Oregon Hillsboro Airport - Masked Gunman Grabs Helicopter - Confronted by CHL Holders

[Certaindeaf]

Sheldon,

Don't know about that.

What you wanna do though, Sheldon, is "quote" what you are talking about and or ampersand it. Or just pray to the Jesus.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Correct me if I'm wrong...

But you are allowed to use force if a FELONY is being committed...

Am I right? Wouldn't stealing a helicopter be a felony? Ground Control to Major Tom...

Breathing is a felony. I think the big boys did studies that said everyone commits multiple felonies daily. No law against that.
Me, it's a zen thing.. couldn't say one way or another if I'd a tagged that soul on that day.. of course.

 

[etrain16]

as far as I know, Oregon does not have a duty to retreat law. Its not illegal to confront someone attempting to steal your property and the bad guy was known to be armed.


ORS 161.219 a person is not justified in using deadly force unless the other person is committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or imminent use of physical force. (note how the two elements are intertwined...)

and we do know the guy was armed...



from what I read, the armed citizens did not pursue the bad guy. It sounds like they held him under citizens arrest, but from what I understand is the armed citizen has no lethal options to prevent a bad guy from simply walking away during such an event they could possible physically restrain him but it also sounds like he was still armed... he definitely wasn't compliant. They did the right thing by not pursuing him.

not a lawyer of course, correct me if Im wrong.

I wrote kind of a long response about a similar type event (felony theft) just a couple of weeks ago on this thread, which had similar repercussions: Not legal in Oregon, legal in Washington?

This seems to be a potential gray area. Oregon allows citizens arrest, even allows for the use of "physical force" to make that arrest. But it doesn't make any allowance for deadly force in such a case. Now if they went out there to try and make a citizen's arrest and the bad guy threatens them in such a way that their lives are in danger, the law in Oregon should protect them if they then had to use deadly force in defense of their lives - but the law is clear that deadly force can only be used to counter deadly force (see the copy of my post below from another thread for the citation on that).

Where it seems muddier to me, potentially, is that they knew the guy had a gun, had already threatened people, and they were already in a place, away from him, that was apparently safe. I guess my question would be, given the political climate in Oregon courts, especially in and around Multnomah and surrounding counties, would these folks have potentially run the risk of prosecution for running to the potentially deadly danger, in an attempt to make a citizen's arrest, if they had then had to use deadly force to stop him? Personally, I think they should be fine, but would a judge/jury find their interpretation to be the same?

For those that don't want to jump to the other thread, here is what I posted, which may also be applicable in this case:

****************************************************

I don't know that there is a clear answer to this question, but there is information available to anyone with a computer to at least attempt to understand the intent of the law.

The situation described in the OP appears to me to be the equivalent of a "citizen's arrest". The baddie was attempting to steal a truck, which could be, depending on the value, a felony offense. In Oregon, a citizen's arrest is legal as per ORS 133.225:

(1)A private person may arrest another person for any crime committed in the presence of the private person if the private person has probable cause to believe the arrested person committed the crime. A private person making such an arrest shall, without unnecessary delay, take the arrested person before a magistrate or deliver the arrested person to a peace officer.

(2)In order to make the arrest a private person may use physical force as is justifiableunder ORS 161.255 (Use of physical force by private person making citizen's arrest). [1973 c.836 §74]


So it is lawful for a citizen to arrest someone if they have probable cause to believe the person has committed a crime. It appears that the OP's case is clear - they caught the bad guy in the act of stealing the truck. At this point, they are justified in placing him under citizen's arrest. That said, the waters can get considerably muddier from here. The question isn't whether they can stop him, but whether they can use force, or in this case, present a gun, to make the arrest. Take a look at ORS 161.255:

(1)Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a private person acting on the person's own account is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom the person has arrested under ORS 133.225 (Arrest by private person).

(2)A private person acting under the circumstances prescribed in subsection (1) of this section is justified in using deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. [1971 c.743 §31; 1973 c.836 §339]

That means, in Oregon, "citizen's arrest" is a valid, legal action. But, as noted above, there are, in some cases, different ways these seemingly simple statements can be interpreted. So, what is clear is that a private person, acting on their own accord, can not only make an arrest, but "is justified" in the use "physical force" if they "reasonably believe" it is necessary to make an arrest. I put certain things in quotes because you need to also know how the state defines those terms. Some definitions available right in Section 161, specifically 161.015:

"Physical force" includes, but is not limited to, the use of an electrical stun gun, tear gas or mace.

