Short article on when u can use deadly force

[ilikegunspdx]

The Q was asked in a recent threat if you can respond with deadly force if someone maces you. Short answer, no you can't.

Oregon defense attorney breaks down when it's legal to use deadly force

When is it legal to use deadly force in Oregon? A review of the state's Castle Doctrine law showed some gray areas when it comes to defending your home or business. With unrest across the country, some are taking the decision to protect themselves into their own hands. What is legal? In short...

katu.com

"You're still going to have to have the reasonable degree of belief that there's imminent physical danger that's going to be presented to you," Hoffman said. "The threat has to be commensurate with what would be reasonable in killing another person."

Another article posted before FYI

Self-Defense and Deadly Force in Oregon - Super Lawyers Oregon

Self-Defense and Deadly Force in Oregon - an article appearing in Super Lawyers Magazine August 2015

www.superlawyers.com

Read More

 

[No_Regerts]

How do you deduce that out of these articles?

 

[ilikegunspdx]

How do you deduce that out of these articles?

See quote

 

[No_Regerts]

See quote

Its all about context. The blanket statement that you can't shoot someone who has pepper spray is false. Ever been pepper sprayed? I'd say getting your most important sense wiped out and the distraction of pain as a pretty serious threat. If you have been sprayed before, its even easier to articulate because you can explain the level of "incapacitation" you experienced. If the bad guy has buddies and they have bats or pipes and you've seen them destroying things.....you get the point. Its the totality of circumstances.

 

[Stomper]

Its all about context. The blanket statement that you can't shoot someone who has pepper spray is false. Ever been pepper sprayed? I'd say getting your most important sense wiped out and the distraction of pain as a pretty serious threat. If you have been sprayed before, its even easier to articulate because you can explain the level of "incapacitation" you experienced. If the bad guy has buddies and they have bats or pipes and you've seen them destroying things.....you get the point. Its the totality of circumstances.

All these small wristed little table rat lawyers sitting around conjecturing about "what if's", Who have never been in any physical confrontation and would sue TP companies if they got a rash on their bunghole while wiping it.

 

[Stomper]

oops... duplicate.

 

[ma96782]

IMHO.....
I'd say that......
The entire equation has been changed with the Michael Strickland decision in Portlandia, OR.

Well, at least for "self-defense incidents" that occur in OR. And who knows, if the sickness has already spread to the entire "Left Coast" and beyond?

Aloha, Mark.

 

[No_Regerts]

IMHO.....
I'd say that......
The entire equation has been changed with the Michael Strickland decision in Portlandia, OR.

Well, at least for "self-defense incidents" that occur in OR. And who knows, if the sickness has already spread to the entire "Left Coast" and beyond?

Aloha, Mark.

Thats the biggest rub. Equal protection of the law. What strickland did wouldn't have been an issue in other states.

 

[66PonyCar]

If you get pepper sprayed in the face you're not going to be in any condition to aim and fire a weapon. If you simply spray and pray you're going to be in a world of hurt if you hit an innocent by-stander.

 

[Xaevian]

Actually the short answer should be "it depends".

 

[No_Regerts]

If you get pepper sprayed in the face you're not going to be in any condition to aim and fire a weapon. If you simply spray and pray you're going to be in a world of hurt if you hit an innocent by-stander.

Sometimes. Some people get totally locked up. They should shoot before getting sprayed. Some just get real angry and would rather beat you to death.

 

[Dinglenutz]

Its all about context. The blanket statement that you can't shoot someone who has pepper spray is false. Ever been pepper sprayed? I'd say getting your most important sense wiped out and the distraction of pain as a pretty serious threat. If you have been sprayed before, its even easier to articulate because you can explain the level of "incapacitation" you experienced. If the bad guy has buddies and they have bats or pipes and you've seen them destroying things.....you get the point. Its the totality of circumstances.

If you're carrying a handgun and you're incapacitated by an attacker, they have access to your firearm. That makes it a potentially deadly confrontation. The best nutshell legal advice I heard was this: If you're faced with a self defense situation, ask yourself "If I pull the trigger and get locked up for 20 years, would I be glad I pulled the trigger on the last day of my sentence?"

For some scenarios the answer is going to be yes, but for many, no.

The entire equation has been changed with the Michael Strickland decision in Portlandia, OR.

In my opinion Mr Strickland made numerous firearm handling errors that caused the vast majority of his legal issues, including but not limited to pulling when he hadn't yet apparently committed to shooting.

 

[Cerberus Group]

I'm still amazed that people will ask such a major life changing question on a forum.

I've been saying for decades now...for the price of a case of ammo, find an attorney that is well versed in use of force issues, meaning they have successfully defended and or prosecuted such cases, sit down with him or her and thoroughly go over such laws in your state, as well as scenarios to gain the best understanding.

 

[Dinglenutz]

I've been saying for decades now...for the price of a case of ammo, find an attorney that is well versed in use of force issues, meaning they have successfully defended and or prosecuted such cases, sit down with him or her and thoroughly go over such laws in your state, as well as scenarios to gain the best understanding.

