Thread: Justification for use of Deadly Force

Article in the Statesman Journal -

Mannix's initiative raises a question of deadly force | Statesman Journal | statesmanjournal.com

I am curious what Oregon Residents think about current laws regarding use of deadly force on your property and in your home, as well as the proposed changes as described in the above article.

In my mind, regardless of current law, if someone is in my home uninvited then I will assume they are there with the worst kind of criminal intent. I will protect myself and my family and worry about the law later. Isn't it reasonable to assume that any person in your home uninvited and unwelcome is there to cause you harm?

I like the Mannix change but sorry, I got side tracked with this statement...

Gun Crafters sends potential buyers to a gun safety class before they sell a gun to them?

I'm sure they mention it but... Whatever.

Responsible gun ownership also means conducting background checks on gun owners, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and making sure they're safely stored, said Penny Okamoto, the executive director of Ceasefire Oregon, an advocacy group opposed to gun violence.

She said that justifiable homicide makes up a small percentage of gun violence.

"We are not opposed to responsible gun ownership, and we do acknowledge that weapons can be used for self-defense, but we don't want people getting the idea that they can be vigilantes," she said. "We're glad that this woman and her baby were OK."

If that was only what they really wanted!!

Originally Posted by SheepDog223

I like the Mannix change but sorry, I got side tracked with this statement...

Gun Crafters sends potential buyers to a gun safety class before they sell a gun to them?

I'm sure they mention it but... Whatever.

This is a perfect example of taking something out of context.

In the story this is actually what is said:

"Often, he said, he'll steer them to a class taught by firearms instructor Jim Jacobe for proper training before they purchase their first gun."

A very different context then Sheepdogs paraphrasing implies

Originally Posted by Mark W.

This is a perfect example of taking something out of context.

In the story this is actually what is said:

"Often, he said, he'll steer them to a class taught by firearms instructor Jim Jacobe for proper training before they purchase their first gun."

A very different context then Sheepdogs paraphrasing implies

Your right, I didn't quote the article. I paraphrased. The keyword that I'm calling B.S. on here is "before".

I've been on the floor when he's sold guns to first timers. He is not a quiet man. I have not ever heard anything about "you should go take a safety class before you buy this gun from me". Has anybody heard him say anything like that? I'd be surprised.

I have noticed his helper talk to me with his mouth full of food and not be able to help me because he was eating and had sticky fingers. You'll get better service at a 7-11.

REGARDLESS OF CURRENT LAW,

Remember, every action you will take, everything you say, will be misconstrued by law enforcement in every way. Shut up, sit down and ask for legal representation. Trying to explain you actions to conviction hungry law enforcement is always a mistake. Explain it to your lawyer and let him decide what to tell law enforcement.

Don't be tricked by "what do you have to hide?" statements. I do not believe that any changes to any laws will stop law enforcement from trying to make an easy conviction out of some one defending their life home and property.

Im more worried about my dogs in the event of somebody coming into our home. Granted my biggest is 233# and the smallest 155# but all three of them we love dearly and they dont put up with anything. I dont want to have to put them down for them killing someone that broke in.

Before they purchase. .......not sell.
I would hope that we could get castle passed.

If you fathom that you would ever use deadly physical force, under any circimstances, training is essential. At certain training facilities, what to do and say after use of force is an important component of their regimen. Shooting someone is not something you should ever want to do, but if you ever find yourself in that position, you better know what comes afterwards, and how to act under those extreme conditions. Semper Fidalis

I Think the bill sounds like good sense

I also think if you don't like a store ( guncrafters) dont shop there...but it constantly bashing them online is sorta gutless. I have known doug for Many years He can come off short but he is a good guy. try and Imagine how many dumb people he deals with in a day..Dont spend your $ at another store if you dont like them.
I myself always deal with Blackwater, Ole's and Guncrafters ........

I always think about the consequences of my actions. It has kept me out of many bar fights in my youth. The ride in a police car, the lawsuit, compared to the satisfaction of knocking a bully on his ***.

Compound that by 100x when it comes to shooting someone in defense. Odds of that happening are probably .001% so I really don't dwell on it 24/7.

