Oregon Confused bout protecting property

[Ni4ni]

That might be because I already know that trespassing is gainst the law, but really unsure of wether or not the other folks went bout handling trespassers lawfully as I personally feel that "I" myself would have went about it differently. Given the information on the situation that I've been given

This dude was tresspassing in the neighborhood in the days before. He was The neighborhood junky. It's in California so police won't do anything. Like Portland druggies and tresspassing homeless are everywhere. The guy broke in and shot the man and wife in the head.

How were the homeowners to know who was coming on their property from the river side and what they were going to do? Shooting a shotgun into the air seems like a pretty harmless way to scare them off if you live in the country.

LA creep charged with executing ‘American Idol’ boss was heavy drug user who terrified neighbors with his antics

The man accused of murdering “American Idol” executive Robin Kaye and her husband was a “neighborhood junkie” who terrified his neighbors with his antics, locals told The Post.

nypost.com

In this scenario, the residence was unoccupied. The shooters and the trespassers were in fact all trespassing as the property were Incident happened was not owned by anyone involved. Taken into account permission before hand not likely but possible. Also shots into the air could be the case, if the firearms hadnt been held in a defensive manner pointed in the direction of other human beings and shot from shoulder (all unproven speculation) mind you. I've continuously been made aware of this

 

[Ni4ni]

Both threads are a $#!+ show!

A $#!+ show for you. Possibly cause you are already completely aware of laws and what is lawful pertaining to this type of subject, (or think you are). But really these types of scenarios happen often and if not properly educated on the matter, handling the situation unlawfully can ruin a person's life. Ignorance is no excuse in a court of law

 

[ilikegunspdx]

In this scenario, the residence was unoccupied. The shooters and the trespassers were in fact all trespassing as the property were Incident happened was not owned by anyone involved. Taken into account permission before hand not likely but possible. Also shots into the air could be the case, if the firearms hadnt been held in a defensive manner pointed in the direction of other human beings and shot from shoulder (all unproven speculation) mind you. I've continuously been made aware of this

Sounds like they should have just stuck to the ordinary high water mark where they would not have been tresspassing and less likely to run into folks like that.

 

[echo1]

I'd bet the mineral thieving rockhounds are claim jumpers too with their savoir-faire attitude about trespassing and ignoring mineral rights. PAX

 

[ilikegunspdx]

This whole thing sounds really, really, odd. Knows all parties involved? All parties tresspassing? Really odd. What was it Trespass Fest 2025 and all participants knew each other?

 

[Koda]

In this scenario, the residence was unoccupied. The shooters and the trespassers were in fact all trespassing as the property were Incident happened was not owned by anyone involved. Taken into account permission before hand not likely but possible. Also shots into the air could be the case, if the firearms hadnt been held in a defensive manner pointed in the direction of other human beings and shot from shoulder (all unproven speculation) mind you. I've continuously been made aware of this

Outside of the home permission doesn't matter even on private land. If someone reasonably believes their life is in danger they have a legal privileged to use deadly force, or less.. in this case a warning shot.

So to clarify, were the shotgunners trespassing or not?

 

[echo1]

A $#!+ show for you. Possibly cause you are already completely aware of laws and what is lawful pertaining to this type of subject, (or think you are). But really these types of scenarios happen often and if not properly educated on the matter, handling the situation unlawfully can ruin a person's life. Ignorance is no excuse in a court of law

And statistically how may trespassers are shot or killed in Oregon?
16 fatalities 9 wounded. Your rockhound budies didn't even make the stats for trespassing. Maybe they're in the breaking and entering data stream, PAX

 

[echo1]

This whole thing sounds really, really, odd. Knows all parties involved? All parties tresspassing? Really odd. What was it Trespass Fest 2025 and all participants knew each other?

She quaintly left out the part about the still and grow patch sampling PAX

 

[Ni4ni]

Both threads are a $#!+ show!

I can't help but think that if you wrongfully shot and injured or killed somebody thinking that you were doing the world a favor, only to be hit with a measure 11 conviction plus, and possibly even sued for whatever you might have worked for your whole life. This thread wouldn't have nothing on the "$#!+ show" that you'd be sitting in

 

[Ni4ni]

And statistically how may trespassers are shot or killed in Oregon?
16 fatalities 9 wounded. Your rockhound budies didn't even make the stats for trespassing. Maybe they're in the breaking and entering data stream, PAX

Possibly even burglary? I think to be in any legitimate stats for convicted numbers, a conviction actually has to be made... Which brings up somthin I'm all of the sudden curious about now. Why wasn't the two (or all 4) clearly trespassing cited for what they were In no doubt guilty of? I'll have to ask but there hasn't been any mention of any cites for " trespassing" that I can recall being mentioned... Strange

 

[Ni4ni]

I'd bet the mineral thieving rockhounds are claim jumpers too with their savoir-faire attitude about trespassing and ignoring mineral rights. PAX

What mineral rights? No such thing on public land (rivers high water level) were any such accusations could be made. And WTF does "PAX" mean? And "savoir-faire"? Please excuse my ignorance, I'm just an uneducated hillbilly realist

 

[CountryGent]

This whole thing sounds really, really, odd.

Indeed it does.

 

[Koda]

Why wasn't the two (or all 4) clearly trespassing cited for what they were In no doubt guilty of? I'll have to ask but there hasn't been any mention of any cites for " trespassing" that I can recall being mentioned... Strange

For the purposes of self defense, it doesnt matter if anyone or all were trespassing. The only thing that matters is if the shotgunners reasonably felt their life was in danger.
Not all officers choose to ticket or arrest the guilty.

 

[orygun]

The folks with the shotguns is who I mainly was referring to. But can be integrated or applied in both ends of the situation....

I own property that is unoccupied. Several of my family members may be present on the property at any time but aren't actually residents and are "authorized" to protect our property.
You seem intent on protecting the people who were the first ones to break the law...
Troll much?

 

[Provincial]

My understanding is that is not public property per se, but the public can not be excluded from the area below the normal high water mark. However, they may not access the waterway through private property. So, if they were walking the river below the high water mark, and accessed that area from along the river, they would have been legal. But I don't think you can count on all waterfront landowners to understand this (or care).

This is a common misunderstanding. In Oregon the right to travel below the high water mark only applies to "Navigable Streams" and there is a list provided by the State of those that fit that description. Basically, if boats are using the stream, it may be "Navigable" but that is not a sure thing.

Other than those streams, the land under the water belongs to the landowner as described in his deed. Therefore, it is indeed trespassing to walk up almost all smaller streams.

If you don't agree with my description, you should consult with the numerous people who have been cited on my property. They all use the "high water line" excuse, and all have been found guilty.

I don't confront anyone. I just inform them of the law and ask them to leave. Those that don't get a visit from a Deputy, and a citation.

 

[Tlock]

I can't help but think that if you wrongfully shot and injured or killed somebody thinking that you were doing the world a favor, only to be hit with a measure 11 conviction plus, and possibly even sued for whatever you might have worked for your whole life. This thread wouldn't have nothing on the "$#!+ show" that you'd be sitting in

Ok

 

[Ni4ni]

I own property that is unoccupied. Several of my family members may be present on the property at any time but aren't actually residents and are "authorized" to protect our property.
You seem intent on protecting the people who were the first ones to break the law...
Troll much?

I'm not intent on doing anything but inquiring what other folks think. Who's to say anyone actually broke the law? My assumptions are trumped by your assumptions? Sure, but I'm trolling for logical conversation. Not seemingly lazy accusation that's derived from biased view.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

If one has a legal question....it is best to ask a lawyer.
And not ask a gun forum....closing thread.
Andy