Oregon Castle Doctrine Petition Drive

[Gunner3456]

James Madison again:

"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."

You do realize that somehow this country was founded with just a mere 18 pages or so called The Constitution, and that includes all of the amendments including the Bill of Rights?

Where did we go so wrong?

 

[ZachS]

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.

We have already had this debate, and <broken link removed> because I brought up historical facts about the faith of my forefathers that you don't agree with. It was okay with me then, and it's okay with me now. But I'm not going to rehash it.

 

[Gunner3456]

We have already had this debate, and <broken link removed> because I brought up historical facts about the faith of my forefathers that you don't agree with. It was okay with me then, and it's okay with me now. But I'm not going to rehash it.

Fair enough. Still friends.

 

[Russianfist]

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.

Sir. Using the Horman boy as an example is very poor form and borders on trolling!

So your saying that if a burgler is breaking in to my house to rape my wife or kidnap my childern and he cuts his leg on the broken glass from the window he just broke resulting in serious injury or death then he or his family have the right to sue me under current Oregon law and that sit's ok with you?

:huh::nuts::nuts::nuts:

 

[The Duck]

Sir. Using the Horman boy as an example is very poor form and borders on trolling!

So your saying that if a burgler is breaking in to my house to rape my wife or kidnap my childern and he cuts his leg on the broken glass from the window he just broke resulting in serious injury or death then he or his family have the right to sue me under current Oregon law and that sit's ok with you?

:huh::nuts::nuts::nuts:

I don't know others person ideas or thoughts, but: Maybe Zach believes in our judicial system and government. We all know that there are flaws in the system, but he might be wanting to get into a field where he has a chance to make a difference instead of just sitting on the side line, waiting for the end of the world; and when it does, simply blaming the government after it happens?

or maybe he wants to make alot of money exploiting flawed laws...

Poop or get off the pot, maybe Zach is pooping while alot of others are simply seat warmers?

 

[ZachS]

Sir. Using the Horman boy as an example is very poor form and borders on trolling!

So your saying that if a burgler is breaking in to my house to rape my wife or kidnap my childern and he cuts his leg on the broken glass from the window he just broke resulting in serious injury or death then he or his family have the right to sue me under current Oregon law and that sit's ok with you?

:huh::nuts::nuts::nuts:

No, I'm not saying that at all. Landowners are only responsible for their own negligent actions.

In this hypothetical situation, there's no negligence whatsoever on your part. If a burglar cut himself on your window and he sued you under current state law, his case would be dismissed by summary judgment - same as it would under this proposed change.

 

[Russianfist]

I don't know others person ideas or thoughts, but: Maybe Zach believes in our judicial system and government. We all know that there are flaws in the system, but he might be wanting to get into a field where he has a chance to make a difference instead of just sitting on the side line, waiting for the end of the world; and when it does, simply blaming the government after it happens?

or maybe he wants to make alot of money exploiting flawed laws...

Poop or get off the pot, maybe Zach is pooping while alot of others are simply seat warmers?

Maybe some folks should stop second guessing what ZachS and other people want?

I understand his point but I dissagree with the tactic of using the missing 7 year old boy as a hook in his argument. It was simply offensive and if a stunt like that were pulled in a court of law his career will be short lived.

ZachS, In my hypothetical situation what would then be the legal presedence under civil law?

 

[Just Jim]

I don't know others person ideas or thoughts, but: Maybe Zach believes in our judicial system and government. We all know that there are flaws in the system, but he might be wanting to get into a field where he has a chance to make a difference instead of just sitting on the side line, waiting for the end of the world; and when it does, simply blaming the government after it happens?

or maybe he wants to make alot of money exploiting flawed laws...

Poop or get off the pot, maybe Zach is pooping while alot of others are simply seat warmers?

Or maybe he is just another socialist looking for ways to take money from people who earned it by working for a living.

Fact of the matter is the castle doctrin is about property rights and the defense of life and property. Socialist are against both.

jj

 

[ZachS]

Maybe some folks should stop second guessing what ZachS and other people want?

I understand his point but I dissagree with the tactic of using the missing 7 year old boy as a hook in his argument. It was simply offensive and if a stunt like that were pulled in a court of law his career will be short lived.

ZachS, In my hypothetical situation what would then be the legal presedence under civil law?

I'm sorry for pulling that particular story from the headlines, but I wanted to get folks to pay attention to how this initiative would actually change our legal system.

As far as your question's concerned: Although I know you weren't trying to say otherwise, our system is based on common law, not civil law.

Every one of the millions of cases based on the common-law definition of negligence. For you to be negligent, five things need to happen:

1. You must have a duty to care for the person. The duty to care for a trespasser is either "reasonable care," i.e. what an ordinary person would do under like circumstances, or something less than that (depending on the jurisdiction). In this hypothetical, it doesn't matter. Let's assume you owe a duty of reasonable care to this trespasser.
2. You must breach your duty. Pretty simple. This means doing something that an ordinary person would not do that puts the injured person in harm's way. Lying in your bed and getting your window broken does not breach any duty you owe to anyone anywhere. i.e. means the burglar has no case, and the discussion's over. I'll continue with the rest of the definition anyway.
3. Your breach of duty must be a "cause-in-fact" of the person's injury. If the injury was not caused in any way by what you did, you're not negligent. Does not apply in this case, because there was no breach of duty.
4. Your breach of duty must be the "proximate cause" of the person's injury. This doctrine can't be explained quickly, but it kind of means that an intervening cause will usually get you off the hook.
5. Finally, there must be an actual injury.

