JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
"Hot burglaries" have a very reasonable defense: most burglars are very careful not to burglarize an occupied home. If they are willing to do it while you are home, the assumption is that they are willing ot harm you in order to get away with it. Plenty of statistics on it to show that your chance of being harmed by a hot burglary make fear of bodily harm very reasonable. If somebody invades your home while you are home, you seriously should assume they are willing to harm you.
 
In the prisons we had 37mm wooden skip rounds or rubber rounds - the skip rounds had 3 wooden blocks and were meant to be skipped off of the ground, the rubber rounds had 3 rubber plugs. They replaced the 37mm with 40mm loaded with direct impact foam rounds that used a full load 38 blank to propel them. The 40s had quite a punch to them - I've seen them put a good dent in a steel trash can at the range. Not sure I'd rely on the rubber buckshot to slow down a drugged up perp though - especially if they are on pcp. As stated above - if its not enough of a threat for a justified self defense shoot then its not worth shooting. If you aren't willing to shoot in a real self defense situation maybe pepper spray is your best option. I know a few guys who were worried about their teen kids sneaking out in the middle of the night and coming home drunk, and not so stealthily sneaking back into the house resulting in a bad situation so they decided to keep a can of pepper spray next to their night stand gun.
 
While criminal is the worst case by far with jail time, possible death sentence and loss of rights forever. Do NOT shrug off the Civil side of it, many a person has been ruined financially and professionally due to a civil lawsuit even when proven innocent. Don't kid yourself, it could leave you with absolutely nothing including a job, home, family. You may not be in jail, but you may wish you were, at least there you have a roof over your head and 3 squares a day every day..
 
"I discharged my weapon with rubber pellets, buckshot, non-lethal."

Buckshot is non-lethal?

4431570142_fb0f19f12e_n.jpg

what he should have used, he took very risk chance.
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQXAX3OKLsshuIAovOqRoL6y6D9OIJtoGehbBnhLIXSmI4-Tq5SR4fHSQBl.jpg
 
Before anybody says it, I am less concerned with a civil suit against me than I am winding up in prison because of shooting someone in a situation of self-defense. Murder is serious business. Personal injury is not as serious.

I wish that were true, but our legal system is so broken it almost works the other way. The defendant of an injury civil suit can easily suffer more in time and money than a convicted murderer.

For example, suppose the rubber pellets hit this burglar in the eye, leaving him blind. A lawyer jumps on the case on a contingency fee basis. Now the homeowner will spend years of his life in court, paying his lawyer, and trying to settle the claim. This homeowner could easily waste two years on defense, then spend the rest of his life paying off some $3 million settlement to the plaintiff. Now that's serious.

Also, remember a jury usually does NOT look at these injury cases in terms of justice, but as a "problem to be solved". Here, they'd see a helpless man disabled for life. They see a wealthy homeowner. Solution: have the homeowner pay his bills.

Personally I'd judge this homeowner's actions as legal, but somewhat foolish. Investigating outside your house with a long gun is dubious from a lawyer and safety perspective. Suppose a LEO had been tracking this burglar and met him in the breezeway - the interaction might not go well. The account also does not mention any attempt to seek verbal compliance ("Get out of my house!", "Show me your hands!", etc).

To be clear, I support this homeowner overall, just would not recommend anyone else take the same actions.
 
Defense is best as a layer cake. You absolutely have the right to investigate disurbances on your property. I am VERY reluctant to concede the field on this point. You also have the right to be armed in case the disturbance turns out to be dangerous to you. You don't (legally) have the right to fire on someone (deadly force) in defense of your property, but you absolutely have the right to use physical force to prevent them from accompishing their crime. Should they threaten to harm you then you are subsequently authorized to use deadly force to defend your person.

I will not even say someone was foolish to defend their home, inside or out. Some tactics are better than others, but this is a very visceral and basic part of every mammal- defending their territory, and I will always struggle for more recognition of this natural instinct and right, rather than excusing precedent which whittles it away against all nature.

I would prefer to see Castle Doctrine enshrined in the RCWs and ORS rather than relying on case law as we do now, and it should be extended outside the walls of your HOUSE, to include all of your HOME.

As for defending yourself in the Aftermath:

Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, Inc.

and Robert Russell Law Group | Bankruptcy Attorney | Vancouver WA Bankruptcy | NW Bankruptcy

One of Rob's associate's specializes in criminal and civil defense.
 
None of those rubber projectile loads is "non-lethal", they are LESS lethal. Shoot someone in the face and you'll understand

They break in my house they will get the real deal. As to suing me you can't get blood from a turnip, planned it this way
 
I too fear the legal repercussions of a justified shoot more than than anything. That's why I decided that in the event of a shooting emergency I will be the only survivor. Dead men tell no tales. I'm no expert but I figure my odds would be much improved. As far as the morality....I care a lot more about the sanctity of my home than I do about some scumbags life. My wife is in poor health and has marginal mobility. My back is broken in 3 places and while healthy, my mobility isn't much to write home about either. I'm convinced that Jesus is not going to make me go to hell for this.

Now here's the ironic part, I'll bet it applies to some of you too. If the guy would have just knocked on my door and asked me for the money because he needed a fix...I probably would have given it to him. I'm not heartless, but I don't like thieves and I do not like feeling scared or threatened.

