Don't know if you folks have seen this lunacy yet.

[fd15k]

I remember the last time we "crossed swords" over the ORS covering use of deadly force concerning someone attempting to break into a DWELLING...

You somehow missed the citation I provided in that previous discussion, thus your entire post here is based on a deficiency. Here is the citation again, in case
anybody missed it :

ORS 161.2091 and ORS 161.2192 refer to each other and must be read together. ORS 161.209 defines the circumstances under which physical force may be used and limits the amount of force that may be used, under any circumstances, to that "degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose." In other words, ORS 161.209 defines the so-called "necessity" requirement of Oregon's self-defense law. That requirement applies to all uses of physical force.

ORS 161.219 begins with the phrase, "Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless * * *." That phrase explains that, although ORS 161.209 authorizes the use of physical force in certain circumstances, deadly force is never reasonable, in the absence of any of the additional threatening circumstances described in ORS 161.219. Nothing in the language of ORS 161.219 eliminates the general "necessity" requirement defined in ORS 161.209. Therefore, even when one or more of the threatening circumstances described in ORS 161.219 is present, the use of deadly force is justified only if it does not exceed the "degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary" in the circumstances. See State v. Wright, 310 Or. 430, 435, 799 P.2d 642 (1990); Commentary to Proposed Criminal Code 23, § 23 (1970).

The legislature has not created an unlimited right to use deadly force against a burglar. The court properly instructed the jury on self-defense.

STATE v. HARO | Leagle.com

 

[oli700]

while I believe the option taken was a good one , I cant say what I would have done because getting the opportunity to beat down a stupid person with full justification doesn't present itself often enough, that and he being drunk, already half way up a flight of stairs....almost a wet dream

 

[misplacedtexan]

I might be from Texas, but I would have still shot him.

Bravo to the homeowner for protecting his.

Legality,and culpability aside.....I don't care if it might cost me $10 or $10,000,000, if I feel threatened in my house you better clear out fast, or the coroner is going to give you a ride home.

 

[Stomper]

You somehow missed the citation I provided in that previous discussion, thus your entire post here is based on a deficiency. Here is the citation again, in case
anybody missed it :




STATE v. HARO | Leagle.com

Non sequitur.

 

[1337BaldEagle]

Otherwise feel free to take your chances....

I'm pretty sure if Zimmerman can get off, so can this guy. Just my two bits about the "risk" associated with shooting in what I would say is self defense.

As for my thoughts on the specific situation: First off no jury in there right mind would find it "reasonable" for a person or persons to enter a house at 2:30 at which they are unexpected, and do not reside. It is a crime, 1st: to consume alcohol at his age and 2nd: to trespass on ones property when it would be "reasonable" that they would not wish you to be there. Two laws were broken prier to the shooting and both crimes solely contributed to the situation. Furthermore, one could articulate that a man that allowed a would be intruder to pass himself might have some reservation about ending anothers life. Even a crappy lawyer would note that he allowed the kid to pass and gave him EVERY CHANCE TO STOP before finally he was only mere steps from his sons room. Only then did he take his life.

This would never even go to trial, criminally. No grand jury would allow it even if the DA wanted to try it. However, civilly I could see where the guy may be in jeopardy (unjustly as it is in my opinion).

ORS 161.219"degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary"

I think the majority of people would find it "reasonably necessary." How else is he going to make him stop? Tussle with him? That would allow undue risk to be allocated to the home owner? Is he supposed to call 911 while the kid strangles his son? That puts undue risk on his family. The key word here that I'm using is "undue." The kid, by committing two previous crimes, caused "undue" perceived risk to the home owner because there is no way for a homeowner to articulate an intruders intentions.

My home, my castle, my kids, my wife. I will not allow them to be forced to take the risk.

There are 5 things I will always assume if there is an intruder, I believe all these to be reasonable assumptions:

1) I'm going to assume the intruder is not stupid.

2) I'm going to assume that he knows it's legal for me to own a firearm.

3) I'm going to assume that since he knows it's legal for me to own a firearm, I may use it against what I perceive as a threat.

4) I'm going to assume that since you are in my house uninvited you know that you could be perceived as a threat.

5) I'm going to assume that since you know you could be perceived as a threat, you brought means of dealing with opposition since you value your life.

Are you stupid? Or are you actually a threat? Pick one. Regardless of which one, it's reasonable to assume an unknown someone, in your house at night, uninvited, might do you or your family harm. If you don't shoot you don't care for your family near enough.

 

[Caveman Jim]

I know this is not quite the same but things like that are actually starting to happen, Pepper-sprayed Occupy Portland protester Liz Nichols gets $7,116 payment demand from city | OregonLive.com

The day of you can sue anyone for anything needs to stop. Even if the person being sued "wins" it is still a net loss to them in time, money, and their life. It should be changed that yes, you can use anyone for anything, BUT if you lose your case you are responsible for ALL of the costs.

Well, in the picture she appeared to be yelling and screaming awfully loud and probably hurt the policeman's ears and needed to be silenced!!! just my observation....

 

[ATCclears]

Things happen fast.

First, a reminder of this recent incident in Gig Harbor, WA where the perp was likely high on meth:
http://www.northwestfirearms.com/ge...52159-gig-harbor-wa-homeowner-shoots-man.html

Second, someone with even just a knife can do a LOT of damage quickly to you or a family member. I was trying to find the link for a YouTube video where a knife instructor shows how quickly (and deeply/badly) he can attack and cut into a hanging side of meat.

I would have taken the shot.

