JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
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.
In my opinion, a situation like you are describing is why pepper spray should also be carried if a person carries a firearm. Plenty of instances where civilians are in prison because they used deadly force too quickly to stop a percieved attack from a bad person...
If the attacker does not have a deadly tool (gun, knife, club) spray them and take out your weapon, if they continue to attack, your use of deadly force at that point becomes much more understandable to a jury.
 
Plenty of instances where civilians are in prison because they used deadly force too quickly to stop a percieved attack from a bad person.
Odd choice of words 'stop a perceived attack'. Regardless, in my view this thread is a discussion of options in hypothetical situations. I stated earlier, I would hope that everyone who carries a gun for self-defense understand the basics about using it to defend yourself in an attack situation, in OR and WA there is no duty to retreat.

The OP topic and my responses are in regards to defense of property, and in exploring that subject, the odd language exposed in law about "use-of-force" allowed, "use-of-lethal-force" prohibited.
 
I stated earlier, I would hope that everyone who carries a gun for self-defense understand the basics about using it to defend yourself in an attack situation, in OR and WA there is no duty to retreat.
Just because there is no legal duity to retreit does not mean use of any force is justified.
 
Just because there is no legal duity to retreit does not mean use of any force is justified.
Regarding a felony crime in progress, against your property? What justification is required, in defense of property? Particularly in this context of an auto, of greater value than say a wallet.

The law allows use of force in defense of property, we already covered that in detail.
The open question is how much in what manner? Or are the laws at odds with one another?
 
Odd choice of words 'stop a perceived attack'.
It seems a very relevant phrase to me, since the context of the debate in court will be the perception of the shooter. A key issue with be whether it was reasonable for the shooter to believe they were in danger. For example, if you run at someone with a fake knife, it's reasonable for them to believe that their life is being threatened, and to act accordingly. Whether the knife was real will be irrelevant.
 
Regarding a felony crime in progress, against your property? What justification is required, in defense of property? Particularly in this context of an auto, of greater value than say a wallet.

The law allows use of force in defense of property, we already covered that in detail.
The open question is how much in what manner? Or are the laws at odds with one another?
Is it legal in Oregon to use deadly force to prevent a car theft?
 
Is it legal in Oregon to use deadly force to prevent a car theft?
Already discussed. You are following the thread, right?

The question is about "force continuum" - what does allowable use of force, short of deadly force really mean? And if there is a physical threat involved, then it's no longer just about property.
 
It seems a very relevant phrase to me, since the context of the debate in court will be the perception of the shooter. A key issue with be whether it was reasonable for the shooter to believe they were in danger. For example, if you run at someone with a fake knife, it's reasonable for them to believe that their life is being threatened, and to act accordingly. Whether the knife was real will be irrelevant.
I agree on this point, it seemed it was used earlier as a potential disqualifier. Perceived is relevant.
 
PM me if your genuinely interested why some say "if you go far enough left you get your guns back"
It's because Karl Marx believed and stated every person should be armed. The radical left later on wanted to remove guns just like Ronald Reagan wanted assault weapons banned and guns regulated. Everyone was for his gun control when it took it out of the hands of black population in California. Hell wealthy and rich conservatives don't spend the same money that the left spends banning guns to fight rights. They don't want lower class bad poor with guns. It's why for 50 years trump supported his Clinton buddies and he's York liberal elites to ban and heaving regukate and district the second amendment. Us gun owners have very few powerful people to help us. Republicans will sell us out just as quick on guns if it means more money from lobbyists and tax cuts for the rich. Long time for a 3rd and 4th option.
 
It's because Karl Marx believed and stated every person should be armed. The radical left later on wanted to remove guns just like Ronald Reagan wanted assault weapons banned and guns regulated. Everyone was for his gun control when it took it out of the hands of black population in California. Hell wealthy and rich conservatives don't spend the same money that the left spends banning guns to fight rights. They don't want lower class bad poor with guns. It's why for 50 years trump supported his Clinton buddies and he's York liberal elites to ban and heaving regukate and district the second amendment. Us gun owners have very few powerful people to help us. Republicans will sell us out just as quick on guns if it means more money from lobbyists and tax cuts for the rich. Long time for a 3rd and 4th option.
ReguKate? Is that a new phrase from our Oregon freinds? :)
 
Everyone was for his gun control when it took it out of the hands of black population in California.
Wow, total misrepresentation. I resided in California at the time in question. It was not remotely 'everyone', not even close. BTW, the objection was over open carry because of Black Panthers, who in fact peacefully protested while armed, but not hardly about 'the black population in California either. You completely misrepresent what happened, which is often done on that particular subject by radical leftists.
 
Wow, total misrepresentation. I resided in California at the time in question. It was not remotely 'everyone', not even close. BTW, the objection was over open carry because of Black Panthers, who in fact peacefully protested while armed, but not hardly about 'the black population in California either. You completely misrepresent what happened, which is often done on that particular subject by radical leftists.
I remember that. They never pointed guns at anyone and never made any direct threats. They certainly intimidated people but were quite careful about how they went about it.
 

Upcoming Events

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

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top