due to the 14th amendments requirement of equal treatment under the law (equal protection clause). Surely we the people do not want this and the "justice" system is not doing it so there is unequal protection (treatment).


    Reckless endangerment is 163.195 and reads:

    163.195 Recklessly endangering another person. (1) A person commits the crime of recklessly endangering another person if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person.

    (2) Recklessly endangering another person is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §96]

    First, the state must prove a SUBSTANTIAL risk of serious physical injury. Second, the state must prove that it was RECKLESS. While many of us would probably agree that while warning shots are not appropriate, we would probably agree that firing an intentional warning shot, while having some risk, does not raise to the level of SUBSTANTIAL risk. However, many people, and you can rest assured the one allowed to sit on the jury would be among them, would think it highly risky and reckless.

    This charge has the highest probability of "sticking".

    Then again, we don't know what all the homeowner said to police but we do know that he doesn't appear to have any propensity towards keeping his mouth shut.

    It will be interesting to see what further facts come out and what kind of resolution comes of the case.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    """"""""Medford Police Lt. Mike Budreau said “there was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting.”"""""


    Had this been a brother officer that discharged a weapon for whatever reason, the "good" LT. would probably withhold comment as "he wasn't there, and doesn't have all the facts". The STANDARD excuse of all LE for another officers actions.



    Medford's Chief actually was defending the convicted felon over the home resident in one of the news stories. Truly sickening.

  10. #10
    Regular Member XD40sc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post


    Wonder what the cop would do if it was in his house?
    He would call 911 knowing that because he is a cop, his call would be given priority and the response time would be shorter than the average 23 minute response time.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post
    """"""""Medford Police Lt. Mike Budreau said “there was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting.”"""""


    Had this been a brother officer that discharged a weapon for whatever reason, the "good" LT. would probably withhold comment as "he wasn't there, and doesn't have all the facts". The STANDARD excuse of all LE for another officers actions.



    Medford's Chief actually was defending the convicted felon over the home resident in one of the news stories. Truly sickening.
    Ya see, if the law is this : you can shoot anyone on your land

    Then all these legal questions go out the window and the only ? that needs to be answered is: was the guy on his land?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •