Oregonian article on Castle Law and in home shootings

[IheartSig]

Experts weigh in on Oregon's 'castle law,' copycat effect after spate of home intruder shootings

Read More

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

The cluster of three intruder shootings over 23 days is unusual, especially with two of the three encounters turning deadly,
Overall, though, residential burglaries are down by 27 percent so far this year compared to the average of the last five years, police said.

I would call that a positive Cause and Effect.

 

[Dreams of Steel]

Great article, glad to know that if I am ever forced to defend myself inside my home I don't have to concern myself too much with the legal ramifications, just the moral and mental ones.

 

[Stomper]

And when making the justification to use deadly force, a resident must prove that a home invasion occurred and that the person shot was the perpetrator, but "beyond that you don't really have to prove much else," he said.

The "expert" has it backwards... the STATE has to PROVE a homicide WASN'T justified, and the STATE has to PROVE a home invasion DIDN'T occur, and the STATE has to PROVE it WASN'T the perpetrator who was shot...

 

[The Heretic]

Great article, glad to know that if I am ever forced to defend myself inside my home I don't have to concern myself too much with the legal ramifications, just the moral and mental ones.

You don't "know" anything from reading a news article except that you may need to learn about something.

Don't take the word of the news media on any given topic - learn for yourself. If the issue is a matter of law, look to the law itself - there are websites that have the verbatim law. Find them and read the law, then research how it was applied in court cases - the law isn't always very clear.

This is an issue where you don't want to be in the wrong.

 

[IheartSig]

It seems like we just had a thread where we discussed the two court cases that contradicted each other in terms of Oregon's Castle law and what the circuit court felt it represented didn't we?

 

[mjbskwim]

S.S.S

 

[rick benjamin]

Get and read "in the gravest extreme" by Mossad Ayoob
Get and read "the law of self defense" by Andrew Branca
After the shoot, call for help
Render aid
Without making a statement, co-operate with police.
Never say "I shot him". That confession inverts the law Stomper attributes in post 4.
Call your lawyer. Don't have a lawyer? Retain a criminal defense attorney.
<broken link removed>

 

[The Heretic]

As said, never talk to a law enforcement officer without a lawyer present.

 

[IheartSig]

Someone he

Get and read "in the gravest extreme" by Mossad Ayoob
Get and read "the law of self defense" by Andrew Branca
After the shoot, call for help
Render aid
Without making a statement, co-operate with police.
Never say "I shot him". That confession inverts the law Stomper attributes in post 4.
Call your lawyer. Don't have a lawyer? Retain a criminal defense attorney.
<broken link removed>

Excellent info Sir.

 

[PaulB47]

Good old Portland, "liberals with guns". Not to be messed with...

It must really suck to live in states like Cali or Mass.

 

[Koda]

"Your home is your castle according to the law," Levin said.

Under the laws, "you don't have to wait until your life is being threatened or your property is taken," Levin said. "You can open fire almost immediately."

can anyone cite Oregons Castle law?

as fas as I know we dont have one.

ORS 161.219 - Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person - 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes

 

[nammac]

can anyone cite Oregons Castle law?

as fas as I know we dont have one.

ORS 161.219 - Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person - 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes

That's as close as we get to a Castle Law... But precedent has been set with these cases this year...

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

can anyone cite Oregons Castle law?

as fas as I know we dont have one.

ORS 161.219 - Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person - 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes

Only case law right now. Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in State of Oregon v. Sandoval that the law "sets out a specific set of circumstances that justify a person's use of deadly force (that the person reasonably believes that another person is using or about to use deadly force against him or her) and does not interpose any additional requirement (including a requirement that there be no means of escape)." Oregon Judicial Department Appellate Court Opinions

There was an Oregon Resident Self-Defense Against Intruders Initiative in 2014 which did not get enough signatures. Maybe we can try again some day.

 

[Koda]

and does not interpose any additional requirement (including a requirement that there be no means of escape)."

if I understand it correct, Oregon courts have not yet imposed any additional requirements, (in any past, current... and future case law). And until we get an actual castle law passed, it could happen.

 

[The Heretic]

if I understand it correct, Oregon courts have not yet imposed any additional requirements, (in any past, current... and future case law). And until we get an actual castle law passed, it could happen.

More or less agree - I haven't looked at the case law or discussions, but the way courts work today and the political pressure, unless an actual law is passed protecting a right, then the courts may use a different interpretation, and even were there is clear case law, some appeals court may find that the case law was wrong ("in error").

 

[Stomper]

If Hillary (for prison) says the SCOTUS got it wrong about the 2A, you can bet your arse that Gov. Brown (clown) and company will push for exactly what you're talking about when the "opportunity" presents itself.

 

[nammac]

If Hillary (for prison) says the SCOTUS got it wrong about the 2A, you can bet your arse that Gov. Brown (clown) and company will push for exactly what you're talking about when the "opportunity" presents itself.

Need to sweep them out of power in November, that's the right thing to do...

 

[Koda]

More or less agree - I haven't looked at the case law or discussions, but the way courts work today and the political pressure, unless an actual law is passed protecting a right, then the courts may use a different interpretation, and even were there is clear case law, some appeals court may find that the case law was wrong ("in error").

thats how I understand it.
and notice how the Oregonians legal expert expressed concern for some copycat effect "galvanising homeowners" of home defense shootings after a lengthy explaination how Oregons "castle doctrine" is much less strict that other states that have a "higher bar"...

tbe article really expresses well the anti gun sentiment here in Oregon.

 

[Member 5605]

As one commenter on the article pointed out it appears the author is more concerned with the number of shootings than the number of break ins.

More concerned with the effect than the cause. Backwards reporting?