Thoughts on Using a Gun to Defend Your Property

[Stomper]

That sounds scary to me considering the pool of people I have been around the last few times I have gone to jury duty If I have to ever shoot anyone again I would love to have the case moved to the most red neck part of the state.

You just have to avoid analogies, and get them to picture themselves in the situation.... images/pictures and emotions are the power to pursuade.

 

[AirWolf]

For Oregon when using the Oregon Laws website, always look at the anotations, that's where the case law decisions are put. It's very important, it tells you what the Courts have said and it lets you know what the Jury is going to be instructed.

Defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense under either this section or ORS 161.225 (Use of physical force in defense of premises) (2) if there is evidence in the record that he was in imminent danger of receiving great bodily harm from the other person. State v. Burns, 15 Or App 552, 516 P2d 748 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

The fact that defendant produced and threatened to use a firearm in an attempt to terminate a criminal trespass did not deprive him of the right to claim self-defense under this section for the actual use of the firearm which occurred subsequently. State v. Burns, 15 Or App 552, 516 P2d 748 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt. It's an old decision (1973), but defendant (our shooter) ended up defending himself with the gun he brought to confront a bad guy, shot him, got arrested, went all the way to the Supreme Court which denied to hear it. Even though he brought his gun it didn't mean he lost his right to self defense.

In 1982 the Court said you do have a duty to retreat, but in 2007 the Court reversed that with:

Person is not required to retreat before using deadly physical force to defend against imminent use of deadly physical force by another. State v. Sandoval, 342 Or 506, 156 P3d 60 (2007)

but.....

Even when one or more of threatening circumstances described in this statute is present, use of deadly force is justified only if it does not exceed "degree of force which person reasonably believes to be necessary" under ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person). State v. Haro, 117 Or App 147, 843 P2d 966 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

The force used has to be reasonable, it's the Cop on scene, then a DA, then a Grand Jury and ultimately a trial Jury who will get to determine what's reasonable. Don't think for a moment it's the same in Multnomah County as Coos County.

 

[bbbass]

That sounds scary to me considering the pool of people I have been around the last few times I have gone to jury duty If I have to ever shoot anyone again I would love to have the case moved to the most red neck part of the state.

Which is? Even here is no longer certain. Better go to Wallowa, Baker, Morrow, etc.

 

[Alexx1401]

Which is? Even here is no longer certain. Better go to Wallowa, Baker, Morrow, etc.

Of course do not really get a choice but if I did? Last choice would be King County. If I could get some small county in Eastern WA that would be first choice. That is assuming they would not let me move it to some small county in ID
My last several times on duty were Pierce Co. Scary a lot of what I run into here if it was my butt on the line.

 

[bbbass]

My last several times on duty were Pierce Co. Scary a lot of what I run into here if it was my butt on the line.

Every time i had jury duty the others made me the foreman... Dumbazzes!!!

 

[Alexx1401]

You just have to avoid analogies, and get them to picture themselves in the situation.... images/pictures and emotions are the power to pursuade.

Believe me if I end up having to shoot, and it goes that far, I would do all I could. Just scares me to think of the ones I have spent days with sitting around in that pool waiting to end up on something. Last time it was a death penalty type case. I got one crazy woman kicked out and probably will be removed from the call back. She was one of the people who was a finalist. Apparently I was the only one listening to her who decided this had to stop and went to the judge with concerns. All I could think of was the torture of being kept in a room with her for days.

 

[ma96782]

If you shoot, in any situation, in any place, inside or outside, in the dogs house, in the tool shed, in your car, on your roof, only one thing matters. Your mouth and what comes out after. Unless it's on video and even then if it goes "south" it will most likely have a lot to do with what you say after. The only "what if" is if the shooter starts talking and can't stop, which is normally how this all goes bad. Dobad has weapon or not. Did you feel your life was in danger? Can you keep your self under control when Police start asking questions? Wait for a Lawyer to start making your "what if" case and life has a real good chance of going back to normal. Can't stop talking? May not matter what dobad did or was doing. People often talk themselves into all kinds of problems after a shoot.

Just do it.....


Aloha, Mark

 

[NW Backpacker]

https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2018/legislation/S1313.pdf

Those are way better than Oregon laws, but they're weak. Too much is left to others to decide what is "reasonable" - a totally subjective concept which will have totally different meanings to different juries. I suspect laws are written this way so that attorneys have an endless supply of very expensive business.

 

[aksu747]

I think I was born 100 yrs out of my time.

Heck, I'm 25 and feel like I was born 100 years out of time.
I feel I'd fit in towards the end of the old west early 1900's, or late 1800's like 1875 or later would have been ideal, right after the metallic cartridge became popular.
Much rather live in those time periods where people didn't have their faces stuck in their cell phones 24/7 and people actually used to talk to each other.
This digital era is no good if you ask me, rather live more simply then deal with it hope to eventually live out in the sticks.
I don't much care for the clothing women my age and some women old enough to know better shouldn't be wearing, call me old fashioned but I have a lot more respect for a woman who is dressed modestly.

