Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Charged for self-defence

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by bnsaibum, Jan 21, 2015.

  1. bnsaibum

    bnsaibum Corvallis, OR Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer

    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    486
    Oregon currently does not have a duty to retreat statute. Is HB 2705 the first of the steps needed to go from this to the systems that are used in the UK and Canada that often end with a person at home defending themselves facing stiffer charges than the people attacking them?


    Charged for self-defence

    While I haven't looked for any sources as of yet, I am sure that questions similar to mine and arguments foretelling outcomes such as the one in the link here were made prior to the laws being enacted in those countries.

    https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2705/Introduced
     
  2. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,888
    Likes Received:
    19,464
    From my cursory reading, focusing on the proposed affected areas/sections of amending the mentioned ORS, I would say nay to your concerns.

    I would also point out that is is established case law from the Oregon Supreme Court that an individual does NOT have a duty to retreat, therefore any subsequent statutes declaring such a thing would be rendered meaningless and most likely overturned upon challenge in court.
     
    BoonDocks36 and Riot like this.
  3. bnsaibum

    bnsaibum Corvallis, OR Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer

    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    486
    I am not sure which way I fall yet on the change as it pertains to law enforcement. From "the officer reasonably believes" (the officer involved in the use of deadly force) to "a reasonable person in the officer’s circumstances would believe" (some other person, LEO or otherwise). Pros and cons with either scenario.

    For a non law enforcement citizen it reads much the same. From "the person reasonably believes" (the person involved in the use of deadly force) to "a reasonable person in the person’s circumstances would believe" (some other person). In our current judicial system with jurors, prosecutors, et al., the problem I see here is the other person thinking what they would do in the same or similar circumstance instead of trying to see the situation through the perspective of the person involved. It is a fine line to be sure, but one that should not be crossed. I am sure that in reality people do exactly what I have just said, but that is not how the law reads.
     
  4. WasrNwarpaint

    WasrNwarpaint Portland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    1,030
    easy answer ..........
    become a cop shoot who you want when you want & say I "thought" he was committing a crime
     
    chariot13 and notazombie like this.
  5. Slobray

    Slobray Yelm, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    1,531

    I read it the same way and believe this opens up a dangerous can of worms. Who gets to choose who the "reasonable person" is thats going to consider if someone was "justified in using deadly physical force upon another person" and if they should be charged for it? Then if it goes to trial, consider jury selection; each side is going to need the right kind of "reasonable persons" to benefit their side.


    Imagine if you get a jury consisting of all liberals; every legal gun owner would be found guilty (because it's not reasonable in their opinion to own or want to own a gun) and have the book thrown at them, while every criminal would go free because they are misunderstood, a victim of their environment and/or it would be racist to convict them. What a mess.



    Ray
     
    Sstrand and pokerace like this.
  6. balaperdida

    balaperdida eastern idaho Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    295
    Duty to retreat could frequently put an unreasonable (probably unconstitutional) burden on those with physical problems that make retreat difficult, if not impossible. SCOTUS has ruled that individuals have a right to self defense.
     
  7. OLDNEWBIE

    OLDNEWBIE State of Flux Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,827
    Likes Received:
    3,957
    YES!, I think it's an "obligation to retreat" Bill in disguise.

    From "the person reasonably believes" to "a reasonable person in the person’s circumstances would believe".


    Imagine a liberal anti-gun juror, armchair quarterbacking and saying the person self defending wasn't a "reasonable person" in thinking the thug breaking into his house was possibly an armed and dangerous threat that required deadly force.

    I mean a "reasonable person" (aka sensible Liberal Progressive) would have hid under their bed until the thug left his home, right??

    If they want to hamstring the Cops, let the Cop Union fight it out but leave the already weakened SD laws alone for civilians!

    Some letter writing and calls to our Reps are in order on this oneIMO.
     
    Slobray likes this.
  8. Mark W.

    Mark W. Silverton, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    5,768
    Likes Received:
    4,943
    I was in fear for my life or the life of another. I fired until the threat to my life or the life of another was neutralized. Firearm is cleared and I placed it over there. My lawyers name is..................

    That pretty much covers my statement of the facts.
     
    Slobray and Caveman Jim like this.
  9. ZA_Survivalist

    ZA_Survivalist Oregon AK's all day.

    Messages:
    4,649
    Likes Received:
    5,749
    Lets have their houses broken into while they're home and see how they feel about "duty to retreat".. Or perhaps a gang of thugs versus a lady politician.. What then?!

    Man I wish all these anti freedom folks would just die of ebola.
     
    Slobray and Caveman Jim like this.
  10. The Heretic

    The Heretic Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    Likes Received:
    6,776
    I haven't read all of it yet, but when I was a federal LEO (USCG) over 30 years ago, the policy for most LEOs was that you couldn't shoot a fleeing felon unless they were presently armed and you felt they were imminently likely to harm someone.

    I.E., no shooting a shoplifter running away from a store.

    It seems that the LEO section of that law is trying to restrain the current policy/practice/tendency of some LEO agencies to go in with guns a blazing.

    I have to leave to go buy some rimfire ammo that came up for sale, but I just thought I would throw that in there.
     
    Slobray and CWOUSCG like this.
  11. Caveman Jim

    Caveman Jim West of Oly Springer Slayer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    5,218
    Likes Received:
    8,775
    It may as well seem that the LEO's are in just a state of overwhelming confusion as the peasants, er I mean subjects, oh dang, I mean law abiding citizens...... nuf said.... :confused:
     
    Slobray likes this.