Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Oregon homeowner shoots intruder, but...

  1. #1
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317

    Oregon homeowner shoots intruder, but...

    "On Friday night, March 15, in the coastal community of Hammond, Ore. a homeowner found himself the victim of a home invasion. However, when the intruder broke into the home, the homeowner was able to hold him at gunpoint while his neighbor called the police,"

    "Clatsop County District Attorney Josh Marquis told KATU News that Tischer was jailed twice for buglarizing the same home in the past. He was released from jail because of overcrowding."

    LINK

    KION channel 6 news LINK

    KATU channel 2 newsLINK

    So, not a lot of details in the news articles, but it sounds like Tischer was being held by the home owner awaiting police to arrive.
    Then just as the first LEO gets there, boom, Tischer is shot.
    Will this be a problem for the home owner? I'm thinking that it can be.

    Oregon doesn't have a "Castle" law, but does have good self-defense law (plus Oregon has "citizen arrest" law).
    But, for self-defense, you have to follow "use of force" ORS 161.209 and it's limitations ORS 161.219

    Shooting the intruder when he has broken into your home... you are in fear of your & your family's lives from an unknown intruder who may be armed, intentions unknown.
    BUT, after you have the intruder being held under gun point, you call the LEOs, and then the intruder is shot...

    If the intruder who is being "held" by the home owner jumps up and goes for the home owner or his weapon, no issues, he was a threat.
    BUT, if the intruder jumps up and bolts for the door to escape... no direct threat.

    So, IF the intruder, who is recovering in the hospital, states that he just wanted to get out of there & get away from the guy with the shotgun, could this turn ugly for the home owner?

    Luckily, the article states a neighbor and the home owner's wife was there, so additional witness, but it depends on the statements about the incident.

    For me, not enough info to say good or bad shoot at this time.
    But the home owner could be in for a wild ride depending on the investigation & the DA.

    What are your thoughts?
    Also, what would you do in a similar situation?
    "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

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I prefer the Napoleonic Code ... anyone on your land is subject to a blast in the asst

    It stops all this crappola.

    Now you don't have to prove something that only the dead guy can testify to ... he's on your land, you shot him dead ... have a good day

  3. #3
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    There shouldn't be ANY statements to police by anyone. Let them prove any case they might try to make.
    "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.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    There shouldn't be ANY statements to police by anyone. Let them prove any case they might try to make.
    Police don't have to PROVE anything. All they need to make an arrest is probable cause but no arrest was made here so this will be referred to the DA's office for them to ponder charges for submission to a grand jury. If this ever makes a criminal court it will be up to the prosecutor to prove an unlawful act.
    Last edited by SKN; 03-19-2013 at 01:00 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by SKN View Post
    Police don't have to PROVE anything. All they need to make an arrest is probable cause but no arrest was made here so this will be referred to the DA's office for them to ponder charges for submission to a grand jury. If this ever makes a criminal court it will be up to the prosecutor to prove an unlawful act.
    In the courtroom it is up to the prosecutor to prove the case. However, the police are the ones that provide the evidence. They make the initial response, detectives and forensics personnel then investigate and gather evidence, secure that evidence, test the evidence, etc. The police conduct interrogations (PC word is "interviews"), make the arrests based upon their own determination of probable cause but must then convince a judge, along with the prosecutor, that probable cause existed on which to make the arrest (this is the "first appearance" or "arraignment") and generally must occur within 48 hours of arrest (there is not bright line standard by the Supreme Court but they have said 48 hours is soon enough).

    The prosecutor then takes the evidence provided by detectives and forensics personnel, applies legal principles and the law, and presents the case before the court. That presentation includes the evidence that "proves" the case, evidence obtained by police, not the prosecutor though some large jurisdictions may have their own investigators as well.

    The way I see it, the police have to prove the case, the prosecutor is only the conductor of the states presentation in the court room.
    "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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Out by Pendleton
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    The way I see it, the police have to prove the case, the prosecutor is only the conductor of the states presentation in the court room.
    Well, other than attaching the quibble that the prosecutor, in the middle-ish part of the process, can decide whether even to BRING the case, that's basically correct.

  7. #7
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Another good reason I will never try to "hold someone at gun point", and save the tax payers a ton of money to boot.

  8. #8
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    Another good reason I will never try to "hold someone at gun point", and save the tax payers a ton of money to boot.
    Not something I'd recommend saying in an open forum where it might come back to bite you should you ever have to use your defensive weapon. The words written here, even if out of frustration, can be twisted by an over zealous prosecutor years from now as you're in the dock for shooting a burglar.
    "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.

Posting Permissions

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