Oregon deadly force laws - is there a duty to retreat?

[eliduc]

This statement is in direct conflict with what you wrote above, Besides it's not true. Some states have stand your ground laws while others have duty to retreat laws.
FINDLAW"
"In many states with stand your ground laws, a claim of self-defense under a stand your ground law offers immunity from prosecution rather than an affirmative defense. This means that, rather than presenting a self-defense argument at an assault trial, for example, an individual could claim self-defense under the state's stand your ground law and avoid trial altogether. States with stand your ground self defense laws."

• Alabama
• Alaska
• Arizona
• Florida
• Georgia
• Indiana
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Michigan
• Mississippi
• Montana
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
  
• Oklahoma
• Pennsylvania
• South Carolina
• <broken link removed>
  
• Tennessee
• Texas
• <broken link removed>
• West Virginia

Stand your ground laws remove a duty to retreat before using force to as a means of self defense against an eminent threat.

FINDLAW-Duty To Retreat
"The original laws regarding self-defense required people claiming self-defense to first make an attempt to avoid the violence before using force. This is also known as a "duty to retreat." While most states have removed this rule for instances involving the use of nonlethal force, many states still require that a person make an attempt to escape the situation before applying lethal force. The following states impose some form of duty to retreat before using deadly self defense:

• Arkansas.
• Connecticut.
• Delaware.
• Hawaii.
• Iowa.
• Maine.
• Maryland.
• Massachusetts."

"

 

[Law of Self Defense]

Everything in that post is wrong. Everything. Oofah.

This statement is in direct conflict with what you wrote above, Besides it's not true. Some states have stand your ground laws while others have duty to retreat laws.
FINDLAW"
"In many states with stand your ground laws, a claim of self-defense under a stand your ground law offers immunity from prosecution rather than an affirmative defense. This means that, rather than presenting a self-defense argument at an assault trial, for example, an individual could claim self-defense under the state's stand your ground law and avoid trial altogether. States with stand your ground self defense laws."

• Alabama
• Alaska
• Arizona
• Florida
• Georgia
• Indiana
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Michigan
• Mississippi
• Montana
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
  
• Oklahoma
• Pennsylvania
• South Carolina
• <broken link removed>
  
• Tennessee
• Texas
• <broken link removed>
• West Virginia

Stand your ground laws remove a duty to retreat before using force to as a means of self defense against an eminent threat.

FINDLAW-Duty To Retreat
"The original laws regarding self-defense required people claiming self-defense to first make an attempt to avoid the violence before using force. This is also known as a "duty to retreat." While most states have removed this rule for instances involving the use of nonlethal force, many states still require that a person make an attempt to escape the situation before applying lethal force. The following states impose some form of duty to retreat before using deadly self defense:

• Arkansas.
• Connecticut.
• Delaware.
• Hawaii.
• Iowa.
• Maine.
• Maryland.
• Massachusetts."

"

 

[The Heretic]

never take legal advice from law enforcement, its not their job to interpret the law just enforce it....

This is true. You do much better talking to a lawyer, especially one who is at least knowledgable in the area of discussion, preferably an expert with trial experience in that area.

Few LEOs have the kind of court experience a lawyer or judge has in interpreting the law, and they often interject either their own opinions or what rumors they have heard about laws - sometimes making them up on the spot.

That said, it is good to know the law yourself, and to never speak to a LEO without a *good* lawyer representing you being present - and listen to your lawyer.

Also, remember, LEOs can and sometimes will arrest you whether you have violated the law or not. And some prosecutors will gladly try to make political hay out of taking you to court - whether you violated the law or not. There are innocent people in prison.

So at the very least, have the name of a good lawyer on hand.

 

[eliduc]

I started another thread and asked how far a school gun safe zone extends from the school. The first reply was totally wrong. The value of this forum and threads related to self defense is to become informed about the law. It's fine for someone to express an opinion that is then contradicted with facts. Even better is a well written post that is supported by sources. Hal Jordan did an excellent job in that respect in this thread. Contradicting a post with fact and sources should not be considered a personal attack but part of an informative and valuable discussion. Knowing the laws related to self defense is of the utmost importance to not only those who keep a firearm for self defense but those who are being defended against. I started the school zone thread because I had my own questions and for the purpose of starting a discussion. I thought I knew the answers but was not positive. In the process of researching the thread I did learn some valuable things I did not know. I am amazed at the people who own firearms and have not a clue. The research is not that difficult in this electronic age, always keeping in mind the integrity of the source. Our acquisition of firearm law knowledge should be a continuing education as the laws change. Before "SULLIVAN" Oregon was a duty to retreat State. Also, parts of statutes are often open to differing interpretations.

Findlaw gives a very good overview on gun laws at http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html

A few words should be said about Findlaw since I have used it extensively in this thread. Findlaw is a component of the Thomson Reuters West group which is "a primary attorney legal resource group for case law, statutes regulations and court rules."

