JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
"Mayor Sam Adams also released a statement: "The City takes incidents such as this very seriously. As with any officer-involved shooting, there will be a thorough investigation and we will make sure every element is examined.''

I wish it would be a thorough investigation from an independent, neutral, outside source. Maybe then we could get the whole truth.
 
"Mayor Sam Adams also released a statement: "The City takes incidents such as this very seriously. As with any officer-involved shooting, there will be a thorough investigation and we will make sure every element is examined.''

I wish it would be a thorough investigation from an independent, neutral, outside source. Maybe then we could get the whole truth.

to me I read the mayor's statement as "a thorough investigation will occur and we will examine every element and be sure to find no fault with our guys even if it means going after the innocent victim to try to dissuade a law suite"
 
The part I found disturbing is that initially police were saying he shot first, then it was "gun fire was exchanged" and now any indication he even fired is absent from their story.

Because the guy likely never pointed or fired his gun at any person nor did he act with any haste in how he handled the firearm i bet. Otherwise a officer would of likely been shot as well as him. It's not a legal reason to shoot someone because you're hopped up on adrenaline from a house bust. He needs to be showing intention to do harm or posing an immediate danger. When you put yourself in a situation that you know may be dangerous, such as a house bust, you're letting your situational awareness become over amped. There's no way you would be thinking clearly & that type of thinking should not be endorsed anywhere but on the battlefield. Last I checked we're not at war with ourselves, even if you're unlucky enough to be the neighbor (a American) to some stranger (another American) that a bunch of other strangers (other Americans)don't like.
 
Unfortunately or not we are not allowed to use deadly force to protect our property. We should have insurance for that. A gun is to stop or prevent physical damage to you or another individual. He should have called 911 and remained inside and prepared. It is unfortunate that the man was shot of course and I hope he recovers. I would be surprised if he won a lawsuit for trespass but who knows in todays court system. Wishing him well.

Protect out property no, but be dammed if someone enters my home uninvited that puts me in fear for me and my family's life, therefore they will be shot!
 
I have 2 comments- first, the reason the police like to serve high risk no-knock warrants in the dead of night is because the criminals, like most people are asleep or otherwise below their best alert-wise. Second- I understand people wanting to protect their property, but the way the law is written- unless the perp has the ability to kill or cripple, the opportunity to kill or cripple, and you or others are in immediate jeopardy, you cannot leagally use deadly force on another! You can't shoot someone for stealing the stereo from your car, unless when you discover him, he comes at you with a screwdriver, knife, and is close enough to harm you with it (<21ft or so) It sucks, but that's the law. This homeowner had no reason to go outside with a weapon- he put himself in harm's way. There isn't a single possession in your back yard worth getting shot over- he should have called 911 and holed up indoors, and if the "intruder" breaches the door to his home, he's justified in protecting himself- he isn't out on the back porch. That's just the way Oregon law is written
 
but the way the law is written- unless the perp has the ability to kill or cripple, the opportunity to kill or cripple, and you or others are in immediate jeopardy, you cannot leagally use deadly force on another!

The same requirements must be met before a police officer can shoot to kill as much as any citizen. A homeowner out on his porch holding a firearm is not reason to shoot. No differently if you were out hunting in the woods and unbeknownst to you the police are out there looking for someone, they can not shoot you for holding a firearm on public property anymore than on your own private property.
 
I have 2 comments- first, the reason the police like to serve high risk no-knock warrants in the dead of night is because the criminals, like most people are asleep or otherwise below their best alert-wise. Second- I understand people wanting to protect their property, but the way the law is written- unless the perp has the ability to kill or cripple, the opportunity to kill or cripple, and you or others are in immediate jeopardy, you cannot leagally use deadly force on another! You can't shoot someone for stealing the stereo from your car, unless when you discover him, he comes at you with a screwdriver, knife, and is close enough to harm you with it (<21ft or so) It sucks, but that's the law. This homeowner had no reason to go outside with a weapon- he put himself in harm's way. There isn't a single possession in your back yard worth getting shot over- he should have called 911 and holed up indoors, and if the "intruder" breaches the door to his home, he's justified in protecting himself- he isn't out on the back porch. That's just the way Oregon law is written
No, actually that is not the law. There is nothing about 21 feet in the law, nor is there any prohibition against investigating suspicious, threatening, or unusual circumstances and situations in or around one's home while armed.

The homeowner had every right to engage in the behavior that ultimately got him shot and, the police had no right to engage in the behavior that resulted in shooting this fellow. Remember, it was not he, or his property that were the subject of their warrant and it is apparent that they made no effort to secure his permission to use his property or to notify him of police activity that might affect him.

So far, there is nothing to support the suggestion that the homeowner fired his weapon, thus any argument that one cannot use deadly force to protect personal or real property is irrelevant. It is possible, after all, that the man, not knowing what threat existed on his property, was armed in the event he needed to defend himself.
 