"Deadly physical force" means physical force that under the circumstances in which it is used is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

(from ORS 133.005) "Arrest" means to place a person under actual or constructive restraint or to take a person into custody for the purpose of charging that person with an offense. A "stop" as authorized under ORS 131.605 (Definitions for ORS 131.605 to 131.625) to 131.625 (Frisk of stopped persons) is not an arrest.

Summary: You can make a citizen's arrest. You can use physical force. And, you can place an arrested person under actual or constructive restraint. And, if necessary, justified and reasonable, use deadly physical force if they are about to cause death or serious physical injury to you or someone else. Those items are clearly called out in the law. But what about pulling a gun, is that considered "physical force", and if so, is it justifiable? What it comes down to, for me, in my quick reading of the statutes is whether using a gun is allowable as a form of "constructive restraint". The ORS's, as far as I can find, have no clear definition of "constructive restraint". Again, a little more searching brought up several cases where "constructive restraint" needed to be further defined by the courts, up to, and including, the SCOTUS. In general, "constructive restraint" can be as simple as saying "you are under arrest" or something to that effect. Keeping their car keys is also a form of constructive restraint. But what about holding someone at gunpoint? Is that constructive restraint? Google wasn't as much help there, but I'm sure the answers are out there, if someone wants to go deep enough down that rabbit hole.

The ORS's don't make it clear whether you can or you can't use a gun to hold someone whom you are arresting for the commission of a crime. I think a case could be made (highly dependent upon the jurisdiction you find yourself in), that you could lawfully hold someone at gunpoint to prevent a crime, until police arrive. But I would say it's probably not the best choice to make unless the person committing the crime is presenting an immediate threat of physical harm or death to you or someone else. Is it worth the possible risk that you may be committing a crime to save a piece of (likely) insured property? That's a call each individual has to make for themselves. In general, my rule is to leave law enforcement to the police. But if there is an immediate, imminent threat of physical harm or death to myself or someone else, that's the time I will need to act and not wait for the LE's to get there.

It's an interesting question, and one with no clear answer. I will add one more thing, in reading these rules, one of the rules basically says that if you're the one that, basically 'started it', then you have no justification for things like physical force. And I think that's where the discussion on brandishing may really lie - are you, maybe a hothead, who pulls a gun out of anger or to try and threaten someone? I think you're more likely to get a brandishing case there. But pull a gun to stop the commission of an actual crime? I, in my uneducated, non-expert, non-lawyer opinion, is a different and perhaps more justifiable, set of circumstances.

If you're concerned, do your own research and consult an actual attorney. Leave the arm chair legal rambling to the realm of the interwebs. Besides, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night

 

[Lazyfaire]

Channel 12 (KPTV in Portland) This morning reported on the helicopter shooting and did comment that he was originally held by two armed citizens.

 

[bbbass]

And then there's this:

Man sits on gun, shoots self in penis

 

[Lazyfaire]

And then there's this:
911 for sale. Used. Only fired once.
Man sits on gun, shoots self in penis

 

[Koda]

Where it seems muddier to me, potentially, is that they knew the guy had a gun, had already threatened people, and they were already in a place, away from him, that was apparently safe. I guess my question would be, given the political climate in Oregon courts, especially in and around Multnomah and surrounding counties, would these folks have potentially run the risk of prosecution for running to the potentially deadly danger, in an attempt to make a citizen's arrest, if they had then had to use deadly force to stop him? Personally, I think they should be fine, but would a judge/jury find their interpretation to be the same?

Yes, definetely yes.... They would have run the risk of prosecution especially if they had to defend themselves and ended up killing the guy.

Everything Ive read about interveining and/or making a citizens arrest, while legal, is its filled with legal liabily to the good samaritan.... and every time I read about it the takeaway is, dont do it.

The few times I read about others doing it, even sucessfully, I can always see several things that could have easily gone wrong and in many cases where the good samaritan could have been charged especially if holding someone at gunpoint.

