Oregon No longer innocent until proven guilty

[3MTA3]

Your reading is fine.

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

It's almost as inflammatory as "murderer" while still not being libelous, and IMO the intention of it's use.

 

[3MTA3]

National Guard and USAF - worked for JAG:

Marty Wilde (politician) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He should certainly understand the concept of "guilty until proven innocent". As such this is not simple ignorance on his part and IMO an evil action against civil rights.

 

[Diamondback]

Explains a lot, a p*ss-sucking REMF ambulance chaser like Ladyboy Lindsay Grahamnesty rather than a real Warfighter.

 

[RobMa]

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

Another bleeding-heart lib/leftist law...

 

[jbett98]

If passed, I see an uptick in backhoe rentals, especially in the countryside.

 

[monkeybutler]

 

[Diamondback]

It will Never make it through constitutional review.

What constitutional review? D strategy is always "ram it through and burn down as much and as many lives as we can before the 'firefighters' of the court show up."

 

[Cigarlvr313]

It will Never make it through constitutional review.

I wouldn't bet on that............

 

[RVTECH]

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

Thank you and I get this but how can the crime victim claim self defense (or anything) if the defendant has 'deprived the victim of their life and voice' ? Isn't this inferring the victim is dead ?

My point is if this guy submits this bill with this 'verbiage' it should be discounted, 'thrown out' etc. based on this alone.

I would think after 27 years in the military one would be able to construct a sentence clearer than this but then if I were going propose something so idiotic and potentially unpopular with conservatives I would probably keep my military background out of it as well.

 

[Cavedweller]

"Representative Marty Wilde grew up in rural Oregon. His father was an organic farmer on the coast range, his mother was an educator. His family was poor but were able to survive with the support of his community and the government. Investments in programs like Medicaid, food stamps, and public schools allowed him and his sister to succeed. This experience formed the base of his belief that the government should care for its citizens and his desire to serve his community to pay back that debt."

 

[Diamondback]

"Representative Marty Wilde grew up in rural Oregon. His father was an organic farmer on the coast range, his mother was an educator. His family was poor but were able to survive with the support of his community and the government. Investments in programs like Medicaid, food stamps, and public schools allowed him and his sister to succeed. This experience formed the base of his belief that the government should care for its citizens and his desire to serve his community to pay back that debt."

IOW - parasite then, parasite now.

 

[Diamondback]

Thank you and I get this but how can the crime victim claim self defense (or anything) if the defendant has 'deprived the victim of their life and voice' ? Isn't this inferring the victim is dead ?

My point is if this guy submits this bill with this 'verbiage' it should be discounted, 'thrown out' etc. based on this alone.

I would think after 27 years in the military one would be able to construct a sentence clearer than this but then if I were going propose something so idiotic and potentially unpopular with conservatives I would probably keep my military background out of it as well.

My point is HE should be thrown out. #RecallWackoWilde

 

[RobMa]

"Representative Marty Wilde grew up in rural Oregon. His father was an organic farmer on the coast range, his mother was an educator. His family was poor but were able to survive with the support of his community and the government. Investments in programs like Medicaid, food stamps, and public schools allowed him and his sister to succeed. This experience formed the base of his belief that the government should care for its citizens and his desire to serve his community to pay back that debt."

Ahhh papa guvenment... "woomb to the tomb"

 

[Cavedweller]

Those who are concerned about this can voice their feelings at his virtual town hall on Thursday:

​ ​ Upcoming Event. I hope you can join me this Thursday, January 13 at 5:30pm for an online town hall, moderated by Eugene City Councilor Matt Keating. I will be discussing my two bills and answering your questions about the upcoming Legislative Session. Please send your questions to [email protected]. The town hall will be streaming live at facebook.com/wildefororegon/live. Please note: a Facebook account is not required to view the event.

 

[mobil890]

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.

I would say he was thinking suicide. I was shooting 10 inches to the side to scare him and he jumped in front of the shot.

 

[Old Noob]

No longer innocent until proven guilty

Oregon already has a red flag law. You are late.

 

[RVTECH]

My point is HE should be thrown out. #RecallWackoWilde

I agree.

And after reading his article I have little regard for him.

Using a character in a movie to describe, and to establish a certain belief you have about something isn't too intelligent in my opinion. (especially considering many of those he might be 'speaking ' to may NOT like Clint Eastwood)

After 27 years in the military* and three deployments to combat zones, I've come to agree with Bill Munny in his retreat from violence.

So - after 27 years it comes down to agreeing with a character in a movie he names as though it is a real person?

He also takes it further by suggesting movies are a 'basis for the law' :

Movies are entertaining, but they're not a good basis for the law.

Since when have movies ever been a basis for any laws?

