Oregon Castle Doctrine Petition Drive

[The Duck]

To simplify what I would like to see:

1. The Attractive Nuisance law should ONLY pertain to children (i.e. under 12 years of age) and for those not involved in a crime. (i.e. trespassing does not count, but if a 12 year old is breaking in to still or vandalize, screw the kid if he gets hurt).

2. The "Duty to Retreat" needs to go away like a fart-in-the-wind, BUT ONLY INSIDE ONES OWN HOUSE!

3. A home owner should have the right to protect their home and family with no fear of repercussions, even with deadly force. This needs to be only inside the home. There is NO need to shoot someone which is in your yard!

I do believe in the attractive nuisance law, it does however needs to be looked over and re-written. It is the verbiage which allows scums-bags to take advantage of the law.... But YES a person does deserve to pay if their negligence allowed a small child to get hurt!!!

Final Story for me and I am out of this conversation... It just seems that most people are incapable of seeing any other view except their own, which if you read, closely follow their own agendas?

 

[fanblade]

Reading these posts, gives me further incentive to live somewhere where I never see people.....no people... no problems...

It's one thing if you screw something up, fall in the hole, but having 'out think' what someone else might do, and then be held accountable for their actions is really just too much. I am convinced that there is little sense of personal responsibility or accountability these days, everyone is looking to lay the blame for their stupidity on someone else...

I guess in a perfect world if you fall into my punji pit out in the middle of nowhere, it's just easier to cover the hole then pull you out....

 

[8ball]

I'm not real caught up on this in Oregon, I think Washington has similar laws. The thing I hate was the duty to retreat. Which OR and WA have (at least last time I checked)

To clarify, WA has *no* duty to retreat law.

From the WA Supreme Court - the principle in both cases, known as State v. Studd (1999) and State v. Reynaldo Redmond (2003), is unambiguous. “The law is well settled,” said the court in the Redmond ruling, “that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be.”

 

[ZachS]

The common law once recognized contributory negligence as a defense in tort cases. So if someone carelessly injured himself on another's property, the property owner would not be liable, even if the property owner's premises were in a negligent condition. If you were stupid, and your stupidity was a cause of your being hurt, you couldn't recover against the property owner on whose land you were stupidly trespassing.

Sounds fair, but over time, the common law came to see that doctrine (contributory negligence) as too harsh. So the doctrine of contributory negligence was gradually replaced with "comparative negligence" where each party is responsible on a percentage basis.

Sounds fair in principle, but in practice it tends to encourage sleazy plaintiffs' lawyers to point the finger at anyone available who might conceivably have been partially to blame for his client's injury. That works.

In Oregon a plaintiff who is more than 50% at fault, as determined by the jury, gets absolutely nothing at all. Oregon plaintiffs' lawyers would lose a ton of money if they followed that strategy. This state is actually one of the most defendant-friendly in the country.

 

[meanmike58]

Is there a link we can use or someway we can contact the petition people so we can sign this petition?

 

[Hawaiian]

I was at the show yesterday and I missed seeing this table. I would have signed it.

And for only the insurance companies benefiting from this type of bill, the insurance companies pay claims with MY premium dollars. So, I am the ultimate beneficiary.

 

[Cougfan2]

In Oregon a plaintiff who is more than 50% at fault, as determined by the jury, gets absolutely nothing at all. Oregon plaintiffs' lawyers would lose a ton of money if they followed that strategy. This state is actually one of the most defendant-friendly in the country.

Meanwhile the defendant bankrupts himself defending it. Plaintiffs lawyers depend on settling out of court after exhausting the defendants funds. I can see the add now.

"Did you trespass on another persons property and injure self through no fault of the property owner? You may be due large cash rewards! Contact ZachS, Attorney at Law."

 

[Just Jim]

Meanwhile the defendant bankrupts himself defending it. Plaintiffs lawyers depend on settling out of court after exhausting the defendants funds. I can see the add now.

"Did you trespass on another persons property and injure self through no fault of the property owner? You may be due large cash rewards! Contact ZachS, Attorney at Law."