Reasoning it out doesn't mean getting a calculator out. Just that millisecond of extra thought, asking myself how will the police or a jury respond to what I have decided to do. Part of that equation is not using some super hand cannon or Saiga 12 for home defense.

I've heard the whole 'carried by 6' thing but I don't buy into that. Being sent to prison by an anti-gun jury for defending myself would always be a possibility. I'd rather think just a bit first, accept that extra risk in reaction time, then just blast away. While 'thinking', moving to cover/concealment. I'd rather accept the little extra risk of 'losing' vs going to prison just because I was aggressively defending myself. The law is rarely fair.

Plus, some people need to realize that Police do conduct door to door unannounced kick-ins in bad neighborhoods. Someday those will surely grow to your neighborhood. Sort of like what happened to that poor Iraqi vet that was to be crazy enough to live in a poor area of town. Who knows what he was thinking. Someone bashing through his door and he had the nerve to go for a gun. If you are so keyed up to defend your castle that .25 seconds later you are blasting away, your life might be over whether they kill you or you inadvertently kill them.

well officer the door was kicked open, I feared for my family's and my life. I shot to stop the threat. once they were down I called 911. I do want to answer all your questions but I need my attorney present.

Originally Posted by kev1

well officer the door was kicked open, I feared for my family's and my life. I shot to stop the threat. once they were down I called 911. I do want to answer all your questions but I need my attorney present.

THIS!

I am not from oregon however I do own guns, This law sounds good to me, however I`m sure 99.9% of us can decide for ourselves whether or not we need to use to use force without permission from the law. someone breaking into your house is a lot different than a drunk teenager walking into your house because he got the wrong address to the keg party.

I will be signing the petition and voting for the law if it gets that far. I have no desire to see anyone get shot, but I firmly believe that anyone has the right to defend their home without having to retreat first. I also believe that knowing that a homeowner has the right to defend themselves will have a remarkable deterrent effect on the smarter, less drug addled, criminal mind.

To understand the existing laws associated with using deadly force in your place of residence, and what conditions make for a justified use of lethal force, check out http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/161.html. It looks like this proposed Castle Doctrine law would lessen the need to prove the property owner was defending themselves "from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force" [ORS 161.209 - Use of physical force in defense of a person].

What excites me about this proposal, as I understand it, is the statement, 'It would eliminate any liability if property owners use force against an intruder, or if trespassers injure themselves on the owner's property. The reduction in potential fiscal responsibility from the civil prosecution that often comes from the tresspasser or their family is in my opinion, HUGE.

Originally Posted by Diehard

I will be signing the petition and voting for the law if it gets that far. I have no desire to see anyone get shot, but I firmly believe that anyone has the right to defend their home without having to retreat first. I also believe that knowing that a homeowner has the right to defend themselves will have a remarkable deterrent effect on the smarter, less drug addled, criminal mind.

Studies have shown that criminals don't much worry about the outcome but what they need right now.I would guess this will effect a few,but not many

Now Noisycow,I do understand your view and hope that I can think before I shoot when someone is breaking in.
But I live alone with no children to worry about.

If someone breaks in,are you supposed to have a little sit down with them? You know,ask them their intentions and goals for this burglary ?
lets see,ask them about weapons ,any combat training,are they a black belt or an ex boxer,have they ever killed anyone while doing this?
Just a couple questions to keep in mind for the interview.Then let the fun begin!

What? That is just stupid?
Sure is.

If you have children in the house,you can't really stop and wonder what kind of chap has just entered you dwelling.
Maybe not kill him out right,but to not have a gun at the ready could be a recipe for disaster.

Originally Posted by orygunmike

To understand the existing laws associated with using deadly force in your place of residence, and what conditions make for a justified use of lethal force, check out http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/161.html. It looks like this proposed Castle Doctrine law would lessen the need to prove the property owner was defending themselves "from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force" [ORS 161.209 - Use of physical force in defense of a person].

What excites me about this proposal, as I understand it, is the statement, 'It would eliminate any liability if property owners use force against an intruder, or if trespassers injure themselves on the owner's property. The reduction in potential fiscal responsibility from the civil prosecution that often comes from the tresspasser or their family is in my opinion, HUGE.

I like the WA law that requires the state to reimburse you for costs if it's clear that it was self defense, sure hope they don't remove that!