I didn't say he didn't have the right to arm himself and go check it out- I just said he was foolish to do so, given the location and circumstance. I also used the appx 21ft distance in the example given- if you shoot a guy holding a knife at 50+ feet- that guy wasn't close enough to put you in jeopardy to justify deadly force- a scumbag 21' away can be on you in less than 2 seconds- in that example jeopardy exists. The homeowner did have the right to do what he did, but as everyone should know, right or not- cops have a low tolerance for weapons being pointed at them- especially if they are expecting action from a high-risk warrant and there is some guy on a porch with a gun. I'm not saying the police were right, but the homeowner shouldn't have put himself in that situation. We don't know the whole story, but to say my argument is irrelevant is false- you cannot justifiably kill someone for trying to steal your weed-eater. That is the law
 
I have 2 comments- first, the reason the police like to serve high risk no-knock warrants in the dead of night is because the criminals, like most people are asleep or otherwise below their best alert-wise. Second- I understand people wanting to protect their property, but the way the law is written- unless the perp has the ability to kill or cripple, the opportunity to kill or cripple, and you or others are in immediate jeopardy, you cannot leagally use deadly force on another! You can't shoot someone for stealing the stereo from your car, unless when you discover him, he comes at you with a screwdriver, knife, and is close enough to harm you with it (<21ft or so) It sucks, but that's the law. This homeowner had no reason to go outside with a weapon- he put himself in harm's way. There isn't a single possession in your back yard worth getting shot over- he should have called 911 and holed up indoors, and if the "intruder" breaches the door to his home, he's justified in protecting himself- he isn't out on the back porch. That's just the way Oregon law is written

So I would be stupid to interfere with a perp ripping off my $2,000 auto sound system without a firearm, because he just might have a weapon; but this guy was wrong to take a weapon with him to investigate an intruder in his yard? Well, which is it?
 
I didn't say he didn't have the right to arm himself and go check it out- I just said he was foolish to do so, given the location and circumstance. I also used the appx 21ft distance in the example given- if you shoot a guy holding a knife at 50+ feet- that guy wasn't close enough to put you in jeopardy to justify deadly force- a scumbag 21' away can be on you in less than 2 seconds- in that example jeopardy exists. The homeowner did have the right to do what he did, but as everyone should know, right or not- cops have a low tolerance for weapons being pointed at them- especially if they are expecting action from a high-risk warrant and there is some guy on a porch with a gun. I'm not saying the police were right, but the homeowner shouldn't have put himself in that situation. We don't know the whole story, but to say my argument is irrelevant is false- you cannot justifiably kill someone for trying to steal your weed-eater. That is the law

Nobody stated he pointed the firearm at a police officer or even acted hastily in a motion that would place intent of doing harm. From what i've read he was just standing on his porch with a firearm in his hand, not pointed at anyone or making any quick motions to do so. If he lives, he's gonna make bank. I don't think them placing him in harms way was worth winning that lottery.
 
I didn't say he didn't have the right to arm himself and go check it out- I just said he was foolish to do so, given the location and circumstance. I also used the appx 21ft distance in the example given- if you shoot a guy holding a knife at 50+ feet- that guy wasn't close enough to put you in jeopardy to justify deadly force- a scumbag 21' away can be on you in less than 2 seconds- in that example jeopardy exists. The homeowner did have the right to do what he did, but as everyone should know, right or not- cops have a low tolerance for weapons being pointed at them- especially if they are expecting action from a high-risk warrant and there is some guy on a porch with a gun. I'm not saying the police were right, but the homeowner shouldn't have put himself in that situation. We don't know the whole story, but to say my argument is irrelevant is false- you cannot justifiably kill someone for trying to steal your weed-eater. That is the law

The officer has the responsibility to end the situation peacefully. All he had to do was to tell the home owner to put down his weapon . But he never gave him the opportunity. He shot him. Never gave him a chance. What would happen if the homeowner did that to a cop? Seems a little on sideded to me. Maybe if the officer did his job right the homeowner would not be trying to stay alive.
 
Legally, you cannot exercise deadly force without the 3 elements of ability, opportunity, and jeopardy if you want to stay out of prison. In this case, or the example I gave- neither presented the three elements needed to make homicide justifiable. The law is really quite clear on this. For example: 161.229¹
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]

and the law about when you can use deadly force: 161.219¹
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; or

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

All of these laws are fairly straightforward and can be located here: ORS 161.200 - Choice of evils - 2009 Oregon Revised Statutes
- If you own a weapon for the purpose of self defense, you would be well advised to read up on this stuff so if you do have to shoot someone you will know you were in the right and have the best chance of staying out of jail. A $2000 stereo is not worth going to jail over so you could protect your property- it's not legally justifiable and at a minimum you're going to get an assault with a deadly weapon charge if not attempted manslaughter
 
I'm not defending the police- given the limited info in the story, I can't imagine why the police shot him- especially if he never pointed the weapon or fired it- I'm just saying he shouldn't have put himself in that position
 
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

Ironically if the officers were found to have shot the homeowner only because he was holding a firearm on his front porch, they committed a felony involving the use of physical force against the homeowner.

