Oregon Castle Doctrine Petition Drive

[Cougfan2]

Many of you are probably already aware of it, but there is an initiative petition circulating to get a Castle Doctrine law passed in Oregon. I've copied some details below from Common Sense Oregon's website, but I have seen petition gatherers at the last Portland Gun Show, the Beaverton Saturday Farmers Market, and the Sunday Orenco Station Farmers Market. If you haven't alread signed it I would urge you to seek out a petition gatherer and sign it as well as any other members or your family and friends. My wife and I already have.

Oregon Castle Doctrine
The Oregon Castle Doctrine makes changes to Oregon statutes. The principle behind the Oregon Castle Doctrine is simple: My home/property is my castle, and I should be able to protect myself from those who do not belong. This measure has two distinct, yet equally important parts.

The first part of the Oregon Castle Doctrine provides that if a person is on your property, committing a crime, and you as the property owner use deadly physical force in order to protect yourself or another person who is lawfully on your property, the Oregon Castle Doctrine presumes that your use of such deadly force is justified.

Currently in Oregon, a homeowner is only allowed to use deadly force against an intruder if the intruder posed an "imminent deadly threat" to either the homeowner or the homeowner's family. This means that Oregon law forces a homeowner to choose between protecting him/herself and/or the homeowner's family, and deciding whether an intruder poses an imminent deadly threat. No homeowner should be forced into making such a decision. The Oregon Castle Doctrine makes it clear that you have a right to protect your home.

The second part of the Oregon Castle Doctrine says that if a person is trespassing on your property and through no fault of your own injures him or herself, that person is not allowed to file a law suit against you. Under the currently law, if a person is trespassing on your property and injures him or herself, you could be sued – even though the person was trespassing on YOUR land! The Oregon Castle Doctrine makes it clear to trespassers that if you decide to trespass, you do so at your own risk. Law abiding property owners should not be forced to pay for injuries someone sustained while violating your property rights.

Read More

 

[pokerace]

Oregon Supreme Court Affirms "No Duty to Retreat"
The Castle Doctrine has gotten a lot of attention in recent weeks. It's the radical idea that when faced with a threat to one's life in one's own home, that you have "no duty to retreat". Many states had laws on the books that stated, or Court opinions that had ruled, that a citizen first had the "duty to retreat" when faced with deadly force. In recent months these laws and decisions have come under increasing pressure.

<broken link removed>


I would like a link to who ever is doing the petition

 

[ZachS]

I support the castle doctrine, but I think it was just tacked on to the a reprehensible, inhuman trespassing component passed. Your summary of the second part of the initiative is inaccurate and misleading, if not an outright lie. Here is the actual text of the proposed law:

Section 2. An owner of any land is not liable for any injury, death or other damage suffered by a trespasser on the land where such injury, death or other damage is caused by any condition of the land or its fixtures. The only exception to this section is the following: this section does not protect an owner from liability for placing a spring gun, or other device, which is placed intentionally for the purpose of injuring a person.

According to this law, a homeowner could dig a ten foot deep pit in his front yard right next to the sidewalk, neglect to put up a warning sign or any barriers, and remain free from liability even if a small child fell into it and died. Or became disabled and required lifetime care. The owner (or rather the owner's insurance company) would not even be responsible for the child's ambulance ride to the hospital, or immediate medical care required due to the owner's gross negligence. Heck, the owner could even leave a bunch of sharp tools at the bottom of the pit. It wouldn't make a difference.

Or, an auto shop located right in between a middle school and a candy store could leave a car near the street, teetering on a jack, ready to fall at a moment's notice. If two twelve-year-old girls were horsing around and one accidentally pushed the other into the car, making it fall and crushing her skull, the negligent shop owner would pay no penalty. In fact, he would be able to sue the girls parents for the cost of scraping her brains off of the street.

A person can be trespasser without any intent whatsoever to enter another's land. This law allows landowners to negligently, even recklessly, create dangerous conditions on their land without any fear of liability. A power company could neglect to repair a hole in a substation fence near a home for mentally disabled people, but would not be liable if someone from the home went to go touch something shiny and had his flesh burned off by a transformer. It could even be a fence between the home's backyard and the substation, and it wouldn't matter. You get the idea.

The only entities this law would benefit are insurance companies.

Anyway, I can't believe that anybody with a shred of decency would support this initiative if they knew what it actually would do. Luckily, it's a long way from making the ballot.

