We-the-People
Regular Member
One is NOT obligated to allow a threatening party to get within reach before defending themselves. A man 20 feet away with a knife who says "I'm going to cut your throat" is a legitimate "target" the moment he makes the first advance. (Tueller drill has show that a knife wielding assailant can cover 21 feet and put his blade into you before you can draw and stop him with your firearm).
In this case the following are key pieces of law:
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
When the criminal charged, the law abiding citizen reasonably believed that the criminal intended to commit great harm to him (a felony).
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]
When the criminal charged the law abiding citizen, section 2 a became operative. Section 3 makes it abundantly clear that it is not just inside your home but also defending your property where the statutes apply.
161.229 Use of physical force in defense of property. A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief of property. [1971 c.743 §26]
Going out to stop the criminals was authorized. Only and idiot (or a brady buncher....oh same thing) would go out unarmed. Still, deadly force isn't authorized simply because of the crime. When the criminal charged the law abiding citizen, deadly force, per ORS 166.219 & 166.225, immediately became the relevant sections of law.
In the end it still all comes down to what the reasonable person would have done when the criminals charged. It is not relevant if a reasonable person would have gone outside to yell at the criminals as that is a lawful act, even if armed when so doing.
Now, if the victim (that would be the homeowner not the damn criminals trespassing) told the cops "I shot at them to scare them away".....Ooops.....bad spud.....guilty.
If he said "the guy charged me and I shot at him" and nothing else, well then the cops are going to say "he couldn't articulate fear of harm" but that doesn't mean that he wasn't in fear (and therefore justified if a reasonable person in the same situation would be in fear) of great bodily harm. Perhaps he simply made a short statement and then esercised his right to remain silent.
If he said absolutely nothing to the cops, he still didn't articulate to them the requirements necessary to justify firing......but he doesn't have to say anything to them per the Constitution. His lawyer will speak and the victim need not even open his mouth.
If thevictim got "diareah mouth" and blabbed his heart out, it probably won't matter whether it was truly justified or not as they'll twist every word and statment into an indictment.
The case is fresh, the details few, and apparently the victim has taken heed of the advice to STFU and lawyer up. Kudo's to him for that. Time will tell us the outcome.
In this case the following are key pieces of law:
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
When the criminal charged, the law abiding citizen reasonably believed that the criminal intended to commit great harm to him (a felony).
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]
When the criminal charged the law abiding citizen, section 2 a became operative. Section 3 makes it abundantly clear that it is not just inside your home but also defending your property where the statutes apply.
161.229 Use of physical force in defense of property. A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief of property. [1971 c.743 §26]
Going out to stop the criminals was authorized. Only and idiot (or a brady buncher....oh same thing) would go out unarmed. Still, deadly force isn't authorized simply because of the crime. When the criminal charged the law abiding citizen, deadly force, per ORS 166.219 & 166.225, immediately became the relevant sections of law.
In the end it still all comes down to what the reasonable person would have done when the criminals charged. It is not relevant if a reasonable person would have gone outside to yell at the criminals as that is a lawful act, even if armed when so doing.
Now, if the victim (that would be the homeowner not the damn criminals trespassing) told the cops "I shot at them to scare them away".....Ooops.....bad spud.....guilty.
If he said "the guy charged me and I shot at him" and nothing else, well then the cops are going to say "he couldn't articulate fear of harm" but that doesn't mean that he wasn't in fear (and therefore justified if a reasonable person in the same situation would be in fear) of great bodily harm. Perhaps he simply made a short statement and then esercised his right to remain silent.
If he said absolutely nothing to the cops, he still didn't articulate to them the requirements necessary to justify firing......but he doesn't have to say anything to them per the Constitution. His lawyer will speak and the victim need not even open his mouth.
If thevictim got "diareah mouth" and blabbed his heart out, it probably won't matter whether it was truly justified or not as they'll twist every word and statment into an indictment.
The case is fresh, the details few, and apparently the victim has taken heed of the advice to STFU and lawyer up. Kudo's to him for that. Time will tell us the outcome.