When I went to get my mandatory training decades ago, it was a 1:1 with an assistant DA who was working in Salem, OR at the time and doing these classes because he believed in the RKBA and wanted to do his part to ensure people did it right. We had just such a discussion for most of the session, after he determined I knew how to safely and properly manipulate handguns.

It would be wonderful if every CHL holder had a similar experience IMO.

 

[No_Regerts]

If you're faced with a self defense situation, ask yourself "If I pull the trigger and get locked up for 20 years, would I be glad I pulled the trigger on the last day of my sentence?"

For some scenarios the answer is going to be yes, but for many, no.

Prison food sucks, but not horrible. You can still order from the store. In WA, you get cable TV in your cell. The Prison Rape Elimination Act pretty much keeps you from being corn-holed.

 

[ma96782]

In my opinion Mr Strickland made numerous firearm handling errors that caused the vast majority of his legal issues, including but not limited to pulling when he hadn't yet apparently committed to shooting.

I disagree. I believe that......
Strickland pulled out his weapon to ward off what he perceived was a potentially deadly attack upon him. Maybe, he would have pulled the trigger if that didn't work? Or maybe, he wasn't prepared to actually shoot? Who knows? I can't read his mind. Perhaps.....he's thinking? If the attackers retreat or for the moment stop. It's time to de-escalate and/or make my escape. If, the attackers come closer (thus, solidifying my belief of an imminent attack)......then, it's GO TIME. So then.....his attackers were thwarted without shots being fired. He was able to de-escalate and seek safety. In Strickland's book.....he was probably happy with that outcome. Additionally.....well, for most people (I believe).....they don't want to kill/take a life when they don't ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO (well, most sane people at least).

So then, from (based on) your post.....
It appears to me that.....
Your belief is that.....
If you pull your firearm out of it's holster then you'd better be firing it.

Nope. IMHO, there are circumstances and times......to pull the trigger and times when you don't. In Strickland's case he decided not to. It was his decision to make. Your criticism of this action (or inaction) is like.....Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

The analogy of the Samurai is long gone.

Wait.....what?

LOL. Once the Samurai pulls his sword.....it must taste blood.

Of course maybe I "read" you incorrectly?

Whatever.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Dinglenutz]

It appears to me that.....
Your belief is that.....
If you pull your firearm out of it's holster then you'd better be firing it.

Not exactly.

The assistant DA who discussed the issue with me put it this way. Before I pull, I should have decided I have to shoot. I have whatever time elapses between deciding to shoot and actually shooting to change my mind, and I should keep the no shoot option open as my first choice if it presents itself.

Strickland pulled his gun out and waved it around. That's not OK. Once he reconsidered and decided not to shoot he handled it poorly IMO.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I'm still amazed that people will ask such a major life changing question on a forum.

I've been saying for decades now...for the price of a case of ammo, find an attorney that is well versed in use of force issues, meaning they have successfully defended and or prosecuted such cases, sit down with him or her and thoroughly go over such laws in your state, as well as scenarios to gain the best understanding.

Imo it is not realistic at all for the large number of concealed carriers to individually hire an attorney ahead of time to ask these questions. The reality is that is not going to happen. Thus the need for discussion.

Sharing what we have heard attorneys say on the subject for example is much more helpful than telling poeple to go individually hire an attorney. We are here to help each other learn and share our experiences and ideas.

 

[washagonian]

A good source of info about self-defense law is Andrew Branca. He's and attorney specializing in self-defense law for the past 20 years.

Yes, he aggressively markets his subscription services, but that doesn't make him wrong. It just makes him a successful entrepreneur taking advantage of the free market system.

I've paid for and sat through a couple of his seminars online (each was over six hours) and it is the best information I've found on the subject, and the best investment of all of the money I've spent trying to learn about self-defense law.

Given that this information is from an attorney that is practicing with self-defense clients daily, I'm much more likely to use the information he's providing than anything else that's offered out there in "internet land".

His information has significantly changed my ways of thinking and decision making on the use of deadly-force for defense of self or others. It is much more complicated than most of us think.

If you believe in half of the information Branca provides, then it is frightening how much we - as a firearms carrying community - do NOT understand about self-defense law.

I agree with @Cerberus Group - take the time to consult with an attorney who is knowledgeable in self-defense law (many attorneys are not). If you've done that - great. If you haven't, it's something seriously worth considering. It is truly an eye opening experience. And at the price of ammo today - it will probably cost you LESS and a 1000 round case of 9mm.

Cheers.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Not exactly.

The assistant DA who discussed the issue with me put it this way. Before I pull, I should have decided I have to shoot. I have whatever time elapses between deciding to shoot and actually shooting to change my mind, and I should keep the no shoot option open as my first choice if it presents itself.

Strickland pulled his gun out and waved it around. That's not OK. Once he reconsidered and decided not to shoot he handled it poorly IMO.

Lots of cops have their weapon out and alongside their leg while doing simple traffic stops.