Disclaimer: Having said that.....no don't you all come knocking on my door now looking for free money ! You guys would probably just waste it on new guns anyway !
 
FYI

ORS 161.219¹
Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person
Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS <broken link removed> , 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]
 
It makes me want to join the police force so that if I did get into an encounter like this, that I would mostly have the established law already on my side. You've got to admit, cops have an advantage in respect to the use of deadly force.
 
It makes me want to join the police force so that if I did get into an encounter like this, that I would mostly have the established law already on my side. You've got to admit, cops have an advantage in respect to the use of deadly force.

In their private domicile they have to use the same legal guidelines we do, and cops/depts can be sued in the line of duty. In the old days most police joined to serve the public :rolleyes:
 
I too fear the legal repercussions of a justified shoot more than than anything. That's why I decided that in the event of a shooting emergency I will be the only survivor. Dead men tell no tales. I'm no expert but I figure my odds would be much improved.

Not any more. Making statements like this in a public forum that may be subpoena'd invalidates any defense you might have due to defending your life. You've just expressed an intent to murder someone even if it's unnecessary to save your life. You're willing to kill him for the sake of convenience and to prevent him from testifying. That's not self-defense, that's murder.

I'm just telling you how a jury's going to see it.

When I teach classes, I teach the standard: shoot to stop the threat. The best way to stop the threat is to put as many rounds as necessary to center of mass until the person stops advancing or is no longer capable of causing you serious bodily harm or death. Never testify that you shot to kill, never testify that you shot to wound. You only shoot to stop the threat. Anything else can give the jury a reason to convict.
 
Two things here, The home owner is probably not getting charged for anything because he used rubber bullets, but because he was outside of the house and the burgler did not show a weapon or try to attack the guy, I think the home owner really wanted to test his rubber bullets out and was lucky he didnt shoot the guy with real bullets, had he, outside and no threat, He would probably be the one being charged.
PicardDoubleFacepalm-1.jpg

I had read another article where Wallace said he was surprised the rubber pellets weren't more effective than they were. I wonder what actual ammo he was using and if it is the same stuff the LEO's use.
I'm just baffled why anyone would use rubber pellets.

He took a lethal means of defense and gave a best effort by using non-lethal rounds. The first question I had was answered when the article said he had no affiliation with Law Enforcement.

Admirable, but next time I hope he puts real buckshot in it.
I hope the next time he uses lethal force when he feels it prudent to use a lethal means to protect himself. What he did was basically open himself up for getting jammed up, he obviously wasn't in fear of his life, otherwise he would have used a legitimate load, and not something more suited to OWS and prisoners. I don't get why people do stupid stuff like this, or talk about racking a slide and/or shooting to wound.
 
The account also does not mention any attempt to seek verbal compliance ("Get out of my house!", "Show me your hands!", etc).

To be clear, I support this homeowner overall, just would not recommend anyone else take the same actions.

Is that a requirement in OR?

I'd recommend the same though, if you're going to shoot, make sure the threat is fully neutralized using the most lethal force available, anything less means you weren't in fear of your life, and had no right to commit assault with a deadly weapon.
 
Lawyer rounds have their place. After all, if he didn't add that the perp moved toward him; which was probably BS; he'd be in jail now.

Simply put, you cannot protect property with deadly force. You cannot even POINT a gun at someone in the act of theft unless a reasonable person would believe there is a chance of imminent harm.

So if you see someone stealing your gas from your bedroom window point your shotgun at them, plan on sitting in a cell. As always, post SHTF is entirely different.

Personally, call it a cop-out lol - but I fear the consequences of self defense more than the act itself. I know that in this upside down BS society the criminal gets all the breaks and the homeowner is targeted for arrest, prosecution, and a civil suit.

To protect some garbage outside my house? I'll scare the crap out of someone, but shoot them, NO way.

Suit yourself. I have and will continue to defend my property.
 
WA State defacto has castle doctrine.. if this guy was outside his castle walls he will have a higher standard to deal with

If anyone dares to break into my home that gives me serious fear for my familys lives and I will shoot on sight
 
Is that [seeking verbal compliance] a requirement in OR?

No, it's more to help avoid a shooting. If spoken with authority, it may defuse a fight.

It could also help prevent shooting a prankster, misidentified person, or other non-threat:

Young intruder shot to death unknowingly by father - NewsTimes

But it'd definitely help in the legal aftermath of a shooting as well. Personally I plan to always (ostensibly) seek verbal compliance. That doesn't mean you have to leisurely wait for a response. It does mean any witness may repeat your requests in court.

Also remember, unless seeking verbal compliance is habitual, chances are you won't due it under stress. For self-defense classes, Clint Smith asks students to seek verbal compliance every time they shoot. Even if it's just sighting-in, I try to do it every time, to ingrain the habit.

Btw, some people practice swearing or trash-talking as part of verbal compliance, because it's "the only thing a scumbag understands". This has merit - no doubt a cussing, belligerent woman is more daunting to an attacker. However, Clint advises against that (at least for guys), because in court that belligerence will make the confrontation seem like a verbal spat gone awry, rather than legitimate self-defense.
 

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