I do think there are some cases that are more cut and dry, perhaps in this case, but think about how everything changes if it doesnt go easy.... and your they guy holding the smoking gun.

 

[nammac]

Channel 12 (KPTV in Portland) This morning reported on the helicopter shooting and did comment that he was originally held by two armed citizens.

Finally, just a couple of days late to the party.... Wonder if this tardiness is due to fully vetting the story as they claim to do...

 

[Ralgha]

Please bear with me...it's been decades since I've had access to the Hillsboro field. At that time you simply needed a pass code to gain access to the hangars and aircraft operations area. Now, post 9/11, I'm thinking it must be be greatly tightened {even with daily employee's} there.

Since it is a Port of Portland operation in addition to being just an airstrip, can any anyone speak to the current level of control in place there now ?

Most small airports have next to nothing for security, Hillsboro included. Even small ones with airline service. There are many small airports around the country where you could hop the fence at 2am and jump in an airliner with nobody the wiser, they don't have locks on the doors.

As I've said before, there are things the TSA could do to actually increase the security of airports and airliners, they do virtually none of them.

 

[Lazyfaire]

Yes, definetely yes.... They would have run the risk of prosecution especially if they had to defend themselves and ended up killing the guy.

Everything Ive read about interveining and/or making a citizens arrest, while legal, is its filled with legal liabily to the good samaritan.... and every time I read about it the takeaway is, dont do it.

The few times I read about others doing it, even sucessfully, I can always see several things that could have easily gone wrong and in many cases where the good samaritan could have been charged especially if holding someone at gunpoint.

I do think there are some cases that are more cut and dry, perhaps in this case, but think about how everything changes if it doesnt go easy.... and your they guy holding the smoking gun.

As I understood the initial report the concealed carriers were holding him in place. He had used a gun so they were aware and were not making an effort to make a citizen's arrest. He stayed there until the pope showed up and that is when he ran, was chased by the police, and ultimately shot and killed.
I would probably do this in Washington County, but not Multnomah, especially if the two 'hostages' had gotten away. Its all up to the DAs. The Multnomah DA is no friend of gun people. Let him come and get him.

 

[ageingstudent]

KPTV actually reported a name today online and tomorrow they say the HPD will identify the officer.

Police ID Hillsboro Airport suspect killed by officer

 

[Lazyfaire]

KPTV actually reported a name today online and tomorrow they say the HPD will identify the officer.

Police ID Hillsboro Airport suspect killed by officer

A friend of the guy said he didn't know if the guy even knew how to fly a chopper. Just another nut job

 

[diagoras]

Okay, well, just to make a totally snarky remark about the Hillsburrito P.D. ...

I was in a restaurant once when a bunch of Hillsburrito's Finest showed up, and I swear there wasn't ONE of them that weighed less than 300 lbs. I wisecracked to the group I was "how the hell are they going to run down a criminal if they weigh that much", and somebody said "If you don't STFU we're gonna find out". Which brought the house down.

But I got the last laugh... A few weeks later, a perp escaped from the courthouse in Hillsburrito, *in manacles and handcuffs*. He just took off and the cop that was guarding him couldn't catch him... Because... he was way, Way, WAY overweight.

SO... For whoever wonders why Hillsburrito P.D. can't move their Fat bubblegum fast enough... yeah, right.

(OK... Sorry, but I could NOT resist it.)

 

[415DET]

Diagoras,

The guy you are thinking about was a Washington County deputy, not HPD.

 

[BillGabby1]

16 minutes!! This confirms: When your door is kicked open you are on your own!!!!!!

Sheldon

Try 30 to 45 minutes or longer, like we have here in Josephine County, and you will understand why I'm armed 24-7.
Especially with the influx of pot growers, many of which are of questionable integrity.
Yeah I know some are really nice people but I've seen what the citizens are looking like nowadays. All you have to do is go to the building supply to see what I would call street toughs, I wouldn't want to meet some of them in a dark alley! They are routinely seen there as they buy all their building and irrigation supplies there, where else are they going to get 8' fencing?
Gabby

 

[ageingstudent]

Interesting update. Whatever your opinion of Fox this particular story seems to be reasonably covered by them. I don't have a short memory I checked back to see if they followed up or changed their story . Link below if anyone's interested.

Police identify officer involved in shooting near Hillsboro airport