THIS IS ME: Backyard Shooting Leads To Arrest In Hillsboro

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.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/argus/index.ssf?/base/news/1285960871193000.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.

Click to expand...

Rouches said Linton was unable to articulate a threat

Click to expand...

The law does allow the use of non-deadly physical force to rebuff or contain a trespasser

Click to expand...

deadly force can be justified if a person actually crosses the threshold into someone else's home without invitation.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

BigDave said:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/argus/index.ssf?/base/news/1285960871193000.xml&coll=6

Click to expand...

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.

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.

We-the-People said:

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.

Click to expand...

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%.

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".

We-the-People said:

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".

Click to expand...

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.

Curious of what charge you are using to cite a felony, from what has been stated it has no reference to theft just that it was there and the teen was cited with trespass.

BigDave said:

Curious of what charge you are using to cite a felony, from what has been stated it has no reference to theft just that it was there and the teen was cited with trespass.

Click to expand...

See that's what i was thinking.

They weren't there counting Petunia's, the REASONABLE PERSON would know that they were there to steal the pot plants. The value more than likely sufficient to make it a Felony, I believe it's only $1,000 to make it a C Felony (which is a felony). Since police routinely inflate the "street value" of marijuana when they make a bust, they would (you'd think) have to accept those inflated values from a defendant claiming that a thief was committing a felony.......inflated police values are $3,000 and up (to $7,500) a pound for RAW PLANTS. Wouldn't take much to cross that $1,000 C Felony line now would it?

In the future it sounds like a slap jack or a bat would be a good choice to beat the **** out of trespassers. If it happened the way he says it did then this guy is all good in my book. Also I'm sure that ripping valuable plants out of the ground is destruction of private property so there is another felony that you could pin on the teens.

We-the-People said:

They weren't there counting Petunia's, the REASONABLE PERSON would know that they were there to steal the pot plants. The value more than likely sufficient to make it a Felony, I believe it's only $1,000 to make it a C Felony (which is a felony). Since police routinely inflate the "street value" of marijuana when they make a bust, they would (you'd think) have to accept those inflated values from a defendant claiming that a thief was committing a felony.......inflated police values are $3,000 and up (to $7,500) a pound for RAW PLANTS. Wouldn't take much to cross that $1,000 C Felony line now would it?

Click to expand...

Your argument can be applied to those harassed for open carrying, everyone knows they were doing it to scare you but yet no crime as to what you fear has been committed.

When it comes down to it, he fired a shot at a trespasser and was unable to explain how he felt he was in fear of his or another's life. This is called bare fear and does not reach the level of real fear.

BigDave said:

Your argument can be applied to those harassed for open carrying, everyone knows they were doing it to scare you but yet no crime as to what you fear has been committed.

When it comes down to it, he fired a shot at a trespasser and was unable to explain how he felt he was in fear of his or another's life. This is called bare fear and does not reach the level of real fear.

Click to expand...

When it comes down to it he fired a shot at someone who was aggressively charging at him when discovered committing a felony. In the (just after release) news interview (mistake to give that) he articulated quite clearly that one of the criminals "charged at him". That seems like a pretty good reason to be in fear of life or limb.

Remember, the police said "he didn't articulate....." perhaps because he kept his mouth shut? Considering that he gave a news interview that may be hard to believe but maybe he clammed with the cops. It's not out of the realm of possibilities.

Bottom line, he is innocent until proven guilty and we do NOT have sufficient facts of the case.

TheHossUSMC said:

In the future it sounds like a slap jack or a bat would be a good choice to beat the **** out of trespassers. If it happened the way he says it did then this guy is all good in my book. Also I'm sure that ripping valuable plants out of the ground is destruction of private property so there is another felony that you could pin on the teens.

Click to expand...

Not everyone is capable of using direct force in a fight. While it sounds good to those who are physically capable, it isn't a given. For instance, I personally would LOSE any such confrontation, if I were limited to only direct physical means.
To properly analyze such encounters, you must step out of your shoes, and into those of the defender in question. Everyone is not Chuck, Sly, or Bruce.

