Auburn, WA - Man who tried to steal running car shot by homeowner

[The Heretic]

 

[Tony617]

I hate that my Subaru won't allow me to have my car locked, while it's sitting in the driveway warming up. Nope! It's a special feature to prevent you from locking your keys in the car. . .

From my perspective, if I lock my keys in the car, then I'm the dummy and any pain I suffer because of that is my own darn fault!

Not sure what year your Subaru is but I one a I own is 2008 Impreza. I was the riding the bus to a Park & Ride and was warming up my car and scraping the ice of of the windshield and my drivers side door locked, locking me out of the car.

I was having issues since the check engine light was on. The dealer.moved the oil sensor and and seemed to fix for awhile but acted up again a few months later. I just bought a Diagnostic port computer and reset the data. Kept happening ever couple of months.

I was driving my car a 34 round trip and never had any issues. But when I changed jobs I was driving about 6 miles one way to the P&R. When I changed jobs again I was driving more and never had any more issues the check engine light coming on. I also leave the drivers side door open just case in my cars tries to lock me out again.

 

[madman48]

Remember when horse thieves would get shot/hung for stealing a man's horse because doing so left a man on foot in the middle of nowhere?
View attachment 1374105

The ironic thing there is, they were hung for stealing the horses in town too.

 

[uberguy]

Those aren't the only options on the table. Why would you introduce a gun to a situation where there is no imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm? Also, what purpose does shooting your tires out serve? You're making a very big assumption that the law will land on your side.
That approach has a significant chance of you getting charged with a variety of potential crimes from reckless endangerment to felony assault. That's why you should do some research, read some reputable sources on how laws related to use of firearms in defensive contexts actually work, and then make an informed decision on how best to approach that situation should you ever find yourself facing it.

Or don't. It's a free country. You do you.

January 18, 2023
Self-Defense and Deadly Force in Oregon (superlawyers.com)
According to Oregon law, "A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in defending property, in making a [citizen's] arrest or in preventing an escape."

"In Oregon," says Portland criminal defense lawyer Lisa J. Ludwig, "it's not really organized around a location so much as the reasonable perception of a threat." One may defend one's life, no matter the location, or use force in defense of a person or defense of property."

Also, Oregon Firearms Federation: https://www.oregonfirearms.org/use-of-force-rules

(5) A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in defending property, in making an arrest or in preventing an escape, as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971. [1971 c.743 §21; 1981 c.246 §1; 2011 c.665 §10]

 

[RustyNail]

Should have grabbed a cup of coffee and let it do it's thing while in the car.

Don't think that's going to go over very well unless the thief started slinging lead first.

Last weekend some guy was getting pulled from his car outside my house and was getting the snot beat out of him.
Turns out he grabbed the car while the owner went into 7-11 and left it running in front.
Last I seen them the guy was getting chased down another cul-de-sac on foot.
I went back to my nap on the couch, no one called it in.

Or they called it in and police never shows up. Happens all the time. Curbside justice rules the streets these days because of this

 

[The Heretic]

January 18, 2023
Self-Defense and Deadly Force in Oregon (superlawyers.com)
According to Oregon law, "A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in defending property, in making a [citizen's] arrest or in preventing an escape."

"In Oregon," says Portland criminal defense lawyer Lisa J. Ludwig, "it's not really organized around a location so much as the reasonable perception of a threat." One may defend one's life, no matter the location, or use force in defense of a person or defense of property."

Also, Oregon Firearms Federation: https://www.oregonfirearms.org/use-of-force-rules

(5) A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in defending property, in making an arrest or in preventing an escape, as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971. [1971 c.743 §21; 1981 c.246 §1; 2011 c.665 §10]

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]

I added the emphasis.

 

[uberguy]

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]

I added the emphasis.

Question is, whether Grand Theft Auto (a felony) is criminal mischief and whether shooting to disable a vehicle (felony in progress) is deadly force, as opposed to shooting at a perpetrator (as per the pg 1 OP). Mine was a hypothetical. That's what discussion forums are for, IMO.

 

[The Heretic]

Question is, whether Grand Theft Auto (a felony) is criminal mischief and whether shooting to disable a vehicle (felony in progress) is deadly force, as opposed to shooting at a perpetrator (as per the pg 1 OP). Mine was a hypothetical. That's what discussion forums are for, IMO.

I just wanted to be clear on what the law said.

 

[uberguy]

I just wanted to be clear on what the law said.

It's always been my understanding that use of force is legal to stop a felony in progress.
The degree of force may be determinative. No one disputes used of lethal force to prevent grave or fatal bodily injury when attacked or persons known to you to be innocent bystanders.

 

[The Heretic]

It's always been my understanding that use of force is legal to stop a felony in progress.
The degree of force may be determinative. No one disputes used of lethal force to prevent grave or fatal bodily injury when attacked or persons known to you to be innocent bystanders.

Yes, but use of deadly force to prevent property crimes is not allowed by Oregon law. Which wasn't clear from the quote of the article.

