Oregon man gets 19 months for shooting intruder

[Joe Link]

Original article here: <broken link removed>

[SIZE=+2]Oregon man gets 19 months for killing intruder

[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]11:19 AM PDT on Monday, August 10, 2009

[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Associated Press[/SIZE]

ROSEBURG, Ore. -- A Southern Oregon man who killed an intruder last year has been sentenced to 19 months in prison.

A manslaughter charge carrying a minimum sentence of six years was dropped as part of the plea agreement with 35-year-old Keith Cramer of Sutherlin. He had pleaded no contest to a lesser charge and was sentenced Friday.

Cramer shot Michael Shane Smith, an Alaska man in Sutherlin to be near his dying mother.

Cramer's family found Smith sleeping on a couch in their house and summoned Cramer from a bar. Shortly afterward, he called police to report the shooting.

Prosecutors said Oregon law does not allow people to use deadly force, even in their own homes, unless the intruder is committing a felony, and Smith was trespassing, which isn't a felony.

Read More

 

[timbernet]

I agree with the prosecutors here -- the man was drunk and asleep... he posed no current threat at the time of the shooting.

Bad shoot...

 

[JumpWing]

That story has more missing info than actual info.

Aside from that, it's unfortunate that Oregon law suggests you have to give an intruder the first move.

 

[New Oregonian]

Does anyone have a link to the original story after it happened? The shooting not the trial. Thanks

 

[CEF1959]

There is more to the story. Just google the names of the shooter and dead guy, and the reports from June come up. You have to read several to get a full picture.

The shooter's story didn't hold up. He had originally told the police that the guy had beat him up, so he shot him. That didn't fly, since the shooter was unmarked. Then he said the guy had moved toward him aggressively. That didn't fly, because the dead guy was found lying on his side on the couch with his feet up, in the position someone sleeping would be. And the whole self-defense thing was hard to explain, because the shooter saw the guy sleeping on the sofa and had time to go get a hunting rifle from another room and come back.

Bottom line: He executed a drunk for trespassing.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Oregon law states that THEY have to make the first move?!
I see now why police are angry, I've never trusted the "Police shot an innocent man" stories I've heard over the years.. and just the other day someone mentioned the fact that Police are overly agressive.. Well I fired back and stated that if an officer didn't pull his gun first because of all the G** D*** bureaucracy and liberal mentality on crime, HE could have been the one dead on the ground. Later the person who I was talking to found out that the man who was shot did indeed have a gun.. And his comment after he told me that was.. "But still man, they shouldn't HAVE shot him"..
Yeah, they shouldn't have shot a man brandishing a weapon, who by the way HAD priors, was no doubtably high on something, AND in someones home (Not his own).

... Whats next, if I taser/mace/rubber buckshot a man in my house I could go to prison for assault, or excessive force EVEN THOUGH HE WAS IN MY HOME ON MY PROPERTY (And by that I mean the land I ACTUALLY OWN (Not rent), the land I bought from the government/banks year and years ago, paid off and now reside on!?

I need to move to an island and start my own colony.
=/

 

[deadeye]

Just because your house is paid off doesn't mean you don't still have to pay rent (property taxes). You never really OWN your property because if the government wants it they just condemn it.

I always refer back to "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" as to my self preservation motto. This was an unjustifiable shoot by any standard, I would've just called the police and been on guard until they arrived.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Now I understand that fact.. that they can come in when ever they want and "condemn" it.. But the fact of the matter is.. like all gun laws.. whats next.. first one thing then another.. I shouldn't have to rely on BIG BROTHER to come to my rescue along with telling me how far I can drive, where I can eat, what I can buy.. there is NO END!

I understand he shouldn't have shot him in his sleep. That's a given. But still, I can see them saying.. "Well, the plaintiff shot at him and turned to run, then the defendant shot at the intruder while the plaintiffs back was turned" (Because he was running away).. Thus, you shot a man in the back, though you were just returning fire. In the court of law, everything gets misconstrued.

Around my area, if you just scare the punks away.. they just come back to your house and messes everything up. (Its happened to our various neighbors over a dozen times..) Just telling someone to get out of your house doesn't always work..
=/

 

[CEF1959]

Aside from that, it's unfortunate that Oregon law suggests you have to give an intruder the first move.