 

[Law of Self Defense]

A few words should be said about Findlaw since I have used it extensively in this thread. Findlaw is a component of the Thomson Reuters West group which is "a primary attorney legal resource group for case law, statutes regulations and court rules."

If Findlaw was the source for the information you provided in post #41 they are a TERRIBLE source for self-defense law information, because the information is WRONG.

It conflates "stand-your-ground" with "self-defense immunity," when the two are completely distinct legal concepts.

It describes "stand-your-ground" as some kind of alternative to an "affirmative defense," when the two are also completely distinct legal concepts, and certainly not alternatives to each other.

It uses the phrase "an individual could claim self-defense under the state's stand your ground law and avoid trial altogether," and that phrase is utter legal gibberish. If you wish to claim self-defense in a "stand-your-ground" state, you simply claim self-defense. All stand-your-ground does is remove the avoidance element from being one of the required elements of a self-defense claim. There is no such thing as claiming "stand-you-ground" as some alternative to claiming self-defense. The very notion is legal nonsense.

Also, "stand-your-ground" has absolutely NOTHING to do with "avoiding trial altogether." It is "self-defense immunity" that enables you to avoid trial altogether, and as already noted "self-defense immunity" is a legal concept completely distinct from "stand-your-ground."

It lists eight states that "have some legal duty to retreat," when in fact there are 16 states that have some legal duty to retreat (and an argument can be made for two more).

In other words, EVERY statement of the law in post #41 is incorrect. EVERY. ONE.

All anybody needs to do to know what the law of self-defense ACTUALLY is, is buy "The Law of Self Defense, 3rd Edition" for $24.99, spend maybe half a day reading it, and EDUCATE YOURSELF. A modest investment, indeed, in both money and time.

Oofah.

 

[The Heretic]

I think that I would assert that there is no "immunity" to standing trial. If a prosecuting attorney (or his bosses) wants to take you to court and have you stand trial, they will take you to court and have you stand trial. A judge and/or a grand jury may stand in the way, but there is no such thing as immunity to trial. IANAL, but that is my understanding anyway.

 

[Law of Self Defense]

A judge and/or a grand jury may stand in the way, but there is no such thing as immunity to trial.

Good Lord. Of COURSE self-defense immunity EXISTS, in many states, sometimes civil immunity, sometimes criminal immunity, sometimes both. In states with those immunity laws the prosecutor and/or the plaintiff is legally BARRED from taking you to trial, if the immunity conditions are met. Doesn't matter what they'd LIKE to be able to do, the court PROHIBITS them. Prosecution/suit DISMISSED.

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

 

[The Heretic]

Good Lord. Of COURSE self-defense immunity EXISTS, in many states, sometimes civil immunity, sometimes criminal immunity, sometimes both. In states with those immunity laws the prosecutor and/or the plaintiff is legally BARRED from taking you to trial, if the immunity conditions are met. Doesn't matter what they'd LIKE to be able to do, the court PROHIBITS them. Prosecution/suit DISMISSED.

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Once they take you to court, and you have had to hire a lawyer who can argue the immunity exists and that you meet the conditions, and the judge agrees.

I have only been to court for traffic offenses, but from what I have observed from other people going to court, there are no guarantees, and you had better be prepared for anything.

 

[Law of Self Defense]

You said THIS:

If a prosecuting attorney (or his bosses) wants to take you to court and have you stand trial, they will take you to court and have you stand trial.

Self-defense immunity, if successfully argued, occurs BEFORE you go to trial. So, no, they CAN'T make you stand trial. It takes place in a PRE-TRIAL hearing. It costs maybe $1,000. That's a whole different world than going to actual trial, which can cost hundreds of thousands, even MILLIONS of dollars.

 

[gimpy51]

Wish I could help but I can't upload a .pdf file.

 

[eliduc]

If Findlaw was the source for the information you provided in post #41 they are a TERRIBLE source for self-defense law information, because the information is WRONG.

QUOTE=It conflates "stand-your-ground" with "self-defense immunity," when the two are completely distinct legal concepts.

QUOTE=It describes "stand-your-ground" as some kind of alternative to an "affirmative defense," when the two are also completely distinct legal concepts, and certainly not alternatives to each other.

QUOTE=It uses the phrase "an individual could claim self-defense under the state's stand your ground law and avoid trial altogether," and that phrase is utter legal gibberish. There is no such thing as claiming "stand-you-ground" as some alternative to claiming self-defense. The very notion is legal nonsense.

QUOTE=Also, "stand-your-ground" has absolutely NOTHING to do with "avoiding trial altogether." It is "self-defense immunity" that enables you to avoid trial altogether, and as already noted "self-defense immunity" is a legal concept completely distinct from "stand-your-ground."