 

[Cougfan2]

Section 2. An owner of any land is not liable for any injury, death or other damage suffered by a trespasser on the land where such injury, death or other damage is caused by any condition of the land or its fixtures. The only exception to this section is the following: this section does not protect an owner from liability for placing a spring gun, or other device, which is placed intentionally for the purpose of injuring a person.

ZachS, so you think someone should be able to bankrupt a landowner or homeowner with a lawsuit if they trespass on their land and get hurt as a result of it?

 

[Teufel_Hunden]

Quick gimme a pen.....

 

[TheHossUSMC]

I support the castle doctrine, but I think it was just tacked on to the a reprehensible, inhuman trespassing component passed. Your summary of the second part of the initiative is inaccurate and misleading, if not an outright lie. Here is the actual text of the proposed law:



According to this law, a homeowner could dig a ten foot deep pit in his front yard right next to the sidewalk, neglect to put up a warning sign or any barriers, and remain free from liability even if a small child fell into it and died. Or became disabled and required lifetime care. The owner (or rather the owner's insurance company) would not even be responsible for the child's ambulance ride to the hospital, or immediate medical care required due to the owner's gross negligence. Heck, the owner could even leave a bunch of sharp tools at the bottom of the pit. It wouldn't make a difference.

Or, an auto shop located right in between a middle school and a candy store could leave a car near the street, teetering on a jack, ready to fall at a moment's notice. If two twelve-year-old girls were horsing around and one accidentally pushed the other into the car, making it fall and crushing her skull, the negligent shop owner would pay no penalty. In fact, he would be able to sue the girls parents for the cost of scraping her brains off of the street.

A person can be trespasser without any intent whatsoever to enter another's land. This law allows landowners to negligently, even recklessly, create dangerous conditions on their land without any fear of liability. A power company could neglect to repair a hole in a substation fence near a home for mentally disabled people, but would not be liable if someone from the home went to go touch something shiny and had his flesh burned off by a transformer. It could even be a fence between the home's backyard and the substation, and it wouldn't matter. You get the idea.

The only entities this law would benefit are insurance companies.

Anyway, I can't believe that anybody with a shred of decency would support this initiative if they knew what it actually would do. Luckily, it's a long way from making the ballot.

This is protectionist bullcrap. This is the type of thinking that leads to seat belt laws, helmet laws, smoking bans, gun bans/regulations. When I was a kid we used to ride on the hood of the truck while my father drove down country roads. Now people get their kids taken away for letting them ride their bikes without helmets.

If your dumb enough to fall into a 10 ft pit then it's your own fault. These examples are what are misleading and ridiculous. If you trespass on my property then it's your fault if you hurt yourself not mine. The key is that trespassers are committing a crime by being on your property in the first place, and most likely there to commit another crime.

This country was based on the facts that God gave us natural rights. Those rights are the freedom to not be murdered, the freedom of not having oppressive laws and the freedom to own property. Our current law is a clear violation of these natural right. No one should have to choose between prison or death when defending ones property.

 

[Trlsmn]

There is a sign up at the Gunshow.

 

[Decidion]

The only entities this law would benefit are insurance companies.

The only entities that benefit without this law are the lawyers...everyone else pretty much looses. If you are trespassing, then you should not be there plain and simple.

If you are too young to realize this, then the parents are at fault and need to educate their children, be more proactive in their lives. If you are mentally incapable of understanding this and you get away from your "home" then your caretakers are at fault.

It's this whole type of attitude that has created the litigious nightmare of legal system we live in. Everyone wants to sue to get rich... it's the easy way. Why work for it?

I'm calling BS on that attitude. Darwinism needs to be unleashed on American society with a vengeance.

 

[claypigeon]

"According to this law, a homeowner could dig a ten foot deep pit in his front yard right next to the sidewalk, neglect to put up a warning sign or any barriers, and remain free from liability even if a small child fell into it and died. Or became disabled and required lifetime care. The owner (or rather the owner's insurance company) would not even be responsible for the child's ambulance ride to the hospital, or immediate medical care required due to the owner's gross negligence. Heck, the owner could even leave a bunch of sharp tools at the bottom of the pit. It wouldn't make a difference."


This sounds like gross negligence of the parent, not the property owner.

 

[ZachS]

Section 2. An owner of any land is not liable for any injury, death or other damage suffered by a trespasser on the land where such injury, death or other damage is caused by any condition of the land or its fixtures. The only exception to this section is the following: this section does not protect an owner from liability for placing a spring gun, or other device, which is placed intentionally for the purpose of injuring a person.