 

[Alexx1401]

It's always been my understanding that use of force is legal to stop a felony in progress.
The degree of force may be determinative. No one disputes used of lethal force to prevent grave or fatal bodily injury when attacked or persons known to you to be innocent bystanders.

Almost EVERY time someone gets in a "tight spot" doing this it will be their mouth that tilts the scales. Yes its a HUGE PITA to see some scum trying to steal what you had to work for. So if someone does go and confront said scum and has to harm them its their mouth they need to control after. You don't admit you shot someone because they were stealing your _______________. You shot some scum because they were trying to hurt or kill you. As in I saw this guy playing with my car. I went out to see if he was at the wrong house or something and he attacked me Officer. At this point its "I now need to speak with an attorney before I answer questions Officer. An AMAZING number of people are just not able to shut the hell up at this point and talk themselves into trouble.

 

[The Heretic]

Almost EVERY time someone gets in a "tight spot" doing this it will be their mouth that tilts the scales. Yes its a HUGE PITA to see some scum trying to steal what you had to work for. So if someone does go and confront said scum and has to harm them its their mouth they need to control after. You don't admit you shot someone because they were stealing your _______________. You shot some scum because they were trying to hurt or kill you. As in I saw this guy playing with my car. I went out to see if he was at the wrong house or something and he attacked me Officer. At this point its "I now need to speak with an attorney before I answer questions Officer. An AMAZING number of people are just not able to shut the hell up at this point and talk themselves into trouble.

The thing to do with carjacking/theft/etc., is what the LEOs do; they get in a position (or not - depends on if there are cameras or witnesses around) where they can (or do) claim the driver was attacking them with the car itself, then they can shoot/arrest the driver.

Alternatively, if the criminal has any kind of tool that can possibly be used as a weapon, they claim the criminal attacked them with it, or threatened them, or took a swing at them with their fists.

 

[uberguy]

Summarizing, use of force to stop a theft in progress is legal, use of deadly force requires threat of immanent physical danger to yourself or another known to be innocent.

There is ambiguity on an appropriate force continuum, ranging from "use of" to "deadly use of" depending on variables, such as size, age, condition and other situational elements.

 

[Koda]

Question is, whether Grand Theft Auto (a felony) is criminal mischief and whether shooting to disable a vehicle (felony in progress) is deadly force, as opposed to shooting at a perpetrator (as per the pg 1 OP). Mine was a hypothetical. That's what discussion forums are for, IMO.

Whether auto theft is a felony or criminal mischeif (misdemeanor?) is a question for a lawyer, But my understanding is shooting to disable a vehicle is still considered deadly force. My understanding is anytime your using a gun to change another persons course of action, your using deadly force.

 

[uberguy]

Whether auto theft is a felony or criminal mischeif (misdemeanor?) is a question for a lawyer, But my understanding is shooting to disable a vehicle is still considered deadly force. My understanding is anytime your using a gun to change another persons course of action, your using deadly force.

It's a matter degree, 1st degree criminal mischief is a felony; 2nd & 3rd are misdemeanors.
The degree is in part dependent on the value of the vehicle. I'm not sure about other aspects.

 

[Koda]

It's a matter degree, 1st degree criminal mischief is a felony; 2nd & 3rd are misdemeanors.
The degree is in part dependent on the value of the vehicle. I'm not sure about other aspects.

If that is true and my understanding of using a gun is also true then the question is which degree is deadly force is privileged by law?

 

[uberguy]

If that is true and my understanding of using a gun is also true then the question is which degree is deadly force is privileged by law?

I just looked it up, earlier today: https://www.oregoncrimes.com/oregon_criminal_mischief_law.html

Use of deadly force is at prosecutorial discretion, as in subjective, from brandishing a firearm, vs. discharging a firearm, vs. actually shooting someone.

 

[Koda]

I just looked it up, earlier today: https://www.oregoncrimes.com/oregon_criminal_mischief_law.html

Use of deadly force is at prosecutorial discretion, as in subjective, from brandishing a firearm, vs. discharging a firearm, vs. actually shooting someone.

That sounds like is coraborates my understanding that using a gun for any reason is considered the same as using deadly force...

is it legal to use deadly force against the act of a felony in Oregon?
...assuming outside the home here...

 

[uberguy]

The law was sited saying deadly force may not be used to protect property. But use of force is legal. In my case, I'm an aging heart-attack survivor and not in condition to engage in hand to hand physical combat. So I must either withdraw or rely on my firearm. Tricky stuff.

Oregon and Washington have practically legalized auto-theft at this point, vis-à-vis prosecution.

 

[Koda]

The law was sited saying deadly force may not be used to protect property. But use of force is legal. In my case, I'm an aging heart-attack survivor and not in condition to engage in hand to hand physical combat. So I must either withdraw or rely on my firearm. Tricky stuff.

Oregon and Washington have practically legalized auto-theft at this point, vis-à-vis prosecution.

If your in a position to withdrawl, your not in a legal position to used deadly force. Not tricky stuff there.