Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: THIS IS ME: Backyard Shooting Leads To Arrest In Hillsboro

  1. #1
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    98

    THIS IS ME: Backyard Shooting Leads To Arrest In Hillsboro

    Backyard Shooting Leads To Arrest In Hillsboro

    POSTED: 8:21 am PDT September 29, 2010
    UPDATED: 8:50 am PDT September 29, 2010

    HILLSBORO, Ore. -- A Hillsboro man who police said fired his gun at two trespassers Wednesday was arrested on weapon and assault charges.

    Hillsboro police officers were called to a burglary in progress on Merriwether Drive at 2:15 a.m, according to a Hillsboro police spokesman.

    Lt. Mike Rouches said two teenagers had jumped over a fence and gone into the back yard of the home. That led 23-year-old Matthew Linton, who lives at the house with his brother and mother, to fire his gun in the direction of the trespassers, Rouches told KPAM 860.

    When officers arrived, they arrested Linton on charges of unlawful use of a weapon and attempted assault. Rouches told KPAM 860 that having someone in your back yard is “not enough to constitute a burglary” and deadly force shouldn’t be used.

    One of the teens who went into the back yard was arrested on a trespassing charge. The other remained at large as of Wednesday morning, but has been identified as 18-year-old Alfredo DeJesus, of Forest Grove.

    The people who live at the home are medical marijuana card holders and have a legal growing operation. Rouches said it’s not clear whether the trespassers were seeking marijuana.

    http://www.kptv.com/news/25209443/detail.html


    I have no criminal record, no tickets, nothing. I am not gunna go into details as I have been awake for over 24 hours, but I will say: I was in fear for my life, I protected myself and my family, my firearm was seized and now I am facing 3 felony charges labeled as:
    ORS 161.405 ASSAULT I; ATTEMPTED TO COMMIT CR X1
    ORS 166.220 UNLAW USE WEAPON; ATT USE/CARRY DANGER X1
    October 11th 8:30am is the court date. I am currently out on bail.


    Matt

  2. #2
    Regular Member Christopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    McMinnville Oregon
    Posts
    58
    Someone trying to steal some plants from your backyard does not justify use of deadly force

    § 161.219¹

    Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person
    Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

    (1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

    (2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or


    (3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]


    So.... What i would have did in your situation was called the police then give the trespassers a verbal command to leave my property and if they didn't leave i would be authorized to use physical force and not deadly force, or went into my house locked the doors and called the police, but if they entered my home, that constitutes burglary then using the gun is justifiable.


    § 164.225¹

    Burglary in the first degree
    (1) A person commits the crime of burglary in the first degree if the person violates ORS 164.215 (Burglary in the second degree) and the building is a dwelling, or if in effecting entry or while in a building or in immediate flight therefrom the person:

    (a) Is armed with a burglary tool or theft device as defined in ORS 164.235 (Possession of a burglary tool or theft device) or a deadly weapon;

    (b) Causes or attempts to cause physical injury to any person; or

    (c) Uses or threatens to use a dangerous weapon.

    (2) Burglary in the first degree is a Class A felony. [1971 c.743 §137; 2003 c.577 §10

    IANAL but thats my .02 cents


    And by the way it says in the OP that police were responding to a burglary in progress but i dont think that's the case becuase someone just being in your backyard does not constitute burglary i believe it is just trespassing.
    Last edited by Christopher; 09-30-2010 at 01:00 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Good luck to you. Can't say that I agree that two teenagers in a back yard constitutes fear for life justifying the use of deadly force, but I wasn't there.

    BTW, I'll bet your lawyer is going to tell you to stop posting here.
    +1 on all counts. Shut up and lawyer up.

  4. #4
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    98
    There is now a video up, it is more accurate than the white washed news report. Please watch it.

    http://www.kptv.com/news/25209443/detail.html

  5. #5
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    As said, lawyer up.

