Oregon Law on deadly force

[Vendor Hidden]

I have emergency access to my attorneys and will pose these questions during business hours, "If threatened, accosted and in fear of harm from a much younger muscular man threatening harm (very emotional agitated and stating he is going to meet up), does one have the right to threaten deadly force if the other person doesn't retreat or stop"? From what I read of the Oregon law, unless he is committing a felony threatening physical force, committing a burglary in a dwelling or using or about to use deadly physical force against a person, the answer would be no. Do you agree?

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]
"Could the overwhelming physical strength of one individual over another be considered "deadly physical force"?"
161.015 General definitions.
(3) "Deadly physical force" means physical force that under the circumstances in which it is used is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. ... (9) "Possess" means to have physical possession or otherwise to exercise dominion or control over property.

Read More

 

[Member 53328]

If it's only words/dialogue/empty threats I would avoid threatening the use of deadly force. Words are one thing. Actions are another. You also have to look at the scenario through an objective lens. The use of force has to be present. I have a feeling (especially in Oregon) if you were to say, "hey if you don't leave me alone, or if you confront me I'll kill you it will not go in your favor." It sounds a lot like harassment and may require LE or the courts to get involved. Atleast to get a paper trail started to show proof of intent if the suspect was to actually go through with an act of violence. That is as long as I am understanding your scenario correctly. Hope everything works out for you. I carry a gun daily specifically for self defense but I would not "threaten" it upon someone unless they were actively try to commit and violent act.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Strickland.
At least the bugger's alive..

 

[JohnnyMac]

Some good info in the link below. I think the part that discusses "Ability" and the "Mini vs Monster" is what could be applied. A younger, bigger, stronger, drug induced wild man against an older person is not a fair fight and places that person at risk of grave bodily harm or death.

On a side note....simply drawing a firearm and keeping it at your side without saying a word speaks volumes, however it limits your choices to pretty much running away or deadly force.

The Judicious Use of Deadly Force

The Judicious Use of Deadly Force by John Boch, with Steve Davis, Esq. and Frank Wright, FBI Special Agent, retired (Reprinted from the July 2013 issue of GunNews Magazine) (Guns Save Life) –…

www.gunssavelife.com

 

[Member 53328]

Some good info in the link below. I think the part that discusses "Ability" and the "Mini vs Monster" is what could be applied. A younger, bigger, stronger, drug induced wild man against an older person is not a fair fight and places that person at risk of grave bodily harm or death.

On a side note....simply drawing a firearm and keeping it at your side without saying a word speaks volumes, however it limits your choices to pretty much running away or deadly force.

The Judicious Use of Deadly Force

The Judicious Use of Deadly Force by John Boch, with Steve Davis, Esq. and Frank Wright, FBI Special Agent, retired (Reprinted from the July 2013 issue of GunNews Magazine) (Guns Save Life) –…

www.gunssavelife.com

And can also get you locked up for "brandishing" if you're not careful.

 

[JohnnyMac]

And can also get you locked up for "brandishing" if you're not careful.

I'm pretty sure that Oregon does not have a law against "Brandishing" a firearm. It is something to the effect of menacing with a firearm. Pointing it at another person or threatening to shoot another person while displaying the firearm something else. Simply holding it at your side is akin to open carry.

 

[Member 53328]

I'm pretty sure that Oregon does not have a law against "Brandishing" a firearm. It is something to the effect of menacing with a firearm. Pointing it at another person or threatening to shoot another person while displaying the firearm something else. Simply holding it at your side is akin to open carry.

That may be true but I don't think the liberal courts will see it that way. Removing a weapon from concealment and putting it on display can go south very quickly.

 

[JohnnyMac]

That may be true but I don't think the liberal courts will see it that way.

I hear you man. It's a lose-lose situation for sure. Get your bubblegum beat/killed by a wild man or spend every dime you have to try to keep yourself out of jail, and still probably end up there.

 

[Member 53328]

I hear you man. It's a lose-lose situation for sure. Get your bubblegum beat/killed by a wild man or spend every dime you have to try to keep yourself out of jail, and still probably end up there.

