Man Attempts to Stop Felon and Charged

I didn't see this posted and I hope this is in the correct board.

This story was posted on the Blaze. A man by the name of Jonathon Kinsella fired a warning shot at a criminal after warning him and then had his weapon taken from him and was arrested.

Medford police say the incident started around 11:30 p.m. on Sunday. They responded to an apartment complex on the 2000 block on Table Rock Road for a disturbance call. When officers were on scene, they heard a gunshot and a man running out toward the parking lot. Police say 40 year-old Jonathon Kinsella, a wanted felon, was running. 36 year-old Corey Thompson told NewsWatch 12, he shot a warning shot at Kinsella because he was trying to break in through his back door.

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.

I can understand a bullet from a powerful rifle can skip or accidentally hit another persons apartment. But I feel this could have be handled better. What do you stay about this story? Do you agree with me or disagree? I would love to hear what you all have to say.
Source
Source 2

If the guy was walking away then I dont see the need to fire a gun.
I dont want to see you people lose your guns, but I also wouldn't want to live next to a guy who shoots when there is no need too, he would worry me a lot!

If the facts are correct as stated then it's reckless discharge of a firearm in an urban area. The shooter was not assaulted, his home was not actually entered and he was in no danger from the suspect. The police were right in detaining him.

Anyone having a firearm must immediately weigh the circumstances of the situation against the risk of innocent people getting hurt. The police get intense training in this and they still make errors of judgement. That's why in most states you need a license to carry and they go over that before you get the license. The right to carry doesn't inherently carry the right to shoot or kill. Each situation is different and a shooter must use the minimum amount of force needed to stabilize the situation and/or prevent injury or loss of life to suspects and witnesses alike. My best,

You are not allowed to discharge a firearm with in city limits. This is not the wild wild west. An innocent could have been injured or killed. Also, every single cop in the US would tell you to NEVER confront, call the police and they will handle it. Also, the fact that this man was a felon is irrelevant. How would anyone have known that and why would it matter?

If you wan't to keep your second amendment rights then you must use extremely wise judgement when discharging your weapon. I am pro second amendment all the way but I am also pro responsibility in exercising it.

The guy is a trained Vet...Can you blame him for following what he was trained to do? Any one that has been in the military would completely endorse this guy. He is trained well enough to be trusted with a gun and when time came for it, he used his training...The military is not like people think, its not just a switch where you can just turn off your past military experience and training. I remember joining basic and going the military training and living through 4 years of active duty.. what I don't remember is who i used to be before then...

reply to post by Phoenix267

When officers were on scene, they heard a gunshot and a man running out toward the parking lot. Police say 40 year-old Jonathon Kinsella, a wanted felon, was running.

+

“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.

= police BS
comments from source 2 [emphasis added

The-Monk
Posted on May 29, 2013 at 7:36pm

And the lesson of the story is….

Arm yourself, sit back, shut up, wait for the intruder to enter and shoot to kill.

Otherwise you’ll be hearing, “Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law”.

The-Monk
PAUL GULLO
Posted on May 29, 2013 at 7:46pm

He should have fired a warning shot thru his face.

PAUL GULLO
P8riot
Posted on May 29, 2013 at 7:54pm

@the-monk

I think his big mistake was when he said that he was “defending his property” when he shot the warning shot. I think the more accurate statement here would be that he was “defending himself” – that one small change probably would have saved him a lot of grief.

very interesting comment from source 1

Candice says:

May 29, 2013 at 9:30 am (UTC -7)

Reply

Cory is my neighbor. We all sleep better at night knowing someone is doing something to show these people they cannot keep vandalizing our property!! This is not the first attempted break-in in our apartment complex, nor the first vandalism and so far the police have told us our only option is to catch it on tape to prove who it was. Cory caught this guy red handed and went back to what he was trained to do to protect our country and used that to protect his (and our) home! These charges should be dropped.

reply to post by Phoenix267


I wanted to reply to the OP before reading others reply's as I often am surprised on ATS, and I have to reevaluate my thinking often, here...

My instinct says he needs to go to jail, and mandatory safety classes ordered and hefty fines given and paid before this man is allowed to own firearms in the future. I was shocked to learn when I was older that gun safety wasn't mandatory after a certain age. While I wasn't even allowed to target practice until I sat through the 6 - 8 week course offered by the school in summer! Not once, but twice! Once when I was 10 just to learn to target practice, and again when I was 14 just to be able to sit in the woods apart from my step-father! Mind you, he was never far away, I wasn't allowed to handle a gun alone without adult supervision until - guess what - I turned 18!!!

Discharging a weapon in an urban area? He has no conceivable idea of how dangerous that is, does he? Because if he did, he would know it's against the law to discharge a weapon as he did. The man had not entered his premises. Was he in fear for his life, because I could give two craps about his stuff. It doesn't trump human life. What was in his mind makes him believe that it does? That material things has more value than life? The law says, before taking justice in your own hands and killing a man, you best be backed into a corner and fearing for your life - because if not - why didn't you go through a window (removing yourself from the danger) and simply calling law-enforcement?

This isn't the wild west anymore. The man should lose his guns, in my opinion, and forced to jump through hoops of fines and classes before he is allowed to handle another gun again.

I am a firm supporter of the right to bear arms. I truly do believe it can stay the powers that be from become overtly tyrannical, let them try to sneak it by us, but so long as we have a way to fight back - they will toe the line. However, I'm also a proponent for stricter laws, including the mandatory gun safety classes that are not enforced after the age of 18! If your going to own a gun, I think gun owners should understand the law - and what is appropriate and not appropriate ways to safely handle and store firearms. Shooting blindly into the wind to "warn off" a robber - is not appropriate - particularly in an urban area! What was the man thinking?

