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

[Law of Self Defense]

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

Boom. I'm a huge fan of our LEOs, best man at my wedding is a career man, thank God we have them. However, we don't send lawyers to make felony arrests, and as a general rule it's not prudent to seek legal advice from law enforcement officers solely on the basis that they are law enforcement officers.

I would also caution that simply because someone is an attorney doesn't mean they know anything at all about a particular area of the law, and this is particularly true of use-of-force law. In my three years of law school we didn't spend three minutes on self-defense. After being admitted to the bar, unless a lawyer is doing criminal defense work he has no professional need to know any more about self-defense law than does a dentist. Even if he DOES practice criminal defense, 99% of a criminal defense attorney's clients are criminals, and their narratives of self-defense tend to differ substantially from claims of self-defense by non-criminals.

Of course there ARE law enforcement officers who DO know use-of-force law very well, as there ARE some attorneys who know this area of the law well, and there ARE firearms instructors who possess a similar high level of understanding of this area of the law. But in ALL those cases it's because those individuals MADE A DELIBERATE AND EXCEPTIONAL EFFORT to correctly understand use-of-force law in their jurisdiction. They didn't merely magically acquire this expertise simply because they became an LEO, a lawyer, or a firearms instructor.

Incidentally, the original post of this thread by Hal Jordan is an EXCELLENT example of the kind of effort that leads to a high level of solid expertise in use-of-force law. Hal didn't merely rely on someone's opinion of the law, he went and LOOKED AT THE ACTUAL LAW. Good show.

It's for exactly that reason that all our state-specific Self Defense Law Seminars are heavily illustrated with the relevant statutes, jury instructions, and case law of the jurisdiction we're covering--so that our students know the law is as we say it is NOT MERELY because WE'RE saying it, but because we're showing them the ACTUAL LAW.

 

[Law of Self Defense]

It's no different than doing searches on your computer "how to hide a body"

It's completely different.

If you're asking how to hide a body, you're asking how to COMMIT a crime.

If you're asking how to stay within the bounds of the law while defending yourself, you're asking how to AVOID committing a crime.

Night and day.

 

[gimpy51]

To my understanding, from what I've read, there is no requirement to retreat. There have been cases on this point.

 

[Law of Self Defense]

To my understanding, from what I've read, there is no requirement to retreat. There have been cases on this point.

As pointed out above, the law is more ambiguous than that.

There's no duty to retreat if you're facing an imminent threat. Of course, if you're facing an imminent threat--meaning, a threat about to be realized RIGHT NOW!--there's probably no safe avenue of retreat ANYWAY, and if there's no safe avenue of retreat, there's no duty. That's true even in the hardest core duty-to-retreat states like Massachusetts.

There may WELL be a duty to retreat, however, if the threat while real is not yet fully imminent. That's contained in the footnote to Sandoval, as noted by Hal Jordan, above.

(2) If a particular danger is not imminent, a person who wishes to escape criminal liability may well be required to avoid the danger, rather than to seek it out and cause that danger to become imminent. See ORS 161.215(2) (self defense not available if accused was initial aggressor). But the scope of the statutes that we consider here applies only to dangers that are "imminent."​

That can easily be read as: "There's a duty to retreat if you can do so safely." And THAT is the very legal definition of a duty-to-retreat.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

My retreat is me verbally warning the aggressor and trying to walk away (depending on the sitation).

After that, the law may say one thing.. But if I fee like a life is in danger Id act without hesitation. Honestly I hope that never happens though.

 

[Law of Self Defense]

After that, the law may say one thing..

What the "law says" determines whether you're acquitted or spend the rest of your life enjoying the pleasures of prison love making.

I would caution against glibly dismissing what the "law says."

 

[Dornai]

I work as an armed patrol officer for a private security company in Gresham, Fairview, and Portland. To my understanding of the law, I am able to use deadly physical force in the defense of my life or another's life.

In all honestly I would rather retreat than defend myself with a firearm, or attempt to de-escalate the situation with my hands up if at all possible just to avoid the legal bullsh*t of shooting a criminal.

Only in the defense of a third person - or I am taking fire and have the opportunity to draw and return fire - would I ever even consider drawing my firearm.

Regardless of if the law states you have a duty to retreat or not, the easier solution is always de-escalation and retreat. Give them what they want. Leave them alone. Walk away. When faced someone you have reason to believe is a dangerous individual, your best bet legally is to let go of your beliefs and morals and do as they ask.

It isn't right but it is what it is.

 

[gimpy51]

Not being law enforcement, I am not interested in getting in a fight. However, I will if I have no other choice. I realize that if I do put someone down, I think the personal cost is what scares me away from wanting to engage. Personal meaning in my heart and mind. The legal costs are secondary if I didn't have a choice.

I think one of the best things about carrying is it makes me question where I go. If I think I'm going to need it, I don't go.

 

[Law of Self Defense]

I think one of the best things about carrying is it makes me question where I go. If I think I'm going to need it, I don't go.

Smart.

 

[Norm0931]

There is no duty to retreat in Oregon law, but there is also no law that specifically says you don't have to retreat either. This means that the prosecution and/or plaintiff can use the fact that you didn't retreat against you in court. That's all there is to it.

 

[Law of Self Defense]

This means that the prosecution and/or plaintiff can use the fact that you didn't retreat against you in court. That's all there is to it.