ZachS, so you think someone should be able to bankrupt a landowner or homeowner with a lawsuit if they trespass on their land and get hurt as a result of it?

If the landowner is negligent, yes. If the landowner is not negligent, no. Same as if the landowner is negligent somewhere else. Owning land does not give you the moral or legal right to disregard the safety of others. That's the bottom line. You seem to be assuming that trespassers are always miscreants up to no good. As I said, trespassing does not require intent. If a you accidentally stepped over an invisible line and were seriously injured as a result of the landowner's negligence, I doubt you'd be willing to slink back home and pay the financial consequences of somebody else's irresponsibility. In Oregon, an injured person who is 51&#37; responsible for their own injuries cannot collect any damages. That's pretty good protection right there.

I thought conservatives believed that people should take responsibility for their own behavior. I guess that only goes for other people.

 

[Teufel_Hunden]

We do, if I'm injured on your property while I'm tresspassing (I wouldn't) I'd hold you harmless and lick my own wounds. Taking responsibility for MY behavior.

Libs seem to ALWAYS expect that they are owed something. Not conservatives.
T_H

 

[Member 5605]

Seems like a simple case of people not wanting to take responsibility for their actions.
(regarding the pit)

Parent says "Johnny don't do that" johnny does it and gets hurt. Parent says "See, I told you, next time you should listen."

 

[TheHossUSMC]

If the landowner is negligent, yes. If the landowner is not negligent, no. Same as if the landowner is negligent somewhere else. Owning land does not give you the moral or legal right to disregard the safety of others. That's the bottom line. You seem to be assuming that trespassers are always miscreants up to no good. As I said, trespassing does not require intent. If a you accidentally stepped over an invisible line and were seriously injured as a result of the landowner's negligence, I doubt you'd be willing to slink back home and pay the financial consequences of somebody else's irresponsibility. In Oregon, an injured person who is 51% responsible for their own injuries cannot collect any damages. That's pretty good protection right there.

I thought conservatives believed that people should take responsibility for their own behavior. I guess that only goes for other people.

This is beyond ridiculous! If someone hurts THEMSELVES then it is THEIR fault regardless of were they are. THEY take the risk when standing close to a ten foot hole, THEY take the risk if they play near an unstable car on a jack, THEY THEY THEY. If I want a punji stick pit in my yard then it's my RIGHT to do so, given to me by GOD. No one should be on MY property without my permission regardless of if they do it by accident. Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense.

Should people have punji stick pits/ten foot holes/unsafe cars? No! But it is their right. If a dude has a ten foot hole next to the sidewalk THEN DON'T WALK THERE.

btw this isn't an angry rant I'm just blown away at this progressive protectionist bull on this forum.

 

[ZachS]

This is beyond ridiculous! If someone hurts THEMSELVES then it is THEIR fault regardless of were they are. THEY take the risk when standing close to a ten foot hole, THEY take the risk if they play near an unstable car on a jack, THEY THEY THEY. If I want a punji stick pit in my yard then it's my RIGHT to do so, given to me by GOD. No one should be on MY property without my permission regardless of if they do it by accident. Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense.

Should people have punji stick pits/ten foot holes/unsafe cars? No! But it is their right. If a dude has a ten foot hole next to the sidewalk THEN DON'T WALK THERE.

btw this isn't an angry rant I'm just blown away at this progressive protectionist bull on this forum.

Nice theory, but that's never at any time been the law in this or any other jurisdiction with an Anglo-American legal system. Tort law was around for centuries before the word "progressive" even existed. Irresponsible people have always had to pay when their irresponsibility hurt somebody else.

I'll stay in the real world while you enjoy your tinfoil-hat fantasyland.

 

[The Duck]

If the landowner is negligent, yes. If the landowner is not negligent, no. Same as if the landowner is negligent somewhere else. Owning land does not give you the moral or legal right to disregard the safety of others. That's the bottom line. You seem to be assuming that trespassers are always miscreants up to no good. As I said, trespassing does not require intent. If a you accidentally stepped over an invisible line and were seriously injured as a result of the landowner's negligence, I doubt you'd be willing to slink back home and pay the financial consequences of somebody else's irresponsibility. In Oregon, an injured person who is 51&#37; responsible for their own injuries cannot collect any damages. That's pretty good protection right there.