It takes more than somebody falling down and bumping their head on your property for you to be liable. Not to say that frivolous lawsuits aren't filed, or that judges and juries don't do stupid things - but we hear about those stupid cases because they're stupid and out-of-the-ordinary.

Or maybe he is just another socialist looking for ways to take money from people who earned it by working for a living.

Fact of the matter is the castle doctrin is about property rights and the defense of life and property. Socialist are against both.

jj

That's right, I'm a socialist who's investing $100,000 of my money into a degree that will give me the opportunity to own my own legal business. Once I do that, I'll start flying a red flag out front, throw molotov cocktails at the capitalists, and send all the good Americans like you to die in labor camps.




In all seriousness, I'd like you to know that many members of my family were killed or had their property stolen by the Soviet government. I have probably forgotten more about socialism that you've ever learned. Your comparison of plaintiffs' law, a type of private business that has been an integral part of our capitalist system for centuries, with the monstrosities of socialism says a lot more about your intelligence and character than it does about my views on private property and human life. As I've said before in this thread, I support the castle doctrine. I don't support changing basic negligence law.



And for what it's worth, I have no idea if I'll ever go into plaintiffs' law. It wouldn't be an unlikely trajectory for my career, but I'm interested in a lot of types of legal work.

 

[Just Jim]

"Your comparison of plaintiffs' law, a type of private business that has been an integral part of our capitalist system for centuries, with the monstrosities of socialism says a lot more about your intelligence and character than it does about my views on private property and human life. As I've said before in this thread, I support the castle doctrine. I don't support changing basic negligence law."

Socialist have used our laws and turned them against us. Your choice to go after peoples money by law rather than working for it tells us of your character. Your relatives had their property stolen or were killed and it was all done legaly by Soviet law. Now you join the socialist to do it to others. Guess who is rolling over in their graves right now?

It is about property rights and the rights to self defense. Making money squezzing property owners isn't a job most of us could ever respect. Guess that is why lawyers are looked at like used car salesmen.



jj

edited to add, your quote "and send all the good Americans like you to die in labor camps."

I would happily die with people who stand for freedom. Something guys like you don't understand.

 

[Joe Link]

I was proud to sign the petition on the MAX back in May. Hope it makes it.

 

[U201491]

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

Someone email me with the locations of the petitions.
We would love to get the Castle Doctrine passed in Oregon.
It is long past due. Socialists take a hike on this one.
If you walk along staring at your feet while going to your next handout, I hope a truck runs you down or you do fall into someone's pit. It will reduce the stupidity gene pool in this country.

Someone seriously email and tell me where a petition can be found to get this one going.

 

[Atroxus]

If I lived in Oregon I would sign it. I wish ya all luck getting it passed. Would love to see something similar in Washington.

 

[Russianfist]

How can you support the Castle doctrine but don't want to change the law?



As for what some say, this is far from socialist or liberal agenda. In fact, I don't even see the connection. I think some people resort to that if they can't successfully argue their point. Can you say Joe McCarthy?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy)

If the law is passed then I see 1000 out of work in one day. No offence but that's a good start. To many things in our modern lives have been ruined by over zelious lawyers trying to make a name (and a buck) for themselves. This law will protect land owners but I imagine the real big money support will come from insurance companys who have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Although I think insurance companys already make WAY to much money as it is all ready.

I for one don't want to get sued by the (money hungry sue happy parents of the clumsey paperboy who trips on a rock while cutting across my yard in the morning twilight. Ummmm it's his fault for not sticking to the path!

 

[slingshot1943]

It was so cold in Salem this winter that I saw a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets.

 

[JC9995]

While I completely support the Castle Doctrine, Im not sure I would sign any petition after the recent court ruling saying that petitions are "public domain" and anyone can view the signatures..... AND addresses.
I think this was in WA if I heard correctly..... shouldnt be long before that same argument ends up here.

 

[Just Jim]

While I completely support the Castle Doctrine, Im not sure I would sign any petition after the recent court ruling saying that petitions are "public domain" and anyone can view the signatures..... AND addresses.
I think this was in WA if I heard correctly..... shouldnt be long before that same argument ends up here.

Lucky for you the founding fathers didn't lack courage to sign documents for all to see. I signed it and will sign future documents that gives the power to the people rather than the government. Might ask yourself who put the fear into you.

jj

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[JC9995]

Lucky for you the founding fathers didn't lack courage to sign documents for all to see. I signed it and will sign future documents that gives the power to the people rather than the government. Might ask yourself who put the fear into you.

jj

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

That's a fair critisicm. For this particular subject it becomes, for me, a decision based on two main factors. The ability to protect my family. And potentially putting my family at risk by allowing a nutjob access to my address. I really like to avoid conflicts that could put my family in harms way, however your point is valid.
Now sir..... name your source for the quote!

EDIT: with or without the castle doctrine, I WILL protect my family. I don't need a peice of paper signed by beaurocrats to do that. ........ neither did the founding fathers. :winkkiss:

 

[Just Jim]

Ben Franklin, founding father of course.

jj

 

[22many]

Anybody know if there is any update on this?