Ever had to pull in Washington County?

imported post

I was recently speaking with a person who pulled a gun in Washington County. The situation was threat to someone burning down their house and from the story the person was in a position that they could have done so.

Either way, story be told that he pulled the gun and demanded said threat leave the property. This was an immediate family members house.

According to the person who pulled the gun, he was arrested and taken through the court process with the DA regarding the issue. The lawyer was able to get him off in a 'technicality' although I'm not sure what that was. Additionally, the report was that if this had happened in Multnomah County almost nothing would have happened.

This was "backed up" by stating that Multnomah Co has lots of crime and not enough money to fight the "petty" things, and Washington Co has too much money and not enough crime.

Any one have any other experiences in Washington County that they can share. This isn't to say - when have you pulled and had to discharge.... but matters of when you were in Washington County and had to either pull or came close.

Thanks in advance....

imported post

I think a lot of people would be reluctant to discuss such things. This is the perennial problem when conducting surveys of defensive gun usage; people are not willing to admit to anything which, as you've just stated, might lead to prosecution or persecution.

Remember, this website is only superficially anonymous- any judge could compel our individualized information be handed over at any time.

Additionally, being an internet forum where people do sometimes feel pretty anonymous, anything you get will probably be subject to large GIGO effects.

imported post

I agree 100%.

And to thebastidge, thank you for your service in Iraq!!!!!

imported post

thebastidge: I am sure you are probably very right with your statements. It's unfortunate though, that that is the case. We have the ability to learn from our mistakes and experiences, as well as the mistakes and experiences of those around us.

I hope that I do not ever encounter a day in which I must defend myself or someone else to the point of having to resort to the use of a firearm. However, in a world where the person who is "right" can so quickly become "wrong" it would be great to be able to share such experiences with one another.

Additionally, for what it's worth I wasn't requesting information regarding a situation in which someone had to draw that wasn't reported to the legal system. In other words, if it was done and the perp left the scene and nothing happened after that - great! You did your part, situation over - absolutely no reason to discuss it or persecute yourself.

On the other hand, if someone has been in this situation, where they lawfully "drew' and still had to deal with the legal system, it could be beneficial for others to learn from. Especially what to expect in the event you had to draw. Note: I said draw, not shoot. I wouldn't want to put anyone on the spot and suggest that they relive those moments, or again - put themselves back in the spotlight for the legal system to "investigate".

What about if you knew someone who pulled a firearm, and they are now sitting behind bars - even though they were completely within their right to have done so and expected (given the situation) that the law would have been on their side.

Btw, as Cremator said - thank you for your service!

imported post

Since March of 2007, Oregon has been a "Stand Your Ground" state per a case called "State v. Sandoval".

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S53457.htm

imported post

Thanks Lonnie -


This is good to know... however, this case focuses very heavily on "stand your ground" in the defense of threat to yourself or another person. It mentions nothing of the defense of personal property, ie. someone threating to burn down your house, steal your car, etc.

Any thoughts?

imported post

pdxwarrior wrote:

Thanks Lonnie -


This is good to know... however, this case focuses very heavily on "stand your ground" in the defense of threat to yourself or another person. It mentions nothing of the defense of personal property, ie. someone threating to burn down your house, steal your car, etc.

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

I myself am a "Deadly force only in defence of life" kind of person, so I have not researched the deadly force issue nearly as much as I have other aspectes of firearm law (I figure if I'm ever in a situation where I *must* use a firearm -- where I actually have A, J, O, and P, then there will be no other choice except to kill or die, and if I end up convicted, better than being dead).

If I escaped from my house and there was nobody else inside, I'd likely let the arsonist have at it. (Disclaimer: I'm not a homeowner yet. I obviously may change my opinions when I am.) If I knew there were people inside, especially more than one or two or dispabled persons and espeically a large/multistory or slip level house, where it was unlikely I could get them all out before he set the fire (fire spread fast)... maybe.

That said, Oregon law specifically authorizes use of deadly force to prevent an arson.

161.225 Use of physical force in defense of premises. (1) A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

(2) A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (1) of this section only:

(a) In defense of a person as provided in ORS 161.219; or

(b) When the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson or a felony by force and violence by the trespasser.

(3) As used in subsection (1) and subsection (2)(a) of this section, “premises” includes any building as defined in ORS 164.205 and any real property. As used in subsection (2)(b) of this section, “premises” includes any building.

Click to expand...

imported post

Wow grishnav -

That's pretty informative. Seems in some ways it would be better to let them burn down the place, or at least hold the match to the edge of the house while I photograph them and then draw the weapon.

I do believe that the approach to only using deadly force is much better reserved for the need to save my life or anothers directly and not for the use of property. However, that being said - we should have the right to protect what we work so hard for. I am not a home owner either, however, I posed the original post due to the reasons mentioned then. The idea of going through the legal system to that extent for simply protecting property from a direct threat seems rediculous.

Thanks for the reference to the ORS code, very handy indeed.

imported post

Looking back at the original post, he could have been charged under:

166.190 Pointing firearm at another; courts having jurisdiction over offense. Any person over the age of 12 years who, with or without malice, purposely points or aims any loaded or empty pistol, gun, revolver or other firearm, at or toward any other person within range of the firearm, except in self-defense, shall be fined upon conviction in any sum not less than $10 nor more than $500, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than 10 days nor more than six months, or both. Justice courts have jurisdiction concurrent with the circuit court of the trial of violations of this section. When any person is charged before a justice court with violation of this section, the court shall, upon motion of the district attorney, at any time before trial, act as a committing magistrate, and if probable cause be established, hold such person to the grand jury. [Formerly 163.320]

Click to expand...

I'm sure the intention of the Oregon legislature wasn't to force you to use your handgun against an arsonist if only pointing it at him would do, but pointing a weapon is only authorized in defense of persons, and not of propery (where deadly force is authorized in the case of arson).

So, if you're gonna pull on an arsonist, guess you better squeeze the trigger, too.

Interestingly enough, the usual exception for a law enforcement officer during the commission of his official duties is not present...

imported post

Wow, so if you're gonna pull.....squeeze too. I don't like that idea much. Guess it falls back to the idea that only resort if the threat is imminent and you're only option is to shoot. Guess you wait until the house is soaked in fuel and the perp is holding a lit match.

Seems like a rediculous way to look at it though, specially when the act of pointing it may be enough to detour the threat and end the situation all together.