- Messages
- 6,072
- Reactions
- 15,023
In the case you cited the defendant was justified if he did not invite the intruder inside:
§ 164.215
Burglary in the second degree
(1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 164.255 (Criminal trespass in the first degree), a person commits the crime of burglary in the second degree if the person enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein.
(2) Burglary in the second degree is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §136; 1993 c.680 §24]
§ 164.225
Burglary in the first degree
(1) A person commits the crime of burglary in the first degree if the person violates ORS 164.215 (Burglary in the second degree) and the building is a dwelling, or if in effecting entry or while in a building or in immediate flight therefrom the person:
(a) Is armed with a burglary tool or theft device as defined in ORS 164.235 (Possession of a burglary tool or theft device) or a deadly weapon;
(b) Causes or attempts to cause physical injury to any person; or
(c) Uses or threatens to use a dangerous weapon.
(2) Burglary in the first degree is a Class A felony. [1971 c.743 §137; 2003 c.577 §10]
So assuming the defendant did not specifically invite the attacker inside (it would be hard to believe he did), ORassuming that he did tell him to leave at any point, the perp is committing either a Class A or a Class C felony.
Now, let's look at:
§ 161.209
Use of physical force in defense of a person
Except as provided in ORS 161.215 (Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person) and 161.219 (Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person), a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 §22]
And:
§ 161.219
Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person
Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), 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 [redundant in this case]; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]
So the perpetrator, by entering and remaining inside the premises has either committed a felony if not initially invited in, or has committed a felony by remaining in the premises, since he stated that his intent was to inflict bodily harm. The defendant has a right to avoid serious bodily injury in his own dwelling. Where is he to retreat to, especially with another defenseless person in the bathroom? He cannot predict what the perpetrator intends to do. Should he put up with being beaten just a little bit? How many of these situations have escalated from a fistfight to murder? I would not take the chance. If I were on the jury I would answer the ONLY legal question here in the affirmative, that yes, his use of deadly force in self-defense was REASONABLE.
Now, the case you found DID NOT address the reasonability of the defendant's actions. It addressed ONLY whether the lower court's instructions were accurate. They were ruled accurate, and I would agree with the appellate court's decision ON THAT QUESTION. But that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the defendant's judgement of the situation was reasonable or not. That was up to the jury.
What is the distance rule for cops with an approaching subject who may or may not be armed, but refuses to stop? Is it 27 feet? Inside that boundary one cannot be assured of drawing a firearm and stopping the suspect before he closes the distance and is able to do damage with a blade. Could this perpetrator have reached a family member and done damage with a concealed blade of some sort, or blunt object? Even an object already present in the house, like a baseball bat in the kid's room? Would a cop have been justified in shooting the perpetrator? ABSOLUTELY! The homeowner had no way of knowing that the perpetrator was 16, that he was merely drunk, or even somehow impaired. The homeowner had no way of knowing whether the perpetrator was armed or not, and had no way of knowing his intent. His REASONABLE assumption was that the perpetrator illegally entered his house at 2 am, and illegally remained in it, with the intent to do some sort of crime. That he remained in the house when he knew it was occupied suggests that he doesn't care whether people are there because he intends to use force against them if confronted.
Here's a likely scenario:
1. The perpetrator goes on up the stairs without the homeowner stopping him.
2. A family member steps into the hallway to see what's going on.
3. The perpetrator pulls a knife and stabs the family member, or picks up a nearby object and hits them with it.
The homeowner has no way of knowing that this isn't going to happen. What are his logical choices if he wants to protect his family?
But wait. I know how you're going to answer this, because you're just trolling here. You want to get your jollies by having people send arguments your way, only to be repelled by your supposedly superior logic, reasoning, and moral values. Sorry to say, it's easy to refute any argument anyone makes if you can keep changing the scenario, as you have been doing. The question hinges on REASONABLENESS of the homeowner's actions, as has been demonstrated by your own legal analysis. Changing the characteristics of the perpetrator and the circumstances of the incident reflects directly on the reasonableness. You'll keep changing your story until the homeowner's assumption is unreasonable and then you'll crow about your "victory". Sorry to burst your bubble.
