Oregon No longer innocent until proven guilty

[Koda]

As the law stands, if the defendant files a claim of self-defense, he must prove nothing; instead, the state must disprove his claim, beyond a reasonable doubt. Put another way, after depriving the victim of life and the chance to make a case, the defendant enjoys the presumption that the victim acted in a threatening way in the last moments, and therefore legally deserved to die.

For the 2022 short session, I will submit a bill to the House Judiciary Committee that will rebalance the law, requiring the killer to prove self-defense when the defendant has deprived the victim of their life and voice. Self-defense will remain a valid justification, but only when proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

Oregon Isn’t the OK Corral

Many of us love a good Western. The good guy triumphs over the bad, usually after a gun fight in the final scene. My favorite is Eastwood’s Unforgiven

sh1.sendinblue.com

Read More

 

[drstrangelove]

It will Never make it through constitutional review.

 

[kmk1012]

Tagged. But to #2 I wouldn't be so sure, these times are strange and headed further from what used to be normal.

 

[OldBroad44]

It would be impossible to prove self defense without knowing what the bad guy was thinking, which is impossible to know. Even if the bad guy broke into your home and pointed a gun at you wouldn't be enough to prove SD if you shot him because maybe bad guy was planning to only scare you out of your property, not rape or murder you.

This could pass in Oregon these days and would effectively end all ability to claim self defense in any circumstance. Even if bad guy had already shot you it could be claimed that he did not intend to shoot you again so was no further danger. You couldnt prove otherwise. And while it would be unconstitutional, scotus can take decades to get around to reviewing things.

 

[308]

I assume some Brits had a hard time believing their right to self defense during a home invasion would eventually be relegated to "pretending to be asleep", "throwing a hairbrush" and as a last resort, "insulting the perp's choice in footwear"…

 

[Xaevian]

Wow.

 

[monkeybutler]

I bet there is already a de facto standard like that in Portland.

 

[WillametteWill]

I know it always doesn't feel like it, but last I checked we are still living in the United States, where the government for the past few hundred years has always had the burden of proof, you know, that pesky innocent until proven guilty part and all those amendment thingys that get in the way of some politicians.

Yes, self defense is an affirmative defense, and the prosecution has to disprove it, but it is not a magic wand. This is why an effective self defense frequently involves the testimony of the defendant unlike other trials. You can't just say, "I was in fear for my life," and call it good. You are judged by the standard of the reasonable person. So, to paraphrase Andrew Branca and others who work in this area, it has to be clear that you are "innocent" and did not start the fight, the threat must be imminent, even when there is not duty to retreat (Oregon, per the current case decisions) the jury is likely to consider this if you could have safely and easily avoided some situations, your response has to be proportional to the threat and finally, overall reasonable.

Other that a few $100,000's dollars in legal fees, the possibility of losing your freedom forever and all that goes with this, self defense cases are easy. sarc/off

They are butthurt about KR. Got news for them. KR's team had to lay the foundation for the above for their defense to work AND put their client on the stand. Town hall on Thursday evening on-line, might have to crash that one.

 

[P7M13]

How did this clown get elected to represent House District 11 ?
I used to recognize that area east and north of Eugene as fairly conservative. I guess I'll have to correct that assumption.
The reasoning and thought that he does not express is that, in the case of an untrue self defense claim, many times the claim does not align with the physical evidence.
One more point to prove it's idiots running the government.

 

[WillametteWill]

How did this clown get elected to represent House District 11 ?
I used to recognize that area east and north of Eugene as fairly conservative. I guess I'll have to correct that assumption.

He dresses up in his military unform to show he is conservative (looking at the link). And then insults the good people of this state by implying if a small female alone in a parking lot gets attacked by a career criminal out on parole and is required to use justified deadly force to save her life for the life of her children, she is a vigilante.

I don't throw this term around lightly, but that is a pathetic person.

 

[Idaho44]

Once upon a time, far in the past, Oregon was like Idaho, now even Idaho is becoming like Oregon (West side of the Cascades). The past several years there has been a deliberate shift from 'guns are ok' to 'guns are not ok'! While some may think Idaho is "free", it is an illusion. Don't let the politicians fool you!

 

[Stomper]

He dresses up in his military unform to show he is conservative (looking at the link). And then insults the good people of this state by implying if a small female alone in a parking lot gets attacked by a career criminal out on parole and is required to use justified deadly force to save her life for the life of her children, she is a vigilante.

I don't throw this term around lightly, but that is a pathetic person.

Notice the "uniform" is stripped of all insignia, name & service branch tapes…. veteran or not, basically he's LARPing for the photo.

 

[bbbass]

That Rep has an ugly mind and is an embarrassment to military service.

Using the word "killer" REPEATEDLY to describe a person that has had a DGU incident, and must therefore be traumatized has been traumatized, is prejudicial and inflammatory rhetoric. What an azzhole. Yet another azzhole Legislator. I guess we don't already have enough of them.

 

[Xmark1]

It would be impossible to prove self defense without knowing what the bad guy was thinking, which is impossible to know. Even if the bad guy broke into your home and pointed a gun at you wouldn't be enough to prove SD if you shot him because maybe bad guy was planning to only scare you out of your property, not rape or murder you.

This could pass in Oregon these days and would effectively end all ability to claim self defense in any circumstance. Even if bad guy had already shot you it could be claimed that he did not intend to shoot you again so was no further danger. You couldnt prove otherwise. And while it would be unconstitutional, scotus can take decades to get around to reviewing things.

Dear Mr Orwell

Once the courts start convicting us biased on our thoughts, not actions.

Are you freeking kidding me!

 

[WillametteWill]

Once the police start convicting us biased on our thoughts, not actions.

Remember, police don't convict, politicians make the laws, judges and prosecutors administer them. You look at some self defense cases and the "police" don't arrest or charge the person but political prosecutors decide to take charge the person or take the case to a grand jury, where only the prosecution side is heard so they will of course be indicted. Zimmerman was an example of this. Not charged by police, chief fired, investigator reassigned by request, etc.

But I agree with your big picture point.

 

[3MTA3]

That Rep has an ugly mind and is an embarrassment to military service.

Using the word "killer" REPEATEDLY to describe a person that has had a DGU incident, and must therefore be traumatized, is prejudicial and inflammatory rhetoric. What an azzhole. Yet another azzhole Legislator. I guess we don't already have enough of them.

Not only that they are already traumatized from being forced to take a life in the first place.

This won't make it past the circuit court let alone the USSC, but in the meantime will destroy a great many lives.

 

[bbbass]

Not only that they are already traumatized from being forced to take a life in the first place.

Yes, that is what I meant. They are traumatized by whatever action happened, and traumatized by taking a life.

Not what I was saying, but THEN they are traumatized by accusation and trial.

 

[RVTECH]

This makes no sense:
requiring the killer to prove self-defense when the defendant has deprived the victim of their life and voice.

I assume by the part 'killer to prove self defense' the 'killer' would be the one being attacked or aggressed IE the 'victim'. However if the 'defendant' has deprived the victim off their 'life and voice' how can the 'killer' prove self-defense if they have been deprived of their life and voice?

Someone please correct me if I am not reading this correctly.

 

[CRBMoA]

Your reading is fine.

They identify a crime victim as a "Killer", which is a misnomer.

 

[bbbass]

Your reading is fine.

They identify a crime victim as a "Killer", which is a misnomer. f'd up.

FIFY