Sadly. The best thing is to avoid these situations completely or deescalate the situation using verbal judo and distance. Distance is your best friend in this scenario. Because if you are attacked it gives you time to access the scenario and jump the force continuum to meet the situations elements and neutralize the threat.

 

[parallax]

I think what 1775usmc said is very important. Get LEO involved so there is documentation for your situation. then at least if the worse happens, that documentation will show you did your due diligence, and will go a long way for your defense.

 

[Vendor Hidden]

I'm pretty sure that Oregon does not have a law against "Brandishing" a firearm. It is something to the effect of menacing with a firearm. Pointing it at another person or threatening to shoot another person while displaying the firearm something else. Simply holding it at your side is akin to open carry.

ORS 163.190
Menacing

• TEXT
• ANNOTATIONS 14

(1)

A person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.

(2)

Menacing is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §95]

 

[Knobgoblin]

I think what 1775usmc said is very important. Get LEO involved so there is documentation for your situation. then at least if the worse happens, that documentation will show you did your due diligence, and will go a long way for your defense.

+1 for the paper trail. Even if you have to force the county sheriff to let you file a report. It would hopefully show that you did everything you could (past tense) , if a serious incident happened eventually.

 

[Dornai]

I have emergency access to my attorneys and will pose these questions during business hours, "If threatened, accosted and in fear of harm from a much younger muscular man threatening harm (very emotional agitated and stating he is going to meet up), does one have the right to threaten deadly force if the other person doesn't retreat or stop"? From what I read of the Oregon law, unless he is committing a felony threatening physical force, committing a burglary in a dwelling or using or about to use deadly physical force against a person, the answer would be no. Do you agree?

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]
"Could the overwhelming physical strength of one individual over another be considered "deadly physical force"?"
161.015 General definitions.
(3) "Deadly physical force" means physical force that under the circumstances in which it is used is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. ... (9) "Possess" means to have physical possession or otherwise to exercise dominion or control over property.

1. Means, Motive, Opportunity must co-exist in order to justify the use of deadly physical force.

2. Do not make threats to use deadly physical force as this can be used to etablish the culpable mental state of "knowing" in court. For example, escalating a manslaughter charge to murder.

 

[L84Cabo]

If he's only making verbal threats, the only verbal response I would make is something along the lines of, "hey man, I'm sorry, I don't want any trouble." That shows an attempt to deescalate if things actually do escalate. A verbal threat response is not going to help you in court and may only further agitate and escalate the situation. And if you happen to be armed, you definitely don't want to say anything that might escalate things.

Keep in mind...and even if he is bigger than you...if he is verbally threatening you and then he physically attacks you, you may still have a hard time justifying (in court) deadly force. It's called "disparity of force" and it can be the justification for deadly force, but it is not something I would want to have to rely on in court. It can be hard to convince a jury that this was something bigger than a fist fight, that required you to shoot him.

Pro Tip #1: This situation is ideal for pepper spray. Pepper Spray is generally a far cry from deadly force. It also shows you used restraint and tried a non deadly alternative if you do ultimately end up having to shoot him.

Pro Tip#2: Running away...or spraying him first and then running away...can save you an enormous headache, the cost of a trial, and the risk of imprisonment...assuming you have the ability to run away. Shooting him will likely be VERY Expensive...even if you are completely justified.

 

[JuglansRegia]

I guess it depends on what kind of threats he is making and if he is armed with a deadly weapon or not. If he is just flapping his @$!# sucker and you shoot him for that then you have to take your chances with a jury. Think how many people would be getting shot if mouthing off was a justifiable cause to shoot.

 

[Ghoul]

And can also get you locked up for "brandishing" if you're not careful.

Deffensive Display, and right there in your free hand you should be dialing 911 and make aware all your actions and intentions to dispatch.
Thats the default.