    No amount of agreement or support on the internet is going to change what lies ahead for you. Right, wrong or indifferent, John Law wants a big piece, if not all of you. Attorney. Now. The game is in play, the cops have the ball, and you should not be using a time out to call for a huddle here, 'specially when they could be listening in. If they find anything on the 'net they can use against you, trust that they will use it.

    You need a lawyer that knows the game and the players.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Christopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    McMinnville Oregon
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by NaT805 View Post
    There is now a video up, it is more accurate than the white washed news report. Please watch it.

    http://www.kptv.com/news/25209443/detail.html

    This is why we need a castle doctrine..... But having said that and watched what happened, under current oregon law they were only trespassing and your wernt justified to use your gun, it would only be justifiable if they pulled a deadly object or gun on you and you were in Iminent danger, don't get me wrong i think anyone trespassing has it coming to them but untill we have some better property rights you need to think long and hard and make sure all your ducks are in a row before you draw your gun.

  7. #7
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714
    Does the concept of disparity of force not apply in Oregon? Ability does not necessarily require the presence of a weapon to manifest itself.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Dood,

    Sell your gun(s) now while you still can. Probably not a lot of time between charges being made and qualifying as being under indictment.

    Your video appearance just put you in prison.

    Normally I sign off with "stay safe". Not in this case - too late for you.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Christopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    McMinnville Oregon
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by diesel556 View Post
    Does the concept of disparity of force not apply in Oregon? Ability does not necessarily require the presence of a weapon to manifest itself.
    Use of deadly physical force rules are very clear in oregon, and i believe washington is a castle doctrine state.

    § 161.219¹

    Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person
    Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

    (1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

    (2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or

    (3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23



    § 161.225¹

    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 (Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person); 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 (Definitions for ORS 164.205 to 164.270) and any real property. As used in subsection (2)(b) of this section, "premises" includes any building. [1971 c.743 §25



    you can't shoot a trespasser.....

  10. #10
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Moral of the story, it is imperative to know the laws surrounding the use of firearms and self defense as you are finding out now.
    Training is insurance to keep you and your family safe, before, during and after the fact.

    Shooting at someone that poses only a threat to your marijuana grow does not constitute shooting at someone, criminals do this.

    In this instance, as others have suggested, shut up and lawyer up to protect yourself against yourself.

    Is a life really worth taking over a couple of marijuana plants?
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher View Post
    Use of deadly physical force rules are very clear in oregon, and i believe washington is a castle doctrine state.

    § 161.219¹

    Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person
    Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

    (1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

    (2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or

    (3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23



    § 161.225¹

    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 (Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person); 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 (Definitions for ORS 164.205 to 164.270) and any real property. As used in subsection (2)(b) of this section, "premises" includes any building. [1971 c.743 §25



    you can't shoot a trespasser.....

    No, Washington doesn't have a Castle Doctrine. We are a "stand your ground" state, meaning we have a right to defend ourselves wherever we have a legal right to be, not just in our homes.
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  12. #12
    Regular Member Christopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    McMinnville Oregon
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby View Post
    No, Washington doesn't have a Castle Doctrine. We are a "stand your ground" state, meaning we have a right to defend ourselves wherever we have a legal right to be, not just in our homes.
    Oh ok i got ya.... I wasn't for sure, i am originally from washington but that was years ago and i wasn't old enough to carry at the time. Thank you for correcting me.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher View Post
    Oh ok i got ya.... I wasn't for sure, i am originally from washington but that was years ago and i wasn't old enough to carry at the time. Thank you for correcting me.
    I should have also said that we have no duty to retreat if we have a legal right to be where we are, hence the "stand your ground" law. Of course, retreat is the wisest thing to do IF you can do so safely. Every gun fight you can avoid increases your chances for a long and healthy life.

    It doesn't look good for the OP. I agree with Big Dave on this one. Know the gun laws of your state BEFORE you purchase a gun! This incident did not call for deadly force. If the OP is convicted of this charge, which seems to be a felony, he may well NEVER own a gun again, besides doing some prison time. Tactical training aside, everyone who owns a gun or plans on purchasing one needs to know the laws governing their use in the state in which they reside.
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  14. #14
    Regular Member Christopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    McMinnville Oregon
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby View Post
    I should have also said that we have no duty to retreat if we have a legal right to be where we are, hence the "stand your ground" law. Of course, retreat is the wisest thing to do IF you can do so safely. Every gun fight you can avoid increases your chances for a long and healthy life.

    It doesn't look good for the OP. I agree with Big Dave on this one. Know the gun laws of your state BEFORE you purchase a gun! This incident did not call for deadly force. If the OP is convicted of this charge, which seems to be a felony, he may well NEVER own a gun again, besides doing some prison time. Tactical training aside, everyone who owns a gun or plans on purchasing one needs to know the laws governing their use in the state in which they reside.
    I agree 100%... I am pretty sure he will get convicted, unless they are leaving out some facts in there that we don't know about. But i seriously doubt it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Seriously: ****! especially around reporters!

  16. #16
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964
    Here is my advice:

    Get the guns off of your property. Guns, Marijuana, possible indightment - A recipe for BATFE intervention. Those JBTs don't care if what you do is legal in Oregon - you are an easy mark to improve their numbers.

    Get a Lawyer. You really need one, so do it today!

    Stop posting anything on the internet. Don't even swap Jello recipes.

    This advice is given to try and help you.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    100
    Gee whiz! I’m sorry about your predicament. But I must say I agree with busting you for discharging a firearm at mere trespassers. My first concern would be where your rounds went.

    I’d like to see where this is going to hash out in the legal process, but I think I’ve got a fair idea already about how this is going to end. Sounds like one of the kids you caught in your yard will be doing some stupid probationary period and laughing about it with his friends.

    I personally have no qualms if you would have drilled them, but that is not the way things work anymore. And it would take a heck of a lot more for me to shoot at someone for just jumping a fence. It is not like the average Joe, can use all those cool excuses the police come up with to justify stupidity and being jumpy. Besides all that, the situation doesn’t sound like it warranted the discharge of a firearm.

    And firearms don’t mix with any kind of drugs in my book. Legal in this Nanny state or not.

    Like some of the other posters have already said. I’d get a decent lawyer [yeah] and quit posting on the Internet.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    "Reasonable," not deadly force is allowed against trespassers. Unless they were armed and came at the OP, I hope he gets a good plea bargain.

  19. #19
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    What's sad about all this, it could have been avoided and he could be enjoying life with out all the legal issues and security of himself and family in question.

    So many attend professional training and achieve what others do in a much longer time by searching out forums and muddle through good and bad information as well with articles and some videos.

    If the mindset was where it should be with a law abiding citizens it is in defense of them and their families and not in something that should be a police action and for marijuana at that, some say is victimless, I disagree.

    In dealing with the aftermath there are many negative issues that come into play as he is well finding out first hand and one must asked, was it worth it?
    He has likely lost what friendships he had made on this forum as well as some friends and possibly family to emotional troubles, nightmares, trouble sleeping, family issues, his own security at to what the future holds for him.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  20. #20
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    http://www.oregonlive.com/news/argus...000.xml&coll=6

    Officers interviewed Matthew Linton, who did not deny he fired a gun at two juveniles he saw running from his back yard.
    Rouches said Linton was unable to articulate a threat
    The law does allow the use of non-deadly physical force to rebuff or contain a trespasser
    deadly force can be justified if a person actually crosses the threshold into someone else's home without invitation.
    deadly physical force can also be applied to situations where it is unavoidable and there is no reasonable way to escape the conflict, referred to as "the necessity rule."
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Christopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    McMinnville Oregon
    Posts
    58
    Well put sir, i couldn't have said it better. That's the whole point i was trying to make... Also let's hope this guy doesnt try and associate himself with us anymore, i hate to say it but he wasn't law abiding in any way shape or form.