I thought conservatives believed that people should take responsibility for their own behavior. I guess that only goes for other people.

This is a pretty good thread... I just have to jump in on this now:

What if the land owner had the same "10' pitfall" setup and a big bowl of candy which said free on it? The land owner means to take the candy to a retirement home later that day but left it on the porch so he would not forget... A kid walking to school saw that bowl of candy and attempted to walk up to the door but cut the corner and fell into the "death pit"... There is a legal term for this (Zack knows!) and how this is written, the land owner could walk... (background shows not intent to give permission or invitation)

Zack your professor would use the case of the "shinny red plane" or the classic "swimming pool" as examples... To save all of you some Harvard case studies, YES the land owner is at FAULT!

It does not matter if a land owner has the shinny red plane, swimming pool or simply a 10' death pit. It is the owners responsibility to insure the inherited safety of his property.

 

[The Duck]

This is beyond ridiculous! If someone hurts THEMSELVES then it is THEIR fault regardless of were they are. THEY take the risk when standing close to a ten foot hole, THEY take the risk if they play near an unstable car on a jack, THEY THEY THEY. If I want a punji stick pit in my yard then it's my RIGHT to do so, given to me by GOD. No one should be on MY property without my permission regardless of if they do it by accident. Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense.

Should people have punji stick pits/ten foot holes/unsafe cars? No! But it is their right. If a dude has a ten foot hole next to the sidewalk THEN DON'T WALK THERE.

btw this isn't an angry rant I'm just blown away at this progressive protectionist bull on this forum.

That is the thing, it is not your right to have a punji pit... (i.e. in every state booby-traps are highly illegal)

 

[ZachS]

This is a pretty good thread... I just have to jump in on this now:

What if the land owner had the same "10' pitfall" setup and a big bowl of candy which said free on it? The land owner means to take the candy to a retirement home later that day but left it on the porch so he would not forget... A kid walking to school saw that bowl of candy and attempted to walk up to the door but cut the corner and fell into the "death pit"... There is a legal term for this (Zack knows!) and how this is written, the land owner could walk...

Zack your professor would use the case of the "shinny red plane" or the classic "swimming pool" as examples... To save all of you some Harvard case studies, YES the land owner is at FAULT!

It does not matter if a land owner has the shinny red plane, swimming pool or simply a 10' death pit. It is the owners responsibility to insure the inherited safety of his property.

Attractive nuisance... Although the death pit is in a different category. . .

Anyway, another hypothetical:

A private contractor running a halfway house neglects to supervise/lock up one of its residents, a child from the neighborhood wanders onto the property (despite the parents' best care), and the resident brutally rapes and tortures the child, who slowly dies in the hospital over the course of a year.

Under this law, the parents would not be able to sue the contractor for its negligence. They'd have to deal with losing a child in the most horrendous way and maybe even have to file for bankruptcy or lose their house to pay the medical bills. All because somebody didn't take the responsibility for running their business right.

 

[The Duck]

Attractive nuisance... Although the death pit is in a different category. . .

Anyway, another hypothetical:

A private contractor running a halfway house neglects to supervise/lock up one of its residents, a child from the neighborhood wanders onto the property (despite the parents' best care), and the resident brutally rapes and tortures the child, who slowly dies in the hospital over the course of a year.

Under this law, the parents would not be able to sue the contractor for its negligence. They'd have to deal with losing a child in the most horrendous way and maybe even have to file for bankruptcy or lose their house to pay the medical bills. All because somebody didn't take the responsibility for running their business right.

I am starting to like this zack guy... I knew the name, just a simple test... (the candy is the attractiveness and the pit is the harm)

For your case: The new law would suck (that is my poet side) and thank god for civil court!

 

[ZachS]

One more:

Even though all of the usual precautions are taken, a little boy named Kyron Horman wanders away from Skyline Elementary School. Instead of going missing for two weeks, he wanders onto some adjacent land owned by a man named Negligent Bob. Bob is mowing his lawn with a big riding mower. Distracted by a cell phone conversation he's having with... I dunno... the Art Bell show or something, he runs over poor Kyron causing all sorts of awful consequences. Maybe cutting a leg or two off and also slicing open his intestines so he has to live the rest of his life with a colostomy bag and all sorts of other terrible gastric appendages. Under this new law, Negligent Bob (that is to say his insurance company) wouldn't have to pay one cent to poor Kyron or his family.

 

[snew]

Reading all this I really like this law more and more.