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

And since they used unlawful deadly physical force (if the guy dies) against him. A third party would of been legally justified in using lawfully deadly force against the officers involved. Put that in your pipe & smoke it. Because we all know how corrupt the legal system is & you'll never get away with legally doing harm to the kings men.... lol
 
Ironically if the officers were found to have shot the homeowner only because he was holding a firearm on his front porch, they committed a felony involving the use of physical force against the homeowner.



And since they used unlawful deadly physical force (if the guy dies) against a him. A third party would of been legally justified in using lawfully deadly force against the officers involved. Put that in your pipe & smoke it. Because we all know how corrupt the legal system is & you'll never get away with legally doing harm to the kings men.... lol

I agree with all of this- unless he fired his weapon or aimed at them, they had no justification in gunning him down- I also agree they'll investigate until they show he aimed the weapon at them to get the boys in blue off the hook- which is wrong, but common
 
Bike, you said:
You can't shoot someone for stealing the stereo from your car, unless when you discover him, he comes at you with a screwdriver, knife, and is close enough to harm you with it (<21ft or so) It sucks, but that's the law.

There is no distance requirement in Oregon Statute.

You also said:

This homeowner had no reason to go outside with a weapon- he put himself in harm's way. There isn't a single possession in your back yard worth getting shot over- he should have called 911 and holed up indoors, and if the "intruder" breaches the door to his home, he's justified in protecting himself- he isn't out on the back porch. That's just the way Oregon law is written

There is no provision in ORS to support what you say. Nothing requiring a person to remain indoors, nothing requiring a person to call 911 and nothing that would prevent him from investigating events occurring on his property and nothing about being armed while doing so.

This is the Law:
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]

I didn't say he didn't have the right to arm himself and go check it out- I just said he was foolish to do so, given the location and circumstance...

Actually you said that he " had no reason..." I think he might differ with you. It was his property you recall. Your commentary implies that he was aware that these were police in his yard. You also imply that he was intending to use deadly force on someone stealing something from him.

While there hasn't been any report to substantiate any of that, there have been a number of reports that repudiate it. It seems pretty clear that this fellow didn't know what he was going to encounter and as the police didn't see fit to announce their presence, this fellow took the precaution of arming himself.

The only thing foolish here seems to be an(other) epic fail on the part of the PPB.
 
Bike, you said:


There is no distance requirement in Oregon Statute.

You also said:



There is no provision in ORS to support what you say. Nothing requiring a person to remain indoors, nothing requiring a person to call 911 and nothing that would prevent him from investigating events occurring on his property and nothing about being armed while doing so.

This is the Law:




Actually you said that he " had no reason..." I think he might differ with you. It was his property you recall. Your commentary implies that he was aware that these were police in his yard. You also imply that he was intending to use deadly force on someone stealing something from him.

While there hasn't been any report to substantiate any of that, there have been a number of reports that repudiate it. It seems pretty clear that this fellow didn't know what he was going to encounter and as the police didn't see fit to announce their presence, this fellow took the precaution of arming himself.

The only thing foolish here seems to be an(other) epic fail on the part of the PPB.

As I said later- I know there is no distance requirement, except for how it pertains to ability and jeopardy. You cannot reasonably shoot someone armed with a knife that's 50ft away- they are not considered to have placed you in jeopardy of your life. I also recognize he was not legally bound to stay indoors- it's my opinion that the risk of going outdoors from his reasonably secure home to "check it out" was legal, but foolish- had it been me I would have called the police and made sure the intruder didn't enter the house- if they did, then he would be legally justified in the use of deadly force. Going outside with a weapon reasonably shows intent in the circumstances to use deadly force. I'm saying he made a bad decision, and the trigger happy cops made an even worse decision. I know the keyboard commandos on here will enjoy flaming me, but the fact remains you cannot employ deadly force on a whim- the perpetrator must show ability, opportunity, and intent for you to be legally justified in shooting someone
 
I agree with all of this- unless he fired his weapon or aimed at them, they had no justification in gunning him down- I also agree they'll investigate until they show he aimed the weapon at them to get the boys in blue off the hook- which is wrong, but common


Actually what willl happen is they will investigate it & find the homeowner never pointed or fired his weapon & he will get a big pay off.... That is the favored outcome instead of sentencing the kings men to the death penalty (even jail/prison) or get this, not create the situation in the first place...... Personally i don't feel there should be any charges waged against the officers anymore than they should of shot the guy or even went after whoever they were willing to shoot this innocent over. All should just go on enjoying this thing called freedom
 
Did anybody on this corum actually see this event unfold?
From what I have been able to read and watch on the news, this all took place
At an apartment complex with no yards just a sidewalk and courtyard in the front. Based solely on the pictures of the property that I have seen the gentleman appears to have gone out his front door facing the complex courtyard to investigate. That is a totally different situation than going to investigate a noise in your yard.
I do not think because I own or carry a firearm that makes me qualified to play police investigator. The prudent thing IMO would be to call 911.
Based on the lack of additional facts, I do not know whom fired first or if the police were justified.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top