JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
if that's all you want to do to him, leave the gun upstairs with your Wife, grab Junior's hickory stick baseball bat, and have at him. You don't need to get nearly as close to do him harm as you would with a pistol in hand.

BUT-- consider this: he is IN YOUR HOUSE, in the process of committing a felony. Shoot him and you may get run through a fine seive, but you will never have a jury convict for manslaughter.

I'd back myself into a corner with no other access, and where you have visual on the entire area, and, in a strong voice (I know, hard to do when the yellow liquid is running down your leg.... but try hard).. something like "freeze right there, I have a gun and WILL use it....." carry on from there. You remain far enough away he can't get at you, you maintain the element of surprise, and you have the clear upper hand in the force level category. You've gained total control over the situation and have not even touched him. In that situation, should he persist, attack, or even try to flee, you are within your right to fire... and should. Ask him if he's got a helper.... and where he is. Make sure he remains facing away from you, preferably face down on the floor, head away from you. In case he's brought a guest with him, keep yourself hunkered down behind or around something, so if Charlie comes round the corner into the room, you'll be able to see him, but he'll have a hard time finding you quickly. If he does show his ugly mug, give him a ration of commands as well, starting with the threat to shoot if he does't cooperate/

I'm not positive, but I seem to remember somethiing about Oregon being a "castle doctrine" state, don't know about Washignton. Castle Doctrine states that ANY intruder into your home is fair game, you do not have to flee or avoid, you can stand your ground and use any level of force you wish. You are also exempt from criminal and civil prosecution. Thus, anyone enters your home unwanted, his mere presence in your home gives you the freedom to deal with it how you choose... "the king is master of his castle" sort of thing. States that have enacted such laws have noticed a distinct drop in housebreakings....... thieves know their mere presence, if detected, puts the red dot right between their eyes, and next comes the perforation. They'd rather find other ways to steal.....

Washington is Castle Doctrine.
 
Do not shoot a bad guy trying to flee unless you like drinking coffee with your lawyer every morning for three years. If your safe and your family is safe and the BG is running away from you and them, let the BG go. What does it cost for the average "justified self defence shooting" cost? I think I heard somewhere it was around one hundred thousand dollars? That's if it's cut and dry.

Oregon is NOT a castle doctrine state. Wish it were. A person should be able to defend thier home having only a basic knowledge of natural law and not have to take three or four self defence classes, read three or four books, and have to watch three or four videos on the subjects of self defence introduction to gun laws and violence probabilities.

Thanks Sheepdog. I was wondering if someone might comment on shooting an intruder in the back. The fact that someone is/was in your home will leave you exposed and frightened, but this "Castle" mentality? I'm all for protecting my family but someone fleeing my home? Not a good idea to shoot. Secure yourself and family upstairs or wherever and if the threat advances after verbal commands...well his bad. Training beforehand for situations like that will keep you safer and out of court. I guess that's why I like this forum so much, make us think about these nutty situations.:)

Will
 
OR is a Castle Doctrine state. Sounds like it has a few extras included but for the most part if you believe the intruder is a threat you can shoot the intruder.

Oregon is a Castle Doctrine state and does have a stand-your-ground law.
ORS 161.209-229. Use of force justifiable in a range of scenarios without a duty to retreat specified. Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in State of Oregon v. Sandoval that the law "sets out a specific set of circumstances that justify a person's use of deadly force (that the person reasonably believes that another person is using or about to use deadly force against him or her) and does not interpose any additional requirement (including a requirement that there be no means of escape)."

I got the info from http://www.usacarry.com
 
ORS 161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person. Except as provided in ORS 161.215 and 161.219, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 §22]



161.210 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]



161.215 Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using physical force upon another person if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, the person provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that person; or

(2) The person is the initial aggressor, except that the use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person the intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful physical force; or

(3) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. [1971 c.743 §24]



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

I would certainly read "Castle Doctrine" into that. Someone please correct me if this doesn't say that I can use deadly force against someone who is only "attempting" to commit burglary in my dwelling.

Please tell me how that doesn't say that I can kill him if he's only "attempting" to pick the lock or break a window. Please tell me how that doesn't allow me to shoot from inside or outside the house at someone who's outside the house but "attempting" to break in?

I'm no lawyer...

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

I would certainly read "Castle Doctrine" into that. Someone please correct me if this doesn't say that I can use deadly force against someone who is only "attempting" to commit burglary in my dwelling.

Please tell me how that doesn't say that I can kill him if he's only "attempting" to pick the lock or break a window. Please tell me how that doesn't allow me to shoot from inside or outside the house at someone who's outside the house but "attempting" to break in?

I'm no lawyer...

??

Here's what I've teased out after doing some minimal research - this is a complicated enough topic that you'd need to talk to a lawyer or other use-of-force expert for a firm answer.

161.219 just exists to limit the circumstances where deadly force may be considered justified. All use of force still needs to meet the requirements of 161.209 - that is to say, you can only use force against someone you think is about to hurt you or somebody else, and only to the degree necessary to stop him.