Ain't it the fricken truth Screw the property owner, he has deep pockets Yep the work of socialist, find somebody with money and steal it legaly.

jj

 

[ZachS]

Meanwhile the defendant bankrupts himself defending it. Plaintiffs lawyers depend on settling out of court after exhausting the defendants funds. I can see the add now.

"Did you trespass on another persons property and injure self through no fault of the property owner? You may be due large cash rewards! Contact ZachS, Attorney at Law."

Naw, I'm thinking something more like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5hn8bhEpMY

 

[TheHossUSMC]

It just seems that most people are incapable of seeing any other view except their own, which if you read, closely follow their own agendas?

I'm all for this and I am not a property owner.

 

[CEF1959]

In Oregon a plaintiff who is more than 50% at fault, as determined by the jury, gets absolutely nothing at all. Oregon plaintiffs' lawyers would lose a ton of money if they followed that strategy. This state is actually one of the most defendant-friendly in the country.

Tell that to Phillip Morris. They got stung with an $80 million+ jury award in Oregon for the death of a guy who smoked 3 packs a day for 47 years. It could easily have been a trespasser vs. a property owner.

And trust me: Plaintiffs lawyers will gladly roll the dice that they can convince a jury that the defendant is more than 50% at fault, knowing that a property owner can't risk it, and an insurance company won't risk it. Indeed, sleazy plaintiffs' lawyers do so routinely, every day in this state.

The plaintiff's lawyer has nothing at stake but a bit of time in taking a case to trial; the property owner risks all. In personal injury work, it's a game of chicken, and the the plaintiff's lawyer always has the advantage so long as his shakedown is encouraged and facilitated by the law.

 

[slingshot1943]

This discussion just cofirms my determination to never vote for a lawyer. I consider a lawyer in congress to be a conflict of intrest.

 

[Gunner3456]

ORS 161.225 Use of physical force in defense of premises.​

(Subsection)(1) A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

(2) A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (1) of this section only:

(a) In defense of a person as provided in ORS 161.219; or

(b) When the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson or a felony by force and violence by the trespasser.

(3) As used in subsection (1) and subsection (2)(a) of this section, “premises” includes any building as defined in ORS 164.205 and any real property. As used in subsection (2)(b) of this section, “premises” includes any building. [1971 c.743 §25]

--------------------

ORS 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]

---------------------

ORS 161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person.​

Except as provided in ORS 161.215 and 161.219, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 §22]

-------------------------

ORS 161.215 Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person.
Notwithstanding ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using physical force upon another person if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, the person provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that person; or

(2) The person is the initial aggressor, except that the use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person the intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful physical force; or

(3) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. [1971 c.743 §24]

---------------------------

ORS 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]

 

[ZachS]

This discussion just cofirms my determination to never vote for a lawyer. I consider a lawyer in congress to be a conflict of intrest.

Half of the Founding Fathers were lawyers. Was it a conflict of interest for them to create this nation?

 

[Jamie6.5]

Ambulances were easier to catch in those days Zach.



Of course it might have been an ethics issue too!

 

[Gunner3456]

Half of the Founding Fathers were lawyers. Was it a conflict of interest for them to create this nation?

I don't think they were cut from the same log as the lawyers we have today.

 

[ZachS]

I don't think they were cut from the same log as the lawyers we have today.

No, not from the same log - but definitely from the same tree.

 

[Gunner3456]

No, not from the same log - but definitely from the same tree.

James Madison was a lawyer and a founding father. He said:

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”

And that's exactly what's happened.

"If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send 150 lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, & talk by the hour? That 150 lawyers should do business together ought not to be expected."

Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

 

[ZachS]

James Madison was a lawyer and a founding father. He said:

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”

And that's exactly what's happened.

"If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send 150 lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, & talk by the hour? That 150 lawyers should do business together ought not to be expected."

Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

We had this discussion a few months ago... It ended with an argument about the 10 Commandments...

 

[Gunner3456]

We had this discussion a few months ago... It ended with an argument about the 10 Commandments...

So, are we going to change the subject, or are we going to acknowledge what the founding fathers said, and especially how it applies to today?

I usually figure I won a debate when the other party just wants to change the subject.