It's not so much that you have to give the intruder the first move. You have to reasonably believe the intruder is somehow a threat. If you find an intruder in your house holding a knife, you don't have to wait until he raises it or comes at you. Most DAs will give you the benefit of the doubt in cases where there's an intruder. This was just a weird case involving very bad judgment and a pretty good plea bargain for all concerned.

 

[Teufel_Hunden]

I agree with the prosecutors here -- the man was drunk and asleep... he posed no current threat at the time of the shooting.

How can you tell this??

I did NOT read any more details here and this MAY have been a bad shoot but you are assuming he wasn't a threat but you will never know.

T_H

 

[timbernet]

How can you tell this??

I did NOT read any more details here and this MAY have been a bad shoot but you are assuming he wasn't a threat but you will never know.

T_H

It's from reading some other articles when the story first happened. And as CEF1959 stated, more information came out since then.

Two Sutherlin police officers entered the home after the June 19 shooting and found the 35-year-old Smith. He was "lying on his side with his feet propped up on the couch, facing the center of the living room," the affidavit states.

First Cramer's wife woke up and found Smith there. She and her daughter left and drove to the local bar where Smith came from and her husband, Mr. Cramer, was still. Instead of calling 911 from the bar about a man in the house, they drove back home. Cramer's wife then called 911 and Cramer grabbed a hunting rifle and shot him. There were reports that the man woke up and there was a fight, but investigators proved that to be wrong.

If you have the opportunity to leave and let police handle it, then don't shoot. There were plenty of opportunities for Cramer or his wife to call the police where THEY would have been safe (ie: the bar).

Something I did not see in any article was the mention of Cramer's own blood alcohol level... if he was at the bar longer than Smith, there is a chance that he wasn't thinking straight either.

 

[Trlsmn]

Who knows what the real story is but from everything I read I just can't find a reason this shooting should have even happened, I would have called the police and let them deal with the situation, that's their job.

If I was in the same hot water I would consider a 19 month sentence to be a hard deal to pass up considering the guy will likely serve less than a year, the alternative could be much worse.

 

[Joe Link]

It's good to hear the real story came out, I figured it wasn't as cut and dry as that article stated.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Agreed all around. Decent plea bargain all things considered.

But, WE have to wait until they make the first move?
Not in my house. =]

 

[torpedoman]

is breaking and entering a felony over there?? But the dumb should have woke the guy up and showed him out.

 

[spider]

Shoulda tasered him.

 

[lazyeye]

Its depressing how different papers reported this one.

Agreed, probably bad shoot.... but I wasn't there.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

The sanctaty of my home was invaded. My family wouldn't sleep at night knowing this could happen again. In their minds.. some swift (Though harsh) justice would quickly let them know I mean buisness and they are protected and watched over.

If someone breaks into my home, I don't care who you are, if I find any said person to be a threat to myself, family or neighbors
(Again, this being in MY house and certain criteria have been met for said action)
I'll put the guy down.
Talk is in fact cheap. But I would have hesitated either.
I don't blame the guy, you wouldn't have known if the "Smith" guy was brandishing a weapon or was feeling the affects of some substance
(Other than the mentioned alcohol).

Personally, waiting for him to make any kind of first move could have jeopardized my family as well as my own personal safety.

 

[CEF1959]

On two occassions, someone harmless "intruded" in my house. The first was when I had a female housemate long ago. She was out for the evening, and I was reading in bed. There was a knock at the door. I didn't feel like answering, so I ignored it. A few minutes later I heard a rustling in the dining room. I went out to investigate, and it was the housemate's idiot boyfriend, who had climbed in a window and was standing in my dining room. He wanted to surprise his g/f when she got home from work by being there with some chocolates and flowers. I didn't shoot him, though he saw the business end of a barrel.

The second was when I lived in an urban loft. I forgot to lock the door one day and was watching TV. I heard a noise in the other room and went out to find this weird guy standing in my living room. He was homeless (and pretty obviously retarded), looking for a vacant unit to sleep in. I didn't shoot him either, though he too got a loaded weapon pointed at his center mass.

I could have killed them both I guess, but that would have been nuts. It's not necessary to bust out the deadly force option where there's no real threat. Weird things happen. It's a mistake to get overeager with our firearms just because we have them and feel a need to insist on our rights to use them. The THREAT of deadly force is 95% of a firearm's usefulness and usually sufficient to deal with a situation.

 

[Newcastle]

Funny part is, he would have got more time had he pulled the dudes pants down and pirated him.