Peter

 

[jbett98]

Watch this You Tube video of a Nicaraguan man that attacks five cops with a large kitchen knife.
One of the cops has a rifle, the rest have pistols. The police didn't handle it very well.
It goes south for them very quickly.

"Knife attack - One man stabs multiple cops, kills one"

 

[808hondacrguy]

Thats one reason that I love my dog! She is very protective of her (my) kids, and would never have let him get to the stairs. Now I might be sued because my dog castrated him, but we would all be alive.

 

[semperfi68to70]

So an intruder that may or may not be armed is headed up the stairs where your terrified family is hiding, and he refuses to respond to your commands to stop and leave the premises. No threat? Really?

While I personally am not a liberal, let me see if I can explain to everyone what you are missing from the loony left: The home owner here is 100% wrong. Not just for shooting the drunken fool but for the following items even if he had not shot the intruder. First of all, what safety measures were in place on the stairs so this individual didn't fall and hurt himself? Obviously the home owner is inhumane. He should have supplied the young man with a safety harness so he could climb the stairs and rape the home owner's family without fear of injury from falling. And for all we know the drunk individual might be diabetic. The home owner should have had cookies and milk or orange juice for him in case he became hypoglycemic. Drunk diabetics don't fare well and the home owner should have known this. And we can also extrapolate that it was the middle of the night and therefore cold. The home owner should have had a jacket and maybe slippers waiting for the perp. I was going to mention a couple aspirin so the drunk didn't wake up with a hangover, but I think we can all agree the home owner did deal with that.

 

[Stomper]

LMAO... I love sarcasm!

 

[U201491]

While I personally am not a liberal, let me see if I can explain to everyone what you are missing from the loony left: The home owner here is 100% wrong. Not just for shooting the drunken fool but for the following items even if he had not shot the intruder. First of all, what safety measures were in place on the stairs so this individual didn't fall and hurt himself? Obviously the home owner is inhumane. He should have supplied the young man with a safety harness so he could climb the stairs and rape the home owner's family without fear of injury from falling. And for all we know the drunk individual might be diabetic. The home owner should have had cookies and milk or orange juice for him in case he became hypoglycemic. Drunk diabetics don't fare well and the home owner should have known this. And we can also extrapolate that it was the middle of the night and therefore cold. The home owner should have had a jacket and maybe slippers waiting for the perp. I was going to mention a couple aspirin so the drunk didn't wake up with a hangover, but I think we can all agree the home owner did deal with that.

Don't forget that everything you mentioned causes cancer in Kalifornia.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

while I believe the option taken was a good one , I cant say what I would have done because getting the opportunity to beat down a stupid person with full justification doesn't present itself often enough, that and he being drunk, already half way up a flight of stairs....almost a wet dream

I get the sentiment, and being an instructor in a very effective fighting system, it's tempting...but how do we know mr jerkoff isn't packing a gun or knife?

semperfi, after that investigation of a libtard's interior, be sure to take a hot bath

 

[Koda]

My takeaway from this story is not if the homeowner was right or wrong but what can I do to access a situation like this one better. I don't want to go into any self defense situation with a pre-determined mindset of action that ends up killing someone that didn't deserve it.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

My takeaway from this story is not if the homeowner was right or wrong but what can I do to access a situation like this one better. I don't want to go into any self defense situation with a pre-determined mindset of action that ends up killing someone that didn't deserve it.

Although you have good intentions I think your having a little Hindsight bias. Other than having a non lethal weapon as your primary defense, (baseball bat, mace?) or a better security system I don't know what else could have been done without risking his loved ones lives.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

My takeaway from this story is not if the homeowner was right or wrong but what can I do to access a situation like this one better. I don't want to go into any self defense situation with a pre-determined mindset of action that ends up killing someone that didn't deserve it.

Best to go into such a situation determined FIRST for you and yours to survive

 

[Koda]

......I don't know what else could have been done without risking his loved ones lives.

thats a good question that reiterates my statement. I didn't give an answer, its not an easy one and I didnt judge the homeowner. I have no hindsight bias I just know it would be tough to live with the fact that I killed someone that turns out really didn't mean any harm.

The story is just one example of some possibilities how someone could enter a home without permission and without criminal intent, I will admit they are rare occurrences. Once again, I'm not judging because I agree that myself and my families safety comes first and you do what you gotta do under stress. But I don't shoot because I can shoot, I shoot because I have no choice. There is a difference. Mindset matters greatly.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

thats a good question that reiterates my statement. I didn't give an answer, its not an easy one and I didnt judge the homeowner. I have no hindsight bias I just know it would be tough to live with the fact that I killed someone that turns out really didn't mean any harm.

The story is just one example of some possibilities how someone could enter a home without permission and without criminal intent, I will admit they are rare occurrences. Once again, I'm not judging because I agree that myself and my families safety comes first and you do what you gotta do under stress. But I don't shoot because I can shoot, I shoot because I have no choice. There is a difference. Mindset matters greatly.

Question yourself too much and you will regret it, if you survive. Reject PC fallacies, what matters is survival

 

[jim97701]

You somehow missed the citation I provided in that previous discussion, thus your entire post here is based on a deficiency. Here is the citation again, in case
anybody missed it :




STATE v. HARO | Leagle.com

Give me a break! you are condemning the homeowner based on Oregon Law? when this clearly took place in VA. You cannot argue the validity of this shooting based on laws from another state. Just because one state has a particular statute doesnt mean that they apply to all 50. If you want to impress, justify your stance using VA laws or shut up!. Your views on this homeowners rights even using Oregon laws are very misguided and questionable. At least your family now knows that if faced with an intruder situation in the middle of the night and you to protect them that their safety is in question.

 

[Father of four]

aper: