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

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.

NavyLT said:

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.

Click to expand...

+1 on all counts. Shut up and lawyer up.

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

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.

NaT805 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Does the concept of disparity of force not apply in Oregon? Ability does not necessarily require the presence of a weapon to manifest itself.

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.

diesel556 said:

Does the concept of disparity of force not apply in Oregon? Ability does not necessarily require the presence of a weapon to manifest itself.

Click to expand...

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.....

Police got this one right. I reserve my full personal opinion of you.

You don't belong owning or carrying a gun. Someone in your yard DOES NOT constitute "imminent danger".

You fired your weapon at a trespasser? Really?? Wow. Enjoy your time behind bars kiddo. Maybe you'll have sufficient time to think about how to conduct yourself as a handgun owner. And perhaps, while you're behind bars you'll gain some real life experience that doesn't have to do with a headset, controller and Xbox Live.

I would say good luck to you, but rather stay true to who I am and say "I hope you get everything you deserve".

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?

Christopher said:

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.....

Click to expand...

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.

Ruby said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Christopher said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Ruby said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Christopher said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree, he's definitely going to see time behind bars. Probably a stiff fine and probation as well. Not to mention never owning a gun again.

Seriously: STFU! especially around reporters!

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.

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.

"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.