Veteran's assault rifle confiscated -- for firing a warning shot at an intruder wanted for felonies

Via, red, red meat on a slow, slow news day. The dispute here in a nutshell: If a man’s in your backyard and attempting to leave after you warned him to scram, can you fire a warning shot at him anyway? Thompson, the vet, claims that Kinsella, the wanted man, was trying to break into his home by opening the back door. Kinsella claims that he was doing something slightly different:

The investigation revealed that Kinsella saw the officers on scene and ran knowing he had a warrant. He ran into the backyard of Thompson’s apartment and tried to climb a fence, but fell down causing a crash.

Thompson went to investigate with his AR-15 rifle. Thompson pointed the rifle at Kinsella and told him he was armed. Kinsella began walking away and Thompson fired one round in Kinsella’s direction. Kinsella ran and was encountered by officers shortly thereafter. No one was struck by the bullet.

The investigation revealed that Thompson was not justified in shooting at Kinsella.

Kinsella was jailed on four outstanding warrants, which include burglary and assault. Thompson’s now being booked on three charges himself: Unlawful use of a weapon, reckless endangerment, and menacing(!). Why the local DA would invite the terrible PR involved in prosecuting a veteran for firing a harmless shot at a potentially dangerous criminal who was, apparently, behaving suspiciously on his property, I have no idea. You’d want to charge him if he had a history of firing unnecessarily at people; there’s nothing in any of the stories I’ve read to suggest that Thompson does. Oregon, man.

Exit question: Would Thompson have been charged if he’d taken Joe Biden’s advice and fired through the door with a shotgun instead of into the ground with one of those scary, icky AR-15s?