  22. #22
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    The OP may not have made the smartest move but to crucify him here, with the limited amount of information available......and we all know there is never any bias, never any "clever editing", never any agenda in police and media reports......is not acceptable.

    SHUT UP, Lawyer Up, Don't post on the net, etc. No problem, that's what needs to be done.

    Did no one notice that in the "just got released from jail" interview for the news (shut up, lawyer up) the point was made by both the victim and the reporter that one of the trespassers ran at him when he yelled at them?

    In the middle of the night, intruders in your yard, you arm yourself to be safe and then open the door to yell and hopefully scare them off, and one of them charges you!!! I would say the reasonable person could very easily find themselves in fear of their lives and/or great bodily injury.

    Another problem..... Why the demonizing of the LEGAL marijuana crop? No property isn't worth shotting someone over, not even your medical marijuana, but aren't those of you demonizing his LEGAL medical marijuana being just a bit HYPOCRITICAL?

    Think about it..... your firearm is LEGAL and yet you complain about being persecuted in the media and by government authorities. His marijuana crop is LEGAL but you demonize him.

    Criticize his actions if you will but he faced TWO CRIMINALS in the middle of the night and his account is that one charged him. But the medical marijuana has you crucifying him because of legal activity and hanging him out to dry. Had this happened to a "regular" here and there was no pot you'd be screaming BS CHARGES as he was charged by one of the criminals. Toss in a little marijuana and bingo, you're Brady Light.

    THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!!

    Just my opinion, your mileage mary vary.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Christopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    McMinnville Oregon
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    The OP may not have made the smartest move but to crucify him here, with the limited amount of information available......and we all know there is never any bias, never any "clever editing", never any agenda in police and media reports......is not acceptable.

    SHUT UP, Lawyer Up, Don't post on the net, etc. No problem, that's what needs to be done.

    Did no one notice that in the "just got released from jail" interview for the news (shut up, lawyer up) the point was made by both the victim and the reporter that one of the trespassers ran at him when he yelled at them?

    In the middle of the night, intruders in your yard, you arm yourself to be safe and then open the door to yell and hopefully scare them off, and one of them charges you!!! I would say the reasonable person could very easily find themselves in fear of their lives and/or great bodily injury.

    Another problem..... Why the demonizing of the LEGAL marijuana crop? No property isn't worth shotting someone over, not even your medical marijuana, but aren't those of you demonizing his LEGAL medical marijuana being just a bit HYPOCRITICAL?

    Think about it..... your firearm is LEGAL and yet you complain about being persecuted in the media and by government authorities. His marijuana crop is LEGAL but you demonize him.

    Criticize his actions if you will but he faced TWO CRIMINALS in the middle of the night and his account is that one charged him. But the medical marijuana has you crucifying him because of legal activity and hanging him out to dry. Had this happened to a "regular" here and there was no pot you'd be screaming BS CHARGES as he was charged by one of the criminals. Toss in a little marijuana and bingo, you're Brady Light.

    THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!!

    Just my opinion, your mileage mary vary.
    I didn't mean for it to sound like i was crucifying the OP, but i just don't see why he
    didn't go about it the right way. The marijuana might be legal in oregon but im not sure
    it's legal to the feds, so it might open himself up to persecution from them also. IMO, he
    should have yelled verbal commands at them and when/if they didn't comply wen't back
    into the house locked the door and called the police, and if the perpetrators continued to kick in his door then by all means use your weapon. Untill we have a castle doctrine nobody is justified at shooting at a trespasser, untill they brandish a weapon of some sort and your in iminent fear of your life, i also have nothing against marijuana at all i think more people smoke it than we know, even if there was no pot IMO he was unjustified for drawing and shooting at trespasser. I was just merely stating that no judge, prosecuting attorney or LEO is gonna side with this guy becuase it clearly states in oregon law when you can and can't use deadly force, i personaly would have beat thier asses for coming into my backyard and would have been justified. On a side note i don't hope for this guy to get into trouble, i hope he gets off scott free but we don't live in a perfect world, or in a castle doctrine state. Untill then we have to be careful when we choose to use our weapon's and follow the letter of the law 100%.

