Bronze Supporter
- Messages
- 8,292
- Reactions
- 18,110
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.
pick 2, shoot them. hang them in front of the store as an example.
Unfortunately since they didn't present an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury (according to the story) you couldn't legally shoot any of them...
Disparity of force and/or felony crime being committed, you pick, absolutely justifies deadly force. If the lady who was terrorized by multiple males who are committing a felony crime all ready isn't justification...what is?
If I was in that store, my firearm would be in my hand and no one...NO ONE...would lay a hand on me or terrorize me within 21 feet of my position.
Not in any legal sense in Oregon. Weather that is right or wrong is a different discussion all together. I personally still feel the guy running the 7-11 who whipped out a huge can of bear spray to disperse the "flash-rob" has had the best idea yet!
They'd have to steal an awful lot of candy to make it a felony...
Sorry I didn't post any statues with my previous post.
§ 166.015¹
Riot
(1) A person commits the crime of riot if while participating with five or more other persons the person engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm.
(2) Riot is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §218]
ORS 166.015 - Riot - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes
and
§ 161.219¹
Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person
Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), 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]
ORS 161.219 - Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes
So...unless you two have any other statues that can make an exception to these...the flash mob was committing a felony, there was also disparity of force, they were burglarizing an establishment, and they were threatening other customers, and so much more that would justify the use of deadly force. I will await your rebuttal :-D
I don't know if a person can reasonably conclude they were engaged in a "riot"- I think it could be argued either way. I personally don't think 40 kids shoplifting qualifies as "engaging in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm" I can see alarm of the public, but I don't see how they were violent to the point deadly force is justified. I fail to see the violent conduct required to justify the use of deadly force.
As for the second statute it doesn't apply since they were not in a dwelling, not threatening the use of imminent force against anyone or using or about to use deadly physical force on anyone, and they were not "Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person"
My point is that it's easy to be a keyboard commando and advocate the use of deadly force to counteract a bunch of reprehensible little punks stealing snickers bars- I think that attitude is dumb at best and flat out ignorant. If you choose to shoot some kid trying to steal stuff at the mall or grocery store- do so at your own peril- I think you will have a difficult time staying out of jail because you capped someone's delicate snowflake of a child over some M&M's
1) It wasn't burglary, per legal definition. Nor was Alberstons a "dwelling", per legal definition. Theft and burglary are different things.
2) While they may have been "rioting", you watch the raw footage and you tell me, which one's would you have shot?
While these goons are no angels, it's hard for me to watch the raw footage and be able to say, "yeah, I would have plugged one in THIS guy".
And while I can sympathize with the frustration that folks here have with this kind of criminality, I do not think it does the gun/2a/CCW/defensive carry community any favors for us to be searching for reasons to shoot young thugs. Politics and whatnot.
Now, if someone would just tell me what I should do with all my trash at public shooting areas, and whether or not I should point guns at people I don't intend to shoot, all the riddles of life would be answered...
/Sarcasm/.
I'm reasonably sure there is a dollar amount of stolen goods that progresses from shoplifting to the different degrees of theft, into burglary etc- I think advising people to make a snap judgment as to if hoodlum scum have stolen the appropriate amount of goods from a grocery store to become a felony, thusly giving a person a green light for deadly force is absurd. If you want to step in and start blasting, that's your choice. I think it is ill-advised and I'd never shoot someone over a Reeces Peanut Butter Cup.
(it's hard to talk about shooting kids and candy without mentioning Skittles you know?)