QUOTE=All anybody needs to do to know what the law of self-defense ACTUALLY is, is buy "The Law of Self Defense, 3rd Edition" for $24.99,

First you state that Oregon has no Castle Doctrine and then when confronted with a respected source you completely reverse yourself by misinforming that every state has a Castle Doctrine. THen when confronted with the fact that several states have stand your ground and duty to retreat statutes your defense is to criticize the source which is FindLaw which is West's, one of the most respected legal resources in the country.

Then you misinform that the FindLaw statement, "an individual could claim self-defense under the state's stand your ground law and avoid trial altogether," is "total gibberish".

(Criminal Defense Articles-Hussein and Webber, Jacsonville Florida Criminal Defense Attorneys. Article "Flordia's "Stand Your Ground Law" Deadly Force, Self Defense, And Prosecutorial Immunity"
"Under Section 776.032, Florida Statutes, (Florida's Stand Your Ground Statute)a person who uses force as permitted in Section 776.012 or Section 776.013 "is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action" for the use of such force (with certain limited exceptions). Note the word "immune." This means that, if the accused can factually establish pre-trial that his or her use of deadly force occurred under the circumstances outlined in Section 776.012 or Section 776.013, the State of Florida is legally and procedurally barred from further prosecution in the matter.
http://www.husseinandwebber.com/case-work/criminal-defense-articles/floridas-stand-ground-law/

As if this unsupported dissemination of misinformation isn't sufficient then you use the thread to peddle your $25 book.

 

[David Bowman]

There are no good outcomes from a gun fight for either party. If you can avoid firing your gun by taking a 'safe' means of retreat, that is the best way to end the threat. You will have saved yourself a whole lot of major headaches.

Methinks thou art trolling me...... No matter....

There are plenty of good outcomes from a deadly force incident:

Bad guy dead... You and your family safe...
Bad guy dead... Active shooter stopped.. You and your family and others and their families safe...
Bad guy wounded.... More training needed (OK, that one benefits me a little bit)....

Sure, you are in for some headaches. You will be armchair quarterbacked the rest of your life. You could be in for a Zimmerman Style ride of your life.

But you have to ask yourself many questions that you must know the answer to; like "Would I give everything I own to make my family safe?" "Would I forfeit my livelihood to ensure their safety?" "Would I risk it all for them?" And you need to know the answer, and no one can answer for you. You have to know in your heart and head what your answer is.

I am only going to retreat to a better firing position...

 

[gimpy51]

I am only going to retreat to a better firing position...

Each to their own. I personally wish you luck. For me, I have enough court knowledge to know of some realities I would not automatically bet my family's future on.

I will, as they say, shoot as a last resort. If it's a choice, it's time to move. JMHO.

 

[eliduc]

What is considered an eminent threat to life when there are extenuating circumstances? For instance, I am on a non reversible blood thinner. A punch to the face causing a nose bleed or a concussion could be fatal. Yet, the mugger is carrying no weapon. Using that as a defense for lethal self defense or even the threat of lethal self defense could be dicy. What if I died? What would the attacker be charged with?

 

[gimpy51]

What is considered an eminent threat to life when there are extenuating circumstances? For instance, I am on a non reversible blood thinner. A punch to the face causing a nose bleed or a concussion could be fatal. Yet, the mugger is carrying no weapon. Using that as a defense for lethal self defense or even the threat of lethal self defense could be dicy. What if I died? What would the attacker be charged with?

It wouldn't matter to you.

But the question is a valid one. What is reasonable under the circumstances. I'm 65, had multiple surgeries to both shoulders and both knees have been replaced. Cannot fight or run. I cannot do today what I could have done in my youth. So my defense is designed for me, individually. I'd rather deal with an attorney questioning my actions than being planted in the ground by 6 grieving friends and my wife and kids standing by and crying.

 

[Norm0931]

It wouldn't matter to you.

But the question is a valid one. What is reasonable under the circumstances. I'm 65, had multiple surgeries to both shoulders and both knees have been replaced. Cannot fight or run. I cannot do today what I could have done in my youth. So my defense is designed for me, individually. I'd rather deal with an attorney questioning my actions than being planted in the ground by 6 grieving friends and my wife and kids standing by and crying.

For legal purposes "reasonable" is always what you can convince a jury.

 

[gimpy51]

That is the flaw in the process.

 

[The Heretic]

For legal purposes "reasonable" is always what you can convince a jury.

 

[bbbass]

There are too many variables to get a grip on what would happen to you... it depends on individual circumstances and situations. Nice thread to get a "feel" for how the laws are applied but it's not exacting. IMO anything can happen.

My experience regarding "reasonable" has been with commercial law and with jury instructions in minor criminal cases. In those situations "reasonable" was defined as what the average person would do, say, or think... sounds pretty subjective to me. Each person on a jury will think of themselves as average. So I agree that it's what your lawyer can convince a jury of.

Remember, a trial is not determined by who is right or wrong, it is determined by who has the best lawyer.

 

[Stomper]

LOL.... "I study Triggernometry"