Oregon State v Oliphant - Self defense

[Nick Burkhardt]

Oregon supreme court ruling that defendant Kenneth Wood had the right to defend himself against what he believed was unlawful physical force being used against him police officers. This case also established that the premise of self defense lies solely on the defendant raising self defense, and that the intent or mindset of the person whom the defendant defended himself against is irrelevant. Self defense is in the mindset of the person charged with a crime and claiming self defense, and whether that person thought that their "assailant" was using or about to use unlawful force against them, whether or not that force was lawful or unlawful.

Read More

 

[Medic!]

Good luck with that.





I've also got a video on the matter.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

The take away is not the cop part, but that Self defense is in the mindset of the person charged with a crime and claiming self defense, and that the intent or mindset of the person whom the defendant defended himself against is irrelevant.

 

[Provincial]

The key is that the judge prohibited testimony about the defendant's (Strickland's) mindset. Combined with the Oregon Supreme Court rulings, it should be grounds for a new trial.

In a fair society, there should be serious sanctions againt the judge who denied the defendant full opportunity to defend himself in court.

Portland may be turning into Caracas, but perhaps Oregon has not yet turned into Venezuela.

 

[Mark W.]

Man look at them grannies wiggle their backsides!

 

[AirWolf]

I think Strickland got screwed by the State, but it's bad advice. There is nothing in the ORS that says Officers must use the minimum force required to arrest someone and if they use more that's grounds to "fight back." The ORS says officers must use reasonable force. Reasonable being contestant with training, understanding of what force is needed, societies understanding of what's reasonable.

There is no force continuum, that's an outdated concept. If I tell a guy he's under arrest I can't cold clock him to make the arrest easier, that would be unreasonable, but if I grab him and he tenses up and resist moving his arms to be cuffed I can use reasonable force to overcome that resistance.

What the court decision actually says (this is a small extract, but I beleive the most relevant part) is:

"If a person being arrested [physically] opposes an arresting officer, the officer may use reasonable force to overcome the opposition. If, however, the officer uses unreasonable physical force to arrest a person who is offering no unlawful resistance -- as I have defined that term for you -- that person may use physical force for self-defense from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the officer. In defending, the person may only use that degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary. The burden of proof is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this defense does not apply."

IE, if a person is only passively resisting, or not resisting at all, an officer can't start hitting them in the head with a stick, something which could cause death.

Please note: ORS 162.315 - Resisting arrest - 2017 Oregon Revised Statutes

subsection 3 "It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer or parole and probation officer lacked legal authority to make the arrest or book the person, provided the officer was acting under color of official authority."

I only post because I don't want people to take the quick version Strickland posted and think somehow it's ok to resist being detained or arrested and get themselves in more trouble and hurt.

 

[AirWolf]

I'd like to also post a section from the court case

"If a peace officer uses excessive force in making an arrest, the arrestee has a right to use physical force in self-defense against the excessive force being used by the officer. * * * In that circumstance, the arrestee is not 'resisting arrest,' but, rather, is defending against the excessive force being used by the arresting officer."

Strickland's video title says "
You Can Legally Fight Police In Oregon, But You Can't Defend Against Mob Violence"

That is such bad advice, no you can not legally fight police in Oregon, in fact the court makes a distinction from defending yourself (which you also can only do up to a reasonable force level) against an unreasonable use of force and resisting arrest by fighting the police. So while there are a very very few limited exceptions to when you can use force against an arrest you are badly served by taking this as some kind of good interpretation of the law.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]