The problem was that he was out on his lawn and not IN the house. Unless the threat is IN the house then you're not in any real danger (so they say).. but he still shot at the ground not at the intruder so let's make a mountain out of a mole hill.

He should have shot for the head. Problem solved. That would have been a better warning to potential home invaders.

Always remember: It's better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

I'm afraid I have to agree with the law on this one. The burglar was leaving when he heard the verbal warning and a "warning shot" was not called for.

First rule, never shoot at something you do not intend to kill. Firing into the ground is risky due to the chance of hitting a rock or metal pipe that could cause a ricochet plus it's a waste of ammo. Since the guy was caught running away, I guess the police were called beforehand so a warning shot was not needed.

I don't know the laws in Oregon. However most states allow you to kill a home invader. The vet made a judgement call and allowed the convicted felon to live. The vet has been publicly disarmed and the felon knows where he lives. Where is the justice?

He shot at the ground! Uncle Joe suggested firing a warning shot into the AIR. They arrested the wrong person.

This goes against everything that was written into our constitution. We the people are our own militia, and if threatened will act accordingly. What a huge load of horse pucky this is!!! This judge needs to throw this case OUT!!