Oregon man gets 19 months for shooting intruder

[RainbowBob]

He was...pretty obviously bubblegumed...

I never heard that term before - but I like it.

 

[Trlsmn]

I never heard that term before - but I like it.

Auto censored!

 

[JumpWing]

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

No, he would have gotten a Congressional seat for that.

 

[SheepDog223]

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.

It's a responsible gun owner and handler who knows when NOT to shoot.

 

[SheepDog223]

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.

You don't know, that's why the home owner needs to wait and see if there is an actual threat. We can't be shooting people who might be a threat. That's like saying the libs have the right to take away our guns because we might use them to rob a bank. That's not right. It is not ok to punish until a law has been broken, and then only enough to keep the innocnet safe and alive until an regulated system can judge the accused without emotion. What if the drunk on the couch had the wrong address and was the greatest guy in the world? What if he was a dirtbag? Doesn't matter. Don't shoot unless it's the only way out alive. Now who's going to defend this guys house while he takes a stay behind bars? Wide open. Further more if this guy comes out of the system with any gun rights intact and comes across a legit defence situation his every move in retrospect will be looked at with a close eye. Don't shoot unless it's the only way out alilve. Just my thoughts. Take em or leave em

 

[NK777]

Like you guys I wasn't there. from the information presented it does seem reasonable that it was a bad shoot but again I wasn't there and neither were you. The guy on the couch could have wrestled with the other guy then presented a gun I guess but the only people that know that for sure were the ones that were in the house.

I probably would have tried to wake him and get him out of my house quietly and called the police. If he became violent at all I would have defended myself. If he brandished a weapon or I was other wise fearful for my life I likely would have shot him.

The story here is very strange! Why'd the family call Cramer at the bar instead of calling the police? I don't know the whole thing seems pretty fishy to me.

 

[Randini]

"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."

I'am not understanding this, is breaking and entering just trespassing ? or if the door is not locked can just anyone come into your home and it's just trespassing?

 

[lazyeye]

"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."

I'am not understanding this, is breaking and entering just trespassing ? or if the door is not locked can just anyone come into your home and it's just trespassing?

I had the same question. I just chalked it up to a mistake on the newspaper's part.

 

[el gringo loco]

"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."

I'am not understanding this, is breaking and entering just trespassing ? or if the door is not locked can just anyone come into your home and it's just trespassing?

This is the statute that allows use of force, including deadly force, in defense of a premise:

161.225 Use of physical force in defense of premises. (1) A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.
(2) A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (1) of this section only:
(a) In defense of a person as provided in ORS 161.219; or
(b) When the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson or a felony by force and violence by the trespasser.
(3) As used in subsection (1) and subsection (2)(a) of this section, “premises” includes any building as defined in ORS 164.205 and any real property. As used in subsection (2)(b) of this section, “premises” includes any building. [1971 c.743 §25]

The person has to be trespassing AND deadly force must be necessary to prevent arson OR a violent felony. Not just any felony cuts it.

Deadly force is allowed when:

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]

The fact is that drunk people wander into the wrong home more often than most people think. So do mentally ill people, people with mental defect or disabilities, people with medical problems, etc. Just because someone is trespassing, does not mean that they have the intent to commit a crime or harm someone else.

One must meet a higher threshold than, "The guy was in my home," before killing someone.

To clarify, there is no "breaking and entering" statute in Oregon. People are often confused on the difference between trespassing, burglary, and robbery. In Oregon, trespassing is basically being somewhere you are not supposed to be. Burglary is being somewhere you are not supposed to be WITH the intent to commit a crime (ie. theft). Robbery is basically theft by force or threat of force. So, in Oregon if someone just walks into your unlocked home and does nothing else, they are trespassing.

I think it is safe to say that, while Oregon law grants a little more leeway when defending a dwelling, you should probably follow very similar rules to what you would do on the street when encountering an intruder. However, that you just woke up, low light, furtive movements, failure to comply with commands, threatening motions, closing the distance, etc. are all factors that may be present when defending one's home and all add to one's "reasonable belief" that they are being threatened. BOTTOM LINE: Defend yourself, but don't think that just because someone is in your castle, that you can do whatever you want.