Dude may of made some mistakes. He may be wrong about a few things. He may of taken some advice and got himself an attorney. I hope so. I suspect that a skilled attorney might investigate the background of the juvies involved. The cops sure didn't. That might conflict with the story they are trying to paint of the OP. Going armed into a dark yard to investigate possible intruders is not unreasonable. Firing at an intruder that appears to be charging you in a dark yard is not unreasonable. Waiting to see what a defense attorney presents to a court on behalf of the OP is not unreasonable.


Shunning and banishing someone in their time of need, be they right, wrong or indifferent, IMHO, is unreasonable.

NavyLT said:

But, dude, they were trying to steal his pot!

Click to expand...

I believe that's the Joe Biden exception. If you're incredibly stupid, it's ok.

We-the-People said:

When it comes down to it he fired a shot at someone who was aggressively charging at him when discovered committing a felony. In the (just after release) news interview (mistake to give that) he articulated quite clearly that one of the criminals "charged at him". That seems like a pretty good reason to be in fear of life or limb.

Remember, the police said "he didn't articulate....." perhaps because he kept his mouth shut? Considering that he gave a news interview that may be hard to believe but maybe he clammed with the cops. It's not out of the realm of possibilities.

Bottom line, he is innocent until proven guilty and we do NOT have sufficient facts of the case.

Click to expand...

No felony was being committed. The reasonable man could interpose the facts with the potential felony of arson, for example, if the punks have gasoline with them. No such interpose is likely in this case. At the time it was simple trespass. As no one was hurt, he should get a decent plea deal, but he had no justification for using deadly force that will stand up in court if they throw the book at him.

We-the-People said:

When it comes down to it he fired a shot at someone who was aggressively charging at him when discovered committing a felony. In the (just after release) news interview (mistake to give that) he articulated quite clearly that one of the criminals "charged at him". That seems like a pretty good reason to be in fear of life or limb.

Remember, the police said "he didn't articulate....." perhaps because he kept his mouth shut? Considering that he gave a news interview that may be hard to believe but maybe he clammed with the cops. It's not out of the realm of possibilities.

Bottom line, he is innocent until proven guilty and we do NOT have sufficient facts of the case.

Click to expand...

First, no doubt our system is based on innocent until proven guilty, no argument here and note that we do not make that choice but have a right to our opinions.

Yet again you refer to "committing a felony" there was no felony committed only suspected intent by you which was no more there then I was.
Take away this aspect and you argument falls away with no standing so I understand your insistence on this issue, but still no felony crime was being committed at this point.

We still have the remaining information, 2 suspects in the backyard which constitutes trespass, he yells at them one runs away and the other he says came at him and other reports he was running away and a shot was fired.

When it comes to the use of force there are many levels of force and note not more then necessary as viewed my a reasonable person with the information would have acted in the same manner as he did.

When it comes to articulating one being in fear of their life and the use of deadly force one needs to be able to articulate the following;

• Ability (to be able to cause grave bodily harm or death)
• Opportunity (being unrestricted in being able to accomplish the threat)
• Jeopardy (actual or perceived threat* of life or limb)

All of these need to be present at the same time, as from the reports and his interview he had 2 of 3 at any given time but not the jeopardy portion which is a vital part as the others are.



*perceived threat where fit in the reasonable man doctrine.

BigDave said:

Yet again you refer to "committing a felony" there was no felony committed only suspected intent by you which was no more there then I was.
Take away this aspect and you argument falls away with no standing so I understand your insistence on this issue, but still no felony crime was being committed at this point.

Click to expand...