That's also true in the majority of so-called "Stand-Your-Ground" states. Only 5 or 6 of the 34 SYG states explicitly prohibit the jury from considering retreat in evaluating a claim of self-defense.

 

[eliduc]

Lethal force used in self defense in Oregon falls under the Castle Doctrine which is also known as the Defense of Habitation law. An intruder trespassing in your home for the purpose of committing a crime has demonstrated an eminent intent to cause bodily harm. Therefore, as the Oregon Supreme court has ruled, under the Castle Doctrine there is no duty or responsibility to retreat inside your home. However, there is a question as to whether that area includes your yard. Also, once the intruder exits your home and is retreating the imminent threat no longer exists unless the person is threatening you with a weapon. You have no legal right to try to stop him/her by using lethal force or perhaps even the threat of the use of lethal force. The homeowner could find himself charged with menacing. If a crime is being committed outside and away from the home the citizen who has a firearm has no authority to use a firearm to stop the crime unless there is eminent danger of bodily harm to himself or another person and there is a responsibility to retreat. This would not be so if Oregon were a "Stand Your Ground Doctrine State like Florida. Also we have to be aware that left wing district attorneys are going to bow to the voters who elected them. The Clackamas County District Attorney may choose to purposely ignore the Oregon Castle Law. Maybe he is testing the law or attempting to establish new case law or just has no respect for the Castle Doctrine. He can charge you with anything and it's up to your attorney to prove you are not guilty.... if you have enough money. That's one good reason why I live in Klamath County where hopefully our district attorney respects the Castle Doctrine and a citizen's right to protect themselves. Sidenote: An Rv, boat, tent or car is considered a dwelling if the person is habitating inside of it.

 

[Law of Self Defense]

Lethal force used in self defense in Oregon falls under the Castle Doctrine which is also known as the Defense of Habitation law.

Wrong in the first sentence. What about lethal force used in self-defense OUTSIDE the home? That obviously does NOT fall under the Castle Doctrine.

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

 

[Law of Self Defense]

Also, once the intruder exits your home and is retreating the imminent threat no longer exists unless the person is threatening you with a weapon. You have no legal right to try to stop him/her by using lethal force or perhaps even the threat of the use of lethal force. The homeowner could find himself charged with menacing.

If he's fleeing and you kill him you could find yourself charged with a murder. A considerably more severe charge than menacing.

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

 

[Law of Self Defense]

If a crime is being committed outside and away from the home the citizen who has a firearm has no authority to use a firearm to stop the crime unless there is eminent danger of bodily harm to himself or another person and there is a responsibility to retreat.

(1) "Imminent," not "eminent." Those are two different words with different meanings.

(2) Oregon law on retreat is ambiguous in some respects, but NOT if you are in fact facing an imminent threat--if you are facing an imminent threat there is NO duty to retreat.

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

 

[SCARed]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we need to start using what the police do as precedent.
Police will pull their guns in many situations that if you or I did it would land us in jail, despite the fact that they are supposed to be following the same laws. How often have you seen LEOs upholster their weapon as a show of force, yet they were not in imminent danger of severe bodily injury or death. Nor were they protecting someone of that danger.

 

[gimpy51]

I'm having a dental issue as we speak so take this with the undetstanding that I am altered.
Seems to me that the standard is if your life is in immediate danger versus if the threat is really over. Someone with a weapon pointed at me versus a prior threat in retreat. I can't see any jury convicting me if my life is in immediate danger v. a danger that has really past.

 

[Norm0931]

Lethal force used in self defense in Oregon falls under the Castle Doctrine which is also known as the Defense of Habitation law. An intruder trespassing in your home for the purpose of committing a crime has demonstrated an eminent intent to cause bodily harm.

There is no Castle Doctrine in Oregon law. There was an attempt to get it on the ballot for the last several years, but none have been successful.

 

[eliduc]

I'm having a dental issue as we speak so take this with the undetstanding that I am altered.
Seems to me that the standard is if your life is in immediate danger versus if the threat is really over. Someone with a weapon pointed at me versus a prior threat in retreat. I can't see any jury convicting me if my life is in immediate danger v. a danger that has really past.

There is no Castle Doctrine in Oregon law. There was an attempt to get it on the ballot for the last several years, but none have been successful.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Or in this case the doctrine or the codified law? It's kind of confusing for the simple layman brain like mine but from what I have been able to glean is that doctrines are established from a series of like case law rulings that might be codified into law. It is the principle of the doctrine that then becomes the law. The principle of the Castle Doctrine is basically that within your home there is no requirement to retreat from an intrusion. The threat of bodily harm is assumed. The principle of Oregon's codified law is based in the Castle Doctrine.

Findlaw
"Some states have self-defense laws on the books that are similar to stand your ground laws, often with at least one key difference. These laws generally apply only to the home or other real property (such as an office) and are often referred to as "castle doctrine" or "defense of habitation" laws. Most U.S. states have castle doctrine laws, including California, Illinois, Iowa, Oregon, and Washington. "

 

[Law of Self Defense]

There is no Castle Doctrine in Oregon law. There was an attempt to get it on the ballot for the last several years, but none have been successful.

Every state has some version of the Castle Doctrine, if you're using the correct definition of "Castle Doctrine," and that includes Oregon. But the "Castle Doctrine" comes in a wide variety of "flavors."