 

[oldsnut]

If it's only words/dialogue/empty threats I would avoid threatening the use of deadly force. Words are one thing. Actions are another. You also have to look at the scenario through an objective lens. The use of force has to be present. I have a feeling (especially in Oregon) if you were to say, "hey if you don't leave me alone, or if you confront me I'll kill you it will not go in your favor." It sounds a lot like harassment and may require LE or the courts to get involved. Atleast to get a paper trail started to show proof of intent if the suspect was to actually go through with an act of violence. That is as long as I am understanding your scenario correctly. Hope everything works out for you. I carry a gun daily specifically for self defense but I would not "threaten" it upon someone unless they were actively try to commit and violent act.

I have always been taught that empty threats are just that and actual physical action is required to establish a legal reason to use deadly force. If another person, even one who is more physically overpowering, is making threats you can only exacerbate the situation by threatening deadly force. De-escalation is the best scenario, however, that does not mean you cannot be prepared to defend yourself or make it known that you will. I have told a friend many times, guns are not meant for scaring someone, guns are meant for killing and I was trained to never pull a weapon or point it at someone unless you were intent on killing them. His idea was to pull his gun to scare someone or that he would be able to shoot them in the leg to slow them down. Unless you are a trained shooter who has been in situations in the Service or in Law Enforcement you probably are not going to be a person who can specifically shoot someone in the leg, thus you are trained to shoot for the Core and not an extremity as it is easier to hit when you are under stress. Another point is that if you are in fear of your life and are going to shoot, I had an FBI agent tell me to shoot to kill, not to wound. In today's world you are going to be in court no matter what the scenario is, but if you were in fear of your life enough to justify deadly force, you weaken your case and open yourself to lawsuits if you shoot to wound or scare someone. Just my two cents worth.

 

[Member 53328]

I have always been taught that empty threats are just that and actual physical action is required to establish a legal reason to use deadly force. If another person, even one who is more physically overpowering, is making threats you can only exacerbate the situation by threatening deadly force. De-escalation is the best scenario, however, that does not mean you cannot be prepared to defend yourself or make it known that you will. I have told a friend many times, guns are not meant for scaring someone, guns are meant for killing and I was trained to never pull a weapon or point it at someone unless you were intent on killing them. His idea was to pull his gun to scare someone or that he would be able to shoot them in the leg to slow them down. Unless you are a trained shooter who has been in situations in the Service or in Law Enforcement you probably are not going to be a person who can specifically shoot someone in the leg, thus you are trained to shoot for the Core and not an extremity as it is easier to hit when you are under stress. Another point is that if you are in fear of your life and are going to shoot, I had an FBI agent tell me to shoot to kill, not to wound. In today's world you are going to be in court no matter what the scenario is, but if you were in fear of your life enough to justify deadly force, you weaken your case and open yourself to lawsuits if you shoot to wound or scare someone. Just my two cents worth.

I agree. I would never "shoot to slow someone down" I would also never "shoot to kill" words matter in these scenarios. If you say that in court they will eat you alive. "I shot to neutralize the threat." If my gun is breaking from the holster it's because I have full intent on using it (and I won't be aiming for an extremity."With that being said just because you draw your firearm does not mean you have to use it.

 

[Member 53328]

Deffensive Display, and right there in your free hand you should be dialing 911 and make aware all your actions and intentions to dispatch.
Thats the default.

Ok. I'll play devils advocate. You are in an verbal altercation with someone and fear it is going to get physical. You go to draw your weapon with the intent of "defensive display." You plan on just having it by your side and calling the cops. Upon gripping your firearm and removing it from the holster the individual you are involved with sees it and also has a gun with a CHL. He pulls faster than you and neutralizes you (his threat) because you produced a firearm out of fear. You're dead/wounded and he shot out of self defense.

 

[po18guy]

1. Avoid, even if it is an imposition on you.
2. Do not encounter alone.
3. OC or other less-lethal.
4. Never assume that you can employ deadly force against someone who "might" assault you.
5. Search for a peaceful resolution, if possible. That will ultimately cost less than proving your actions/reactions were right.
6. If there is a racial component, and you are white, it will cost you.

Should life be like this? No. It just is.