As a reference:

164.215 Burglary in the second degree. (1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 164.255, a person commits the crime of burglary in the second degree if the person enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein.
(2) Burglary in the second degree is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §136; 1993 c.680 §24]

164.225 Burglary in the first degree. (1) A person commits the crime of burglary in the first degree if the person violates ORS 164.215 and the building is a dwelling, or if in effecting entry or while in a building or in immediate flight therefrom the person:
(a) Is armed with a burglary tool or theft device as defined in ORS 164.235 or a deadly weapon;
(b) Causes or attempts to cause physical injury to any person; or
(c) Uses or threatens to use a dangerous weapon.
(2) Burglary in the first degree is a Class A felony. [1971 c.743 §137; 2003 c.577 §10]

And:

164.245 Criminal trespass in the second degree. (1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree if the person enters or remains unlawfully in a motor vehicle or in or upon premises.
(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a Class C misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §139; 1999 c.1040 §9]

164.255 Criminal trespass in the first degree. (1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass in the first degree if the person:
(a) Enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling;
(b) Having been denied future entry to a building pursuant to a merchant’s notice of trespass, reenters the building during hours when the building is open to the public with the intent to commit theft therein;
(c) Enters or remains unlawfully upon railroad yards, tracks, bridges or rights of way; or
(d) Enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises that have been determined to be not fit for use under ORS 453.855 to 453.912.
(2) Subsection (1)(d) of this section does not apply to the owner of record of the premises if:
(a) The owner notifies the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the premises that the owner intends to enter the premises;
(b) The owner enters or remains on the premises for the purpose of inspecting or decontaminating the premises or lawfully removing items from the premises; and
(c) The owner has not been arrested for, charged with or convicted of a criminal offense that contributed to the determination that the premises are not fit for use.
(3) Criminal trespass in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §140; 1993 c.680 §23; 1999 c.837 §1; 2001 c.386 §1; 2003 c.527 §1]

 

[rsmccsman]

Exodus 22:2-3 NIV

2 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens [a] after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.

I think finding a guy asleep on your couch would fall under the vs 3 provision, he could have held the intruder for police; this was not a man simply defending himself. Even when totally justified under the law to use deadly force it would be prudent to use less lethal force if it is at all possible without endangering yourself and your family because even under the best of circumstances legally defending yourself is going to be at best financially costly at worst a prison sentence. At 19 months the guy got off relatively easy, it could easily have been far worse for the shooter.

 

[Trlsmn]

Exodus 22:2-3 NIV

2 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens [a] after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.

I think finding a guy asleep on your couch would fall under the vs 3 provision, he could have held the intruder for police; this was not a man simply defending himself. Even when totally justified under the law to use deadly force it would be prudent to use less lethal force if it is at all possible without endangering yourself and your family because even under the best of circumstances legally defending yourself is going to be at best financially costly at worst a prison sentence. At 19 months the guy got off relatively easy, it could easily have been far worse for the shooter.

Ezekiel 25:17, Video from the couch shooting?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRVm_TAE24A

 

[Greenbaum]

I would of taken some incrimiating photos' of the guy with some farm animals. Not trying to be 'wrong' just funny. Then send the pics to all these wacked out sites on the web, make a few bucks for this guys bad judgement. Also, calling the cops or just waking him up with the end of a shotgun barell would work also... Bad move on the defendent.

Plausible deniability is my defense.

 

[CEF1959]

El Gringo Loco's post just a few above is excellent. If you want a correct summary of Oregon law on the use of deadly force against an intruder, read it. He nailed it.

Good job EGL.

 

[NK777]

El Gringo Loco's post just a few above is excellent. If you want a correct summary of Oregon law on the use of deadly force against an intruder, read it. He nailed it.

Good job EGL.

Always seemed like common sense to me. If your life, family or friends are in immediate grave danger don't hesitate, other wise leave it in it's holster. I guess though as I am constantly reminded "Common Sense" isn't common at all. I do agree with you though EGL did a great job spelling it out for everybody that may or may not have "Common Sense".