I suspect he has an infantile preoccupation for Clint Eastwood, and possibly other actors as well and might have a problem separating reality from the fantasy of movies.

 

[American123]

Marching law abiding citizens deeper and deeper into a corner doesn't leave much room for remaining "law abiding."

 

[titsonritz]

AKA: The Thomas Binger rule.

 

[washagonian]

Okay, my thoughts, for what they're worth. It's kind of a rant … and kind of not. LOL.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and what I say is based on the training I've received and my own research, not on my knowledge of the law. So, take what you like and leave the rest.

A.) Saying that "self-defense" is an "affirmative defense" is totally misleading. When did self-defense become an "affirmative defense" against being charged with assault (if attacker lives) or murder or manslaughter? In my understanding, it is NOT. The DA will charge the shooter a CRIME - usually assault, murder or manslaughter and the shooter will be presumed innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution to a jury. The way the case is argued is different, in that the shooter is ADMITTING to shooting someone. The issue then is, was the shooting justified. In that light, the prosecution still charges the shooter with a crime(s) and the shooter must still mount a defense.

B.) According to attorney Andrew Branca, probably the most knowledgeable attorney in the US regarding the use of deadly force, the following five conditions MUST have existed at the time of the shooting (at the time the trigger was pulled) for a self-defense claim to be valid and the shooter to be found not guilty. If the prosecution disproves even just ONE of these, then the argument of self-defense fails.

(If you followed the Rittenhouse case, you'll see where all five of these issues were dealt with in the trial.)

1.) INNOCENCE: the shooter didn't do anything to provoke or exacerbate the situation, including continuing to engage the attacker after the attacker broke off the attack - this was one of the key issues in the Rittenhouse case.

2.) IMMINENCE: The threat to life or great bodily harm was imminent at the time the trigger was pulled. Again, if attacker is fleeing, imminence isn't operative. Again, another obvious issue addressed in the Rittenhouse case.

3.) AVOIDANCE: If the shooter has the chance to avoid / retreat without increasing risk of bodily harm/death, he/she must do so in those states with duty to retreat laws (around 14 states). In those states without duty to retreat or stand your ground laws - default expectation is duty to retreat. Stand your ground laws change the default of duty to retreat to stand your ground.

4.) PROPORTIONALITY: If the shooter uses deadly force, the attacker's force must also have been at the level of death / great bodily harm, force. Disparity of force is a possible rationale when a shooter shoots an individual(s) who is unarmed, but you'd better have a good attorney and excellent expert witnesses.

5.) REASONABLENESS: BOTH SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE reasonableness must be present.

SUBJECTIVE: Can the shooter prove that they had a genuine, good-faith BELIEF that they must use deadly force to defend themselves from death or great bodily harm. A shooter's conduct (at any time - not just the shooting incident) will be used by both defense and prosecutor will speak to shooter's subjective reasonableness. This is where prosecutors will comb your online presence, the decals on your vehicles and the grips and slide plates on your weapons, etc., to spin an argument that you are not reasonable when it comes to the use of deadly force, and therefore at the time of the incident you were unable to consider the use of deadly force in a reasonable manner. E.g., your post of "kill 'em and let God sort them out" demonstrates that your predilection is so "shoot first and ask questions later".

OBJECTIVE: Would a reasonable person who had the same information the shooter had at the time, believe that the use of deadly force was necessary to avoid death / great bodily harm. Even though the reasonable person (i.e., the jury member) may have MORE information than the shooter had at the time of the shooting - does the reasonable person believe that the shooter acted reasonably with what they knew and what was going on at the time of the incident.

In these circumstances the use of "self-defense" in a shooting operates NOTHING like an "affirmative defense" – whether it technically is one or not. If the shooter ends up in court they will have been charged with a crime. ANYONE charged with a crime is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY in court. The challenge in a self-defense shooting is that you MUST admit that you INTENTIONALLY SHOOT SOMEONE. Then you have to defend your actions based on the standards discussed above.

The shooter in a self-defense situation is literally on trial for their life; not walking away and sipping on a latte.

Obviously there are a HUGE number of variables and issues FOR EACH OF THE FIVE CONDITIONS that the prosecution can argue against the defense - and if only ONE works (i.e., one of the five conditions above is not present in the mind of the jury), the shooter's claim of self-defense is not valid and they are guilty.

This Marty Wilde fellow is completely unknowledgeable - as many here have suggested. He's probably just blowing smoke to get elected. He needs to consult an attorney to get his facts straight. But, even then, politicians have a history of intentionally misleading, or misleading through simple laziness and lack of willingness to do the work (i.e., research what they claim). I wonder what his excuse is?

Again, take what you like and leave the rest.