Home Invasion Scenario

[Certaindeaf]

Whenever I want to know the answer to a life and death situation I create a thread on the internet and play dumb. dood

 

[LProf]

Thank you.

 

[Botte Hork]

161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, 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; or

(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]

161.229 Use of physical force in defense of property. A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief of property. [1971 c.743 §26]

Know your state laws and study any relevant court cases as well. Interestingly, WA state law seems to leave a little more room:

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.


Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

Almost as if homicide is justified when *any* felony is (about to be) committed to you (or yours). There is however also a 'use of force' article:

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.


The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;

(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.

Without having studied any court cases and materials further explaining these, it almost seems as if the violence had better not be more than necessary, or lethal in case a felony was committed. I'd not take forum advice, but I'd check with a proper qualified person (meaning someone with a relevant law degree, which usually excludes police and firearms instructors). And always be aware of the local laws. A tiny difference in fine print can bring more trouble than you'd expect.

 

[CoastRange57]

person (meaning someone with a relevant law degree, which usually excludes police and firearms instructors).

Is is usually only the DA's opinion that really matters if the grand jury sends it to them and maybe the 12 impartial jurors. You can pretty much count on being detained at a minimum and possibly lodged under a felony count until the grand jury decides it is crap or the DA feels they cannot convict.

 

[Misterbill]

You are in your home one night reading and relaxing when two guys break into your house walk over to your TV or stereo and start walking out with it.

Besides calling 911, what degree of physical or deadly force can you use to stop them, without subjecting yourself to criminal prosecution or a successful civil suit under Oregon law?

Can't speak to Oregon.

In Washington you can use force to stop them from walking out with the TV, but that force has to be "Reasonable and Necessary." Tackle them? sure (There goes your TV). Sit on them, restrain them til the cops get there. But you can't shoot someone for "mere theft."

Personally, if someone breaks through my locked, dead-bolted door and past my 2 dogs, they aren't likely to make it to the TV before I shoot them. I'm making a rational assumption that the only reason you'd be breaking into an obviously occupied home is to harm the occupants.

 

[Botte Hork]

Is is usually only the DA's opinion that really matters if the grand jury sends it to them and maybe the 12 impartial jurors. You can pretty much count on being detained at a minimum and possibly lodged under a felony count until the grand jury decides it is crap or the DA feels they cannot convict.

Having some savings to survive 6 months of unemployment while paying the bills is never a bad idea. The Armed Citizen Legal Defense Network is also worth looking into for many of us.

 

[Stomper]

Pay particular attention to ORS 162.219(2) as pertaining to committing, or ATTEMPTING to commit a burglary in a dwelling.

You are legally justified in using deadly force in the above scenario. Remember, an A-hole DA or ADA with political ambitions is NOT the one who judges you, they prosecute you and must convince a jury of your peers that you broke the law.

The reason the above ORS stipulates a DWELLING is because it is a reasonable assumption that anyone breaking into a dwelling assumes there is a high probability there are people inside, and by doing so is prepared to commit bodily harm against thos occupants.

On a side note, I'm not disparaging anyone's value/ethics on "shooting anyone over a T.V.", but IMHO you have the wrong take on it. It isn't about "property", its about some ANIMAL breaking into a dwelling knowing full well they may have to inflict bodily harm on the occupants, and that "make or break" action will occur within two heartbeats in a confrontation.

Most likely you aren't going to have time to grab your pepperspray and make these grandiose declarations of "I've got a gun and if you...."

Just sayin'

 

[Screwy]

I have difficulty with either having to get my *** kicked before I draw, or stand down until I think the value of his spoils equals the right to stop him under threat of shooting. If he threatens to take my purebred dog, is that stuff or threatening my family?

 

[Netspirit]

I would take a smartphone, dial 911 and start filming them, having a gun in the other hand.

If they choose to leave, they will be identified and found, and I will get my TV back. If they choose to stay, the police will apprehend them. If they start walking towards me despite me shouting that I am armed, that is enough for me to fear for my life and a scary enough movie for any reasonable jury.

 

[rick benjamin]

Pay particular attention to ORS 162.219(2) as pertaining to committing, or ATTEMPTING to commit a burglary in a dwelling

161.219(2)
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors161.html

 

[Barachiah]

161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, 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; or

(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]

161.229 Use of physical force in defense of property. A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief of property. [1971 c.743 §26]

They've entered a dwelling and shown intent to commit a crime, pushing it from Criminal Trespass II to Burglary I in Oregon. As underlined, this act by the suspects justifies use of deadly physical force under color of law.

How a jury will interpret the spirit of the law depends on the situation and factors therein. While the law protects you, in theory and in word, juries can find exception and case law can be made.