Neither of us was there and details are sketchy. However, two trespassers in the middle of the night in a neighborhood like that (from video very tightly packed homes)...just HAPPEN to be in hte yard with the pot plants? A good defense attorney can make the case that they were there to commit felony theft. That would be a "felony in progress". Just as the guy in the bank who presents a note that says "I have a gun, this is a stickup" is commiting a felony before he gets his mitts on the dough, these kids were there to commit a felony.
Even if they weren't, at the point one of them charged the homeowner, in the dark, with unknown intentions......if a guy trespassing on your property at night charged you would you even hesitate not knowing if he has a knife, a club, or some other weapon?.....a reasonable person would concluded that they aren't coming to shake your hand and therefore you are in jeopardy. Considering the facts, it is entirely reasonable that you are facing great bodily injury.

BigDave said:

When it comes to the use of force there are many levels of force and note not more then necessary as viewed my a reasonable person with the information would have acted in the same manner as he did.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but as I previously mentioned, a criminal that charges you in the middle of the night is sufficient cause for any reasonable person to fear for their safety.

BigDave said:

When it comes to articulating one being in fear of their life and the use of deadly force one needs to be able to articulate the following;

• Ability (to be able to cause grave bodily harm or death)
• Opportunity (being unrestricted in being able to accomplish the threat)
• Jeopardy (actual or perceived threat* of life or limb)

All of these need to be present at the same time, as from the reports and his interview he had 2 of 3 at any given time but not the jeopardy portion which is a vital part as the others are.

Click to expand...

Actually, one need not articulate anything at the time. Yes you'll go to jail, but open your mouth and you will have many more problems than if you allow your lawyer to talk for you.
However, let's look at your list.
ABILITY: It's dark, a criminal cahrges you, he is obviously (to a reasonable person) intent on causing harm or at the absolute minimum capable of causing harm, sufficiently so that no reasonable person would stand there until the knife blade was sliding between their ribs. No, no mention of a knife in this case but that is moot, the mere act of charging the homeowner shows the intent of the criminal and places the reasonable person in fear of great bodily harm (or worse).

OPPORTUNITY: Other than the law abiding homeowner removing the opportunity by having a firearm, the criminal had opportunity as he was obviously capable of charging towards the law abiding homeowner. Only the law abiding homeowners good sense to have a weapon with which to protect himself from such possibilities caused the criminal to change his mind.

JEOPARDY: Most certainly a percieved threat by the law abiding citizen (and any reasonable person).

All three met.

DISCLAIMER: Of course there is only limited information available and none of us here know for sure that the criminal charged the law abiding homeowner. However, since there are two criminals and one law abiding homeowner, who's story are you going to believe? The chior boys that were just being kids (cough choke gag) or the VICTIM who was minding his own business until two criminals ruined his night?

I know who I'd pick based on the limited information available.

Now, let's say that there is incontrovertible evidence (not the two criminals stories versus the single law abiding citizen) that there was no charge and in fact the criminals were running away........Now we have a different situation.

But we do NOT have that situation at this time. Based on the limited information, and in a country where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, he should walk.

We-The-People said:

1. A good defense attorney can make the case that they were there to commit felony theft. That would be a "felony in progress".
2. Just as the guy in the bank who presents a note that says "I have a gun, this is a stickup" is committing a felony before he gets his mitts on the dough, these kids were there to commit a felony.
3. Even if they weren't, at the point one of them charged the homeowner, in the dark, with unknown intentions......if a guy trespassing on your property at night charged you would you even hesitate not knowing if he has a knife, a club, or some other weapon?.....a reasonable person would concluded that they aren't coming to shake your hand and therefore you are in jeopardy. Considering the facts, it is entirely reasonable that you are facing great bodily injury.

Click to expand...

1. Thinking one maybe there to commit a felony is not committing a felony.
2. Different in that a threat was made with in reach of the teller and of physical size and strength then yes, ability, opportunity and jeopardy is met, there is none of this in this situation.
3. Apparently in Oregon you will have to wait until such time they are in the home in this situation.
This is not to say that one cannot defend themself when threatened but one will have to be able to articulate how they were justified.

Here is a good article on Ability Opportunity and Jeopardy http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/