 

[tionico]

Yup, under Oregon law, the dude sleeping off his binder on the sofa was no threat. Go grab yer rifle, have a setdown close enough to watch him careful like, get the cops on the blower, and keep a settin there until they arrive... let THEM do the dirty work. So, you've taken steps to protect your place, and the people in it, not harmed anyone who wasn't doing YOU any harm (except possibly contributing to the local population of six-legged vermin inhabiting the chesterfield), kept your backside on the right side the bars at the local Greybar Hotel, and, though possibly delayed by a bit, still gotten your night's sleep... and you don't have to clean that long gun again. Oh, and the sleeping creep on the divan gets to wake up and face his own music..... likely on the wrong side the bars downtown.... not the bar he'd prefer, either.

By the way, Gringo, thanks for the fine job spelling it all out for us. Even living in Washington, it helps... I do get into Oregon once in a while, and will be in possession of "lethal force" most times, though not yet concealed. (the paperwork jungle lurks in the shadows even yet......)

 

[Oro]

Bottom line: He executed a drunk for trespassing.

Basically, that's what it sounds like. And I sure wish he'd got more than that. I think a few more years would have been appropriate.

Nothing said the guy "broke in." Sure, breaking and entering is likely a felony, but did they show he did? Sounds like a drunk who went into the wrong house. Like was said, this happens all the time. If this were a legal shoot, say good bye to actors like Nick Nolte, Robert Downey, Jr., and many others!

 

[CEF1959]

Always seemed like common sense to me. If your life, family or friends are in immediate grave danger don't hesitate, other wise leave it in it's holster. I guess though as I am constantly reminded "Common Sense" isn't common at all. I do agree with you though EGL did a great job spelling it out for everybody that may or may not have "Common Sense".

You know, that's an excellent point and more important than people might think. In a confrontation, you aren't going to have time to whip out your book of Oregon statutes (or even EGL's summary) and make a rational decision. You have to react. And common sense is what will get you through the "shoot -- no shoot" decision made spur of the moment. Eliminate threats, not non-threats. In this case, it sounds as though the shooter had been drinking. Common sense and alcohol aren't always good dance partners. Shooter here will have a year or so to think about that.

 

[el gringo loco]

I'm glad everybody seemed to like my long-winded foray into legalese. Thanks for the kudos.

I like that NK777 brought up common sense. On forums like these, a lot of people spit bravado and talk easily about killing someone. I would say that the law is based on "common sense" in that it provides for actions that most reasonable people would deem acceptable, or even what most people would do in a given situation. Legal actions should not "shock the conscience" of our peers that will be tasked with determining if we acted appropriately. Conscience is an aspect of self-defense that I think people ignore on these forums. You have to live with your decision. People speak casually of taking a life, but there are very few people who are capable of doing so without suffering some sort of lasting effect (and, I would argue that those people have no business owning a gun). No matter how justified a kill is, if it is up close and personal, most people will experience a perfectly natural negative reaction.

That said, if the shooter is a normal, well adjusted person, and the shooting is justified (within the law), he or she will likely be able to justify the killing to themselves and work through that negative reaction. That negative reaction might be extreme regret or maybe a sick feeling in the stomach that lasts a couple of days. It might be overpowering at first, or maybe bothersome for only a day or two. Everyone will react differently. But, if that shooting was done because "legally" you could do it and not because it was a reasonable and necessary response, the shooter will probably be damaged forever.

The decision to kill might be made quickly and might be made easily, but it should not be made lightly. Don't let the guy who wanted to steal your stereo rob you of your mental health.

 

[pirateer2007]

I live in Sutherlin, and it was all over the news. It's a bummer that it happened, and the shooter probably should have gotten the 6 years. I've talked to both local pd and a county deputy who were there and they said it was pretty much a "He was in MY house, on MY couch, so I shot him" scenario. It was really big news for Sutherlin.

 

[RainbowBob]

The decision to kill might be made quickly and might be made easily, but it should not be made lightly. Don't let the guy who wanted to steal your stereo rob you of your mental health.

Well put...worth reading again.