  24. #24
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Perhaps a review of the Oregon Revised Statutes is in order. I have highlighted a few parts.

    ORS

    161.219: Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
    (1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person;


    The theft of the marijuana plants would constitute a felony. Charging at the homeowner who was apparently standing in his doorway or immediately near it would constitute using physical force against a person (by the perpetrator).....i.e. deadly force IS allowed if these were the circumstances.


    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. [1971 c.743 §25]

    Since the homeowner was REASONABLY attempting to lawfully terminate the felonious crime ..... Remember he didn't open the door and just start firing, he only fired after he was charged........ These two sections SHOULD cover his actions.

    Of course this assumes that 1) That is how the incident occured and 2) That the "justice" system follows the letter of the law. We all know how these two assumptions work out in real life.

    Were I on the jury and it was determined that the homeowner was charged by the criminal, not guilty. If the homeowner instead just opened the door and started firing...guilty.

    IANAL but that's how I see it.

    I remember the days when a farmer would openup with a double barrelled 12 guage (full or rock salt usually) on kids just stealing a watermellon. If he got "lucky" and hit one in the back/ass.....their parents wouldn't call the cops and cry "my baby got shot".....no, they'd help their son....by pouring plenty of water of the wounds to disolve the salt.....VERY painful.....and very effective at reducing watermellon (and other) thefts. I'm so tired of hearing about the poor criminals these days, but this may well be a legal "shoot".

  25. #25
    Regular Member Christopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    McMinnville Oregon
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Perhaps a review of the Oregon Revised Statutes is in order. I have highlighted a few parts.

    ORS

    161.219: Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
    (1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person;


    The theft of the marijuana plants would constitute a felony. Charging at the homeowner who was apparently standing in his doorway or immediately near it would constitute using physical force against a person (by the perpetrator).....i.e. deadly force IS allowed if these were the circumstances.


    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. [1971 c.743 §25]

    Since the homeowner was REASONABLY attempting to lawfully terminate the felonious crime ..... Remember he didn't open the door and just start firing, he only fired after he was charged........ These two sections SHOULD cover his actions.

    Of course this assumes that 1) That is how the incident occured and 2) That the "justice" system follows the letter of the law. We all know how these two assumptions work out in real life.

    Were I on the jury and it was determined that the homeowner was charged by the criminal, not guilty. If the homeowner instead just opened the door and started firing...guilty.

    IANAL but that's how I see it.

    I remember the days when a farmer would openup with a double barrelled 12 guage (full or rock salt usually) on kids just stealing a watermellon. If he got "lucky" and hit one in the back/ass.....their parents wouldn't call the cops and cry "my baby got shot".....no, they'd help their son....by pouring plenty of water of the wounds to disolve the salt.....VERY painful.....and very effective at reducing watermellon (and other) thefts. I'm so tired of hearing about the poor criminals these days, but this may well be a legal "shoot".
    You very well may be right, but like we both have said we are not lawyers, so this is all speculation, and i think it's a good one becuase it opens everyobody's eyes into the legal trouble we can get ourselfs into for thinking we were justified. He made a big big no no saying anything to the police. Like i said it was just my personal opinion. That being said, you make some very valid points i was not aware stealing marijuana plants was a felony, maybe becuase they are medical? I still would have not fired, beat some a$$ yes. As i said earlier we need to get a castle doctrine in place so we have some civil immunity. And i do think Common Sense Oregon is gathering signatures for one, i sure hope it gathers enough.
    Last edited by Christopher; 10-03-2010 at 06:18 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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