 

[The Heretic]

Those are way better than Oregon laws, but they're weak. Too much is left to others to decide what is "reasonable" - a totally subjective concept which will have totally different meanings to different juries. I suspect laws are written this way so that attorneys have an endless supply of very expensive business.

Laws are written that way so that they can fit the situation without having to be rewritten every five years or handle some situation that the legislators didn't think of when they wrote it. I.E., to get the general concept into law and let humans decide whether it was broken or not.

Unfortunately, society is vulnerable to manipulation. Eventually the majority, could decide that lethal force is not reasonable at all, period, and miss the whole point of the law. Of course, in that case, they could just repeal the law too (or replace it with something that more or less negates it) - even though the concept is probably protected by the constitution.

That is not a problem with how the law is written, it is a problem with society and how it is "educated". Part of that "education" is life experience. Society, for a time, had a rather peaceful environment with regards to self-defense, and still does for the most part (except in certain urban environments) and people have forgotten, for various reasons, what it meant (and more importantly, why) to have to be able to defend for oneself against bad guys and crazies (and in the more general sense, to depend on one self without the government).

IMO, some of this was purposeful; those in power wanted more power, so they offered their constituency more largess from the government, and in trade took increasingly took away their constituency's rights and abilities to fend for themselves. Slowly but surely, this decayed individualism and our rights.

 

[PaulB47]

In a theoretical vein, there is no private property unless you are allowed prevent someone from taking it.

If someone is running away with my stuff I will probably give chase, although at my age that would be pointless. But if somebody is proposing to take something I have by brute force, even after I've pulled a gun out, he is going to get shot.

Private Property vs. 'Your Stuff' | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty

 

[The Heretic]

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

My shop is detached and I am usually in it. I fear for the guy that breaks into it while I am in there.

they would have a heart attack the second they see you come out of your gaming room

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

I too was born 100yrs out of my time, Im all for shooting car jackers.....hanging horse thieves all the same to me, some dogs just NEED to be put down!

 

[11Charlie]

they would have a heart attack the second they see you come out of your gaming room

Especially with a 45 pointed at there face!

 

[SUPER X]

Believe me if I end up having to shoot, and it goes that far, I would do all I could. Just scares me to think of the ones I have spent days with sitting around in that pool waiting to end up on something. Last time it was a death penalty type case. I got one crazy woman kicked out and probably will be removed from the call back. She was one of the people who was a finalist. Apparently I was the only one listening to her who decided this had to stop and went to the judge with concerns. All I could think of was the torture of being kept in a room with her for days.

Some of the people I've seen on jury duty could not even run their own life let alone make a decisiion that effects someone else .

 

[SUPER X]

I too was born 100yrs out of my time, Im all for shooting car jackers.....hanging horse thieves all the same to me, some dogs just NEED to be put down!

Home Invaders should be hung in public to send the educational message to others thinking of doing it.

 

[RailwayMan]

You can only use deadly physical force when your life or the life of others are in danger. You cannot use it to protect property, at least in Oregon.

In Oregon if it is not a burglar/robber INSIDE your OWN HOME and you shoot, you are going to jail and probably prison.
That's a socialist state for you.

 

[tac]

To a home invader in tacville -

Dear Sir - If you succeed in breaking into my house while I'm in it, something that, if you watch any British cop TV, you'll see is VERY difficult as well as VERY noisy, you'd just have to stand there and man up while I do awful things to you, but without using any kind of a firearm. I can promise that because your act of breaking in to my little house will have certainly put me in fear for not only MY life, but that of my precious Lady tac, it will be serious indeed. After all, I'm fighting for my life, and for that of my dear Lady tac. Being an average scumbag POS, used to preying on old ladies, and as we see on the news this evening, 98-y/o gentlemen, I can guarantee that you will never have met anybody like me before in your life, a career soldier with 33 years active service, and it will be a learning experience for you, to say the least.

In spite of false news to the contrary, please be advised by somebody who knows that at least half of the armed break-ins in this country end up with the breaker-inner either injured, or dead from the application of his own weapon. Sometimes, as happened in neighbouring county, Leicester, about five years ago, the armed invaders were met with a husband and wife team of shotgunners, who applied their skills when facing four thugs armed with pry-bars and the like. The farmer and his wife walked out of court. The four former armed invaders walked/limped/wheelchaired to the cells.

 

[Alexx1401]

In Oregon if it is not a burglar/robber INSIDE your OWN HOME and you shoot, you are going to jail and probably prison.
That's a socialist state for you.

While large parts of OR and my home are far from ideal, hyper boil like this does not help. If you really believe defending yourself will lead you going to jail I hope you do not carry a gun.
Now if you chose to chase someone out of your home and shoot at them, yes, you are looking at huge trouble. Not that you would not deserve it for being stupid. Now if you are confronted by another and your life is in danger you are not sure for jail or prison.