Cirque

reply to post by NeoMuslim

The guy is a trained Vet...Can you blame him for following what he was trained to do? Any one that has been in the military would completely endorse this guy

He broke one of the most important rules of gun safety. Never fire a gun into the air!! Just because he was a trained vet does not mean he did not use bad judgement in this case.

Don't fire a warning shot. If you have time to fire a warning shot you are not in "immediate" danger. That bullet is going to go somewhere and sometimes someone gets hit. If you fire it into the ground it can hit a hidden rock and ricochette. If the person is walking away you are also not in "immediate" danger and cannot fire.

If you are in "immediate" danger you can fire to stop the danger, but not to kill! You can fire as many times as necessary to stop the danger but NOT one shot more! Any extra shots and you will be charged with a crime. Don't talk to the police without advise from a lawyer. One wrong word and you could be up the creek! It is essential that you learn the local laws conserning self defense BEFORE you are in a situation where you need to defend yourself!

its the kind of irresposible action that the anti gun lobby will jump all over..i agree with one of the previous posts regarding mandatory saftey training not that that would of made any difference here but in general a good idea..not sure what buddy was thinking

Originally posted by thesmokingman
Also, every single cop in the US would tell you to NEVER confront, call the police and they will handle it.

BS, I know several cops who will tell you that it is impossible for them to save you in a crisis. In other words if your life is in danger the cops probably won't get there in time to save you.

Warning shots are appropriate on the water, however discharging in a city is a bad idea. If the guy was going to open fire he should have shot the perpetrator, or at least tried to and then make the case to the police that he was protecting himself.

Originally posted by Magister


If you are in "immediate" danger you can fire to stop the danger, but not to kill! You can fire as many times as necessary to stop the danger but NOT one shot more! Any extra shots and you will be charged with a crime. Don't talk to the police without advise from a lawyer. One wrong word and you could be up the creek! It is essential that you learn the local laws conserning self defense BEFORE you are in a situation where you need to defend yourself!

If I have to use a firearm, deadly force, I will shoot to kill 100% of the time. If my life is in danger I am not going to fire a shot to scare or injure my shot, my intent is to stop the threat. Besides if you injure the threat then they can sue you after the fact and will have a story that contradicts yours.

A rule of firearm safety is never point a gun at something you don't intend to kill or destroy.

Originally posted by jrod

Originally posted by Magister


If you are in "immediate" danger you can fire to stop the danger, but not to kill! You can fire as many times as necessary to stop the danger but NOT one shot more! Any extra shots and you will be charged with a crime. Don't talk to the police without advise from a lawyer. One wrong word and you could be up the creek! It is essential that you learn the local laws conserning self defense BEFORE you are in a situation where you need to defend yourself!

If I have to use a firearm, deadly force, I will shoot to kill 100% of the time. If my life is in danger I am not going to fire a shot to scare or injure my shot, my intent is to stop the threat. Besides if you injure the threat then they can sue you after the fact and will have a story that contradicts yours.

A rule of firearm safety is never point a gun at something you don't intend to kill or destroy.

If you tell the police the same thing, or if they suspect it, you WILL be charged with murder! If you shoot to stop an attack and the suspect dies that if one thing. If you start out with the intention to kill the attacker it is another!

Question is, was the felon arrested or did he walk away?

Also, he shouldnt have fired a warning shot, he should have just put a round between the dirtbag's eyes

reply to post by Magister


Where I live we have the right to stand our ground if we feel our life is in danger. If I shoot and kill someone in self defense, or an intruder I will not be charged with murder.

I will shoot to kill and I will fire more than one shot if ever faced with a life or death situation, that is how I have been trained.

Originally posted by jrod
reply to post by Magister

 

Where I live we have the right to stand our ground if we feel our life is in danger. If I shoot and kill someone in self defense, or an intruder I will not be charged with murder.

I will shoot to kill and I will fire more than one shot if ever faced with a life or death situation, that is how I have been trained.

edit on 29-5-2013 by jrod because: (no reason given)

I suggest that you spend the money to get the advise of a local attorney to get the facts for your area. It could be money well spent. My understanding of "stand your ground" is that you do not have to prove that there was no way to escape the danger without using deadly force. In my area if someone comes in the front door, you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you could not get out of the back door safely. "Stand your ground" means you don't have to try to escape out the back door. But it does not mean shoot to kill! If you tell the police that you intended to kill you will be arrested for murder.

reply to post by Magister


I'm in Florida. I know my rights, I have no duty to retreat hence the name 'stand your ground'.

The only reason Zimmerman is standing trial right now is because the media fallout and Holder got involded. Zimmerman will walk.

I have no intention of ever shooting someone, but if I am ever faced in a situation where my life is in danger I won't hesitate.

Originally posted by jrod
reply to post by Magister

 

I'm in Florida. I know my rights, I have no duty to retreat, hence the name 'stand your ground'.

The only reason Zimmerman is standing trial right now is because the media fallout and Holder got involded. Zimmerman will walk.

I have no intention of ever shooting someone, but if I am ever faced in a situation where my life is in danger I won't hesitate.

edit on 29-5-2013 by jrod because: (no reason given)

Please reread my posts.
I'm not saying to hesitate.
I'm not saying to only fire once. You fire as many times as necessary (center mass) to stop the threat, but no more. Head shots will raise suspicions as to why you had the time to aim that well.
I'm saying that if make statements that you only shoot to kill you will be prosecuted.


We now return you to you regular programmin...thread.

Originally posted by Magister
But it does not mean shoot to kill! If you tell the police that you intended to kill you will be arrested for murder.

I've been trained that you always shoot to kill, if I discharge a firearm I intend to kill or destroy my target. If I draw my gun the decision will have been made that I need to use deadly force

The police will not arrest me for defending myself or my property, I promise you that.