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?

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

There shouldn't be ANY statements to police by anyone. Let them prove any case they might try to make.

We-the-People said:

There shouldn't be ANY statements to police by anyone. Let them prove any case they might try to make.

Click to expand...

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.

SKN said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

We-the-People said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Another good reason I will never try to "hold someone at gun point", and save the tax payers a ton of money to boot.

F350 said:

Another good reason I will never try to "hold someone at gun point", and save the tax payers a ton of money to boot.

Click to expand...

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.