Homeowner arrested for shooting tresspassers in Hillsboro

[keystir]

Any thoughts? Still a little early so the facts seem a little fuzzy.

Hillsboro police arrest man they say fired shots at trespassers | OregonLive.com

Read More

 

[Trlsmn]

This is a disturbing precedence.

 

[BlvdKing]

I hope there is more to the story than just firing at shadows in the dark in a neighborhood

 

[spengo]

>"There was not enough action by the suspects to constitute a burglary," he said. "Therefore, he doesn't really have a right to fire a gun."
Well that sucks. I thought we had castle doctrine? I guess in OR it would be a better idea to try and scare them off first.

Here is the fun way to do it:
1) Make tea
2) Grab AR-15, armor, and sunglasses
3) Go outside and sit on a chair on your back porch with the AR-15 in your lap, sip your tea, and then don the sunglasses while putting on the biggest coolface you have.

 

[Cougfan2]

While I have no sympathy for the tresspassers and am pretty confident they were up to no good, if you just see someone in your backyard and they have no visible weapon and haven't threatened you can't just pop a few rounds off at them and expect not to get arrested. I'll be interested as more details come out about this to see if the tresspassers did anything threatining.

 

[riverrat373]

If you own a firearm you owe it to yourself and others to check the laws concerning when you may use that firearm in self defense.

 

[clearconscience]

>"There was not enough action by the suspects to constitute a burglary," he said. "Therefore, he doesn't really have a right to fire a gun."
Well that sucks. I thought we had castle doctrine? I guess in OR it would be a better idea to try and scare them off first.

Here is the fun way to do it:
1) Make tea
2) Grab AR-15, armor, and sunglasses
3) Go outside and sit on a chair on your back porch with the AR-15 in your lap, sip your tea, and then don the sunglasses while putting on the biggest coolface you have.

You do have the castle doctrine, but you also have a worthless libby law called the "duty to retreat".
You actually have to do everything possible to retreat YOUR OWN HOME if someone breaks in before you can legally fire a weapon. I moved to KY a couple months ago to get away from those stupid laws.
Last week a college football "star" got in a fight with two other guys in a car. The football player was reaching in the window of the other persons car and beating them up, one of the guys pulled a gun and shot and killed the football player. Police treated, and as of now ruled it as self defense.

That would never happen in Oregon.

 

[oregonshooter]

Er... might want to brush up on ORS 161.225

This is where I fall into the "gun owners need training to posses a in public" camp even though it's their RIGHT to have one, he is going to pay for his ignorance of the law and common sense in general on this one.


PS> clearconscience, your comments are full of FAIL concerning Oregon law.

We have NO castle law and NO duty to retreat.

 

[Ian1816]

I was under the impression that Oregon did not have castle doctrine but that there was an effort to get it on the ballot underway. Any one have more information?

 

[oregonshooter]

We don't need it.

We have the best laws already concerning deadly force. They go like this...

BAM! BAM! BAM! "I was in fear for my life and those of my family in the house."

 

[Ian1816]

Maybe if the person in question is moving towards you and is armed but the fact that they broke into your house is not enough justification for the use of deadly force.

 

[marty8587]

WE need a castle doctrine similar to Texas.

 

[oregonshooter]

marty8587,

Why? What does Texas law allow that Oregon does not?

 

[Karma]

marty8587,

Why? What does Texas law allow that Oregon does not?

The Castle Doctrine put's the law on the side of the law abiding citizen instead of the criminal. It makes your home your castle, that you are allowed to keep safe.

The way Oregon law is, you have to do everything possible not to shoot someone no matter what they are doing it seems. Even if you aren't charged criminally in a shooting, you still have to worry about the civil suit. The Castle Doctrine doesn't allow civil suits for fair shootings. It also makes it so you have to do something pretty damn wrong to be charged for shooting someone in your home.

That is the basics of what I have seen about it anyhow.

 

[el gringo loco]

Yesterday, I started a thread discussing the types of training CHL holders should seek out, particularly in the area of the use of deadly force. Perhaps I should have expanded that to include the use of a firearm to defend one's self or one's property for ANY firearm owner. There are a lot of gun owners who have a seriously incorrect understanding of the laws in their respective states. This is concerning to me because of the potential criminal and civil liability that these folks are unknowingly exposing themselves to.

To the best of my understanding of the law, I have seen several examples of legal misinformation on this thread alone. There is no castle doctrine in OR. There is no duty to retreat in OR. Just because someone is breaking into your home is not enough to shoot someone.

If you own guns and have it in your head that you would use them to defend yourself or your home, you owe it to yourself to learn the laws (statutes and case law) in your state. Once you learn the law, keep learning it. All it takes is one court case and what was legal yesterday is illegal today.

 

[matt_w]

Can't use deadly force in Oregon unless you are in fear for your life or serious bodily injury, arson on an occupied structure, or serious bodily harm to a 3rd party. Doesn't matter if they are on your property or not.

The prosecutors do use common sense sometimes though. A few months back someone shot an intruder in their house because the intruder shined him in the light with a flashlight. I suppose the reason he didn't get in trouble was because he didn't know if the intruder had a gun since he was blinded.

 

[marty8587]

Do you remember a while ago, maybe 6 months or a year, in Texas a neighbor called 911 to report a burglary in progress at his neighbors house. He told the op he was going to get his shotgun and take care of it as the perps were leaving the residence. The Op told him not to he did anyway killed at least one of them. He was not aressted. I saw a Texas sherrif on face the nation or some show like that stake that he had no problem with the shooting.The bleeding harts tried to make it his fault that these young people were criminals!

 

[The B]

yep... castle doctrine is definite righteous. you should be fair game if you enter another's property and commit a crime- any crime. further, civil suits against people cleared of criminal homicide are absolutely criminal all by themselves.

i have no patience nor compassion for criminals entering another man's property, for any reason.

 

[oregonshooter]

>The Castle Doctrine doesn't allow civil suits for fair shootings.

I'll go one better.... Anytime criminal charges are dropped in a deadly force incident, no Civil case allowed period!

 

[riverrat373]

The Castle Doctrine put's the law on the side of the law abiding citizen instead of the criminal. It makes your home your castle, that you are allowed to keep safe.

The way Oregon law is, you have to do everything possible not to shoot someone no matter what they are doing it seems. Even if you aren't charged criminally in a shooting, you still have to worry about the civil suit. The Castle Doctrine doesn't allow civil suits for fair shootings. It also makes it so you have to do something pretty damn wrong to be charged for shooting someone in your home.

That is the basics of what I have seen about it anyhow.

WRONG! Check ORS 161.209-229.