It boils down to,"Are you in fear for your life?"more than anything. Yes it would be great to prevent a theft of your items from your home, especially when you are there. But, would a jury of your peers agree with your decision to end the bad guys life over some electronics? That is where articulation of your fear, at the time, of imminent injury to yourself or loved ones, up to and including death.

It's a dangerous gamble, especially now, even if you are in your home. Case law is made nearly every day, many times in favor of hose that would do us harm.

I hope this, in addition to oster's cut and paste of the applicable ORS answers the OP's question.

 

[Screwy]

I would take a smartphone, dial 911 and start filming them, having a gun in the other hand.

If they choose to leave, they will be identified and found, and I will get my TV back. If they choose to stay, the police will apprehend them. If they start walking towards me despite me shouting that I am armed, that is enough for me to fear for my life and a scary enough movie for any reasonable jury.

Gopro video cam chest mount!

 

[Screwy]

Deciding that the consequences of becoming "Zimmerman" is likely in our decision to defend. This is huge. Sometimes I wonder when I examine my safe full of favorite carrys, holsters and jhps, diplomas from live fire courses and review my drills expending hundred of rounds per month... am I truly ready to go there? There, I said it. Dont shoot me! Just sayin'. More super advanced level CHL education classes should be available with testimony from prosecutors, LEOs and somebody who's had to make that decision. This discussion topic is a goldmine. Thanks NWF and all of you who put this on the table.

 

[etrain16]

See if you can get OFADan to weigh in on this - he seems to know his state laws on use of force very well. Of course laws are always about interpretation. If someone forcibly breaks into my home, it's not my job to try and determine their intent. I've heard and seen a lot of discussion on this. If I believe their presence is a threat to our safety, based on the fact that it was forcible entry, I can act on that threat, regardless of their actions at the moment. The very fact that they forcibly entered created a situation where you can defend yourself, regardless of their intent. I mean, how do you know they won't turn and pull a gun on you the minute they start moving the TV? My goal would preferably be to leave it to the cops if I can get my family in a safe, barricaded location.

I wouldn't kill someone over a TV or anything else in my house - that's why I have insurance. But if my life or the life of my family is threatened, I would do what was necessary to protect them.

 

[CoastalGunner]

Get a dog or two. My dogs will ensure that an unarmed intruder or two will leave if they are unarmed. If the intruders do produce a weapon then your use of deadly force is justified. Until that threat decides to take it to that level you are required by law to match your threats use of force, be it fist or weapon. just my

 

[coop44]

If I'm up stairs I'll have my tavor sar b16 with light and aimpoint. Call out if you step one foot on my stairs I will use deadly force. I'm not going to shot someone over a TV. But if they come near my kids and wife different story. If I'm down stair watching TV I would just grab my carbon steel katana that's next to my TV.

I really, really, like my tv and stereo, I don't even know these guys. I'm not missing "True Blood" or "Hell on Wheels". Their mistake.

At my age a judge and jury shouldn't be too hard to convince that I was in fear for my life. Gray hair and a limp help establish that.

 

[Packy]

One way trip for two to the High Desert....

 

[coop44]

Get a dog or two. My dogs will ensure that an unarmed intruder or two will leave if they are unarmed. If the intruders do produce a weapon then your use of deadly force is justified. Until that threat decides to take it to that level you are required by law to match your threats use of force, be it fist or weapon. just my

True, dogs help, just don't hurt my dogs. It could be hazardous to your health.

"match your threats"? Really? A "fair" fight, are you effing serious? I would rather sort it out in court.

After you have defended your rights be careful, anything you say will be taken out of context, and used against you.
so:
When the cops get confrontational, lawyer. When they ask what happened, lawyer. "If you did nothing wrong you don't need a lawyer" DEFINITLY GET A LAWYER!


"a TV isn't worth a human life"
when all of those things you acquired with pieces of YOUR life are taken away and you are sitting out on the street with nothing and not enough time left in your life to replace them, rest easy, at least you know that deep down you are pacifist pinko gay liberal.

the question you should pose to intruders (if you have a chance) is,
"Is that TV worth YOUR life?

Maybe get a lawn sign made?


Intent? What, am I supposed to be psychic? I have a hard enough time with what's going on in my head, now I have to guess what's going on in some one elses, sorry but I've been married long enough to know that is impossible.

I think I am allowed a level of paranoia on par with the average police officers. After all I'm not as well trained. They get away with it all the time,

"I thought that, (Ipod, phone, pen, pencil, finger, penis, vacuum cleaner, box of Girl scout cookies, vacuum cleaner) was a gun!!"

 

[semperfi68to70]

Easy buddy, I grew up in Compton and went to Dominguez High School. They would have never got into our house because of the bars on the doors and windows! But in answer to your question; "I was in fear for my life and that of my family, officer! I didn't want to shoot them several times each, but they left me no option!"

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Shoot the TV.