- Messages
- 79
- Reactions
- 0
He was...pretty obviously bubblegumed...
I never heard that term before - but I like it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He was...pretty obviously bubblegumed...
I never heard that term before - but I like it.
Funny part is, he would have got more time had he pulled the dudes pants down and pirated him.
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.
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.
"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?
"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?
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]
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]
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]
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 merchants 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]
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.
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.
Bottom line: He executed a drunk for trespassing.
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".
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.