Here's a key court decision:

State v. Haro, 117 Or App 147 (1992)
...
ORS 161.209 and ORS 161.219 refer to each other and must be read together. ORS 161.209 defines the circumstances under which physical force may be used and limits the amount of force that may be used, under any circumstances, to that "degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose." In other words, ORS 161.209 defines the so-called "necessity" requirement of Oregon's self-defense law. That requirement applies to all uses of physical force.
...
ORS 161.219 begins with the phrase, "Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless * * *." That phrase explains that, although ORS 161.209 authorizes the use of physical force in certain circumstances, deadly force is never reasonable, in the absence of any of the additional threatening circumstances described in ORS 161.219. Nothing in the language of ORS 161.219 eliminates the general "necessity" requirement defined in ORS 161.209. Therefore, even when one or more of the threatening circumstances described in ORS 161.219 is present, the use of deadly force is justified only if it does not exceed the "degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary" in the circumstances. See State v. Wright, 310 Or. 430, 435, 799 P.2d 642 (1990); Commentary to Proposed Criminal Code 23, § 23 (1970).

The legislature has not created an unlimited right to use deadly force against a burglar.

So there ya go.
 
Last Edited:
OK, well as I said, I'm not a lawyer. :)

It does seem to me to leave some leeway when it says:

"...the use of deadly force is justified only if it does not exceed the "degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary" in the circumstances."

So if a BG enters my house at night and I'm awakened by alarms and dogs and I'm half awake and I "think" I see a gun or knife, or if there are multiple perps, I'm shooting.

Hope that's right. :)
 
My thoughts on castle stuff, I can run faster then my wife and am much more agile if it comes to escaping out a window to avoid a threat. I am not leaving my wife behind (plus kids) to retreat from a threat. That should cover most castle stuff. :s0155:

Bruce.
 
OK, well as I said, I'm not a lawyer. :)

It does seem to me to leave some leeway when it says:

"...the use of deadly force is justified only if it does not exceed the "degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary" in the circumstances."

So if a BG enters my house at night and I'm awakened by alarms and dogs and I'm half awake and I "think" I see a gun or knife, or if there are multiple perps, I'm shooting.

Hope that's right. :)

If a "reasonable person" would think the same thing..... :D

The law leaves you plenty of leeway, and I think your interpretation's probably right. It's certainly a situation where I'd unhesitatingly go the "judged by 12" route - and very different situation from the one in the case cited above:

Short (the victim) learned that his former girlfriend, Keller, was with defendant at defendant's apartment. It was late at night. Defendant and Keller were inside the apartment naked. Defendant heard a knock at the door. He responded that the party was over and said, "Go away." The knocking persisted. Keller ran to the bathroom, and defendant went to the door and opened it.

Short testified that defendant let him in the apartment and that he immediately went into the bathroom to see Keller. While in the bathroom, he said he should "kick [defendant's] ***." Short left the bathroom, walked into the living room and looked at defendant. Defendant shot him.

Defendant testified that Short told him that he wanted to talk to Keller and that, if defendant did not open the door, he would break it down. Defendant said, "[W]hat if I don't open it." Short responded that he would "kick [defendant's] ***." Defendant turned away from the door to put his pants on. Short entered without permission and went into the bathroom.

While in the bathroom, Short was screaming and yelling, and defendant heard him say, "I am going to kick his ***." When Short came out of the bathroom, he looked upset. Defendant grabbed a gun and cocked it. Short approached defendant quickly, continuing to yell that he was going to "kick [defendant's] ***." Short had his fists clenched and his arm drawn back. Although defendant raised the gun, Short kept coming at him. When Short continued to approach, defendant shot him.

Defendant contended that he shot in self-defense.

The jury presumably found the defendant's story at least a little unconvincing (or his version of Short's actions insufficient for a deadly response), which is why he tried to argue in this appeal that the standard of 161.209 shouldn't have applied in his case.
 
Wait... so are you saying that the guy was supposed to wait till he was getting a beat down from the man that threatened to use his head for a soccer ball to draw and shoot him?

-d
 
Wait... so are you saying that the guy was supposed to wait till he was getting a beat down from the man that threatened to use his head for a soccer ball to draw and shoot him?

-d

The important part of the decision is the judge's legal conclusion, not the summary of what supposedly happened. Based on the facts presented at trial - which would have included substantial testimony from all named parties - a jury convicted the guy. They probably didn't believe his story.
 
The important part of the decision is the judge's legal conclusion, not the summary of what supposedly happened. Based on the facts presented at trial - which would have included substantial testimony from all named parties - a jury convicted the guy. They probably didn't believe his story.

Good point but either way... yikes.

-d
 
I've been more than a few photos of pistols with smashed trigger guards, useless, unable to cycle rounds. So supposing the skull of an attacker qualifies as a hard object, would you potentially disable the one tool you have that might stop a deadly assault?

Of course, if you're empty with no reloads, and still getting your *** kicked...
 
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling;

I would certainly read "Castle Doctrine" into that. Someone please correct me if this doesn't say that I can use deadly force against someone who is only "attempting" to commit burglary in my dwelling.

Please tell me how that doesn't say that I can kill him if he's only "attempting" to pick the lock or break a window. Please tell me how that doesn't allow me to shoot from inside or outside the house at someone who's outside the house but "attempting" to break in?

I'm no lawyer...

??

I'm not a Lawyer eithther but as I read it yep you can cap his azz. When asked you preceived him as a threat, then request time before you answer any questions to get yourself together as you just went through a tramitic event. After the next call is to a Lawyer to speak on your behalf from that point forward.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top