Be glad you don't live in Oregon...

Discussion in 'In the News' started by Macktee, Jun 29, 2007.

  1. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    www.katu.com



    Police: Homeowner, 71, shot intruder in NE home

    The homeowner who police say shot a suspected burglar looks back across Glisan Street while being interviewed by police.
    YouNewsTVâ„¢

    Story Published: Jun 29, 2007 at 7:19 AM PDT

    Story Updated: Jun 29, 2007 at 12:54 PM PDT
    By Melanie Wingo and KATU Web Staff

    PORTLAND, Ore. - Police converged on a home in northeast Portland Friday after a homeowner reportedly shot and injured an intruder.

    Police say evidence at the home is consistent with a forced entry and that residents in the home woke up early Friday after hearing breaking glass and someone moving around in an enclosed porch area of the home.

    A 71-year-old man in the residence, Leroy Hudson, reportedly fired one shot at the suspected intruder.

    The injured suspect, a 26-year-old male, was transported to a local hospital with injuries described as "life threatening." Police said he was shot in the head.

    One local resident said he sees "weird people" walking around the area at all hours of the night and is not surprised at the incident.

    Oregon law does permit the use of deadly force if a homeowner feels a threat is imminent.

    Northeast Glisan Street between 105th and 109th Avenue was closed for several hours while police investigated the incident.



    Find this article at:
    http://www.katu.com/news/8245062.html



    .
     

  2. ptsmith24

    ptsmith24 New Member

    8,809
    0
    0
    No. The media said it. It must be correct.
     
  3. wsweeks2

    wsweeks2 New Member

    6,306
    0
    0
    I'm having a hard time understanding the title of this thread if they allow the use of force in this case.

    :-k
     
  4. spam_can

    spam_can New Member

    22
    0
    0
    Sure wish they would write laws in English;

    Because I'm not very fluent in Legalese.
     
  5. foshizzle

    foshizzle New Member

    1,283
    0
    0
    I don't care if a threat is imminent or not. If you're in my house after getting through a locked door or two you stand a better than even chance of getting killed. I don't plan on waiting to see if a threat materializes before I shoot. Forced entry is imminent threat enough for me.
     
  6. ptsmith24

    ptsmith24 New Member

    8,809
    0
    0
    +1
     
  7. wsweeks2

    wsweeks2 New Member

    6,306
    0
    0
    A dead man won't go to court and tell a different story either.
     
  8. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Exactly why you shoot to ground.
     
  9. wsweeks2

    wsweeks2 New Member

    6,306
    0
    0
    Like I've told my fiance, if someone is enough of a threat for me to shoot, I shoot to kill - 2 shots center mass and one to the head.
     
  10. ptsmith24

    ptsmith24 New Member

    8,809
    0
    0
    Just curious. There's no different levels of threat? It's threat=headshot? I'm not dogging on it.
     
  11. maddog

    maddog New Member

    220
    0
    0
    Tresspassers shall be shot, survivors shot again and again
     
  12. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    It is extremely difficult for me to even comprehend the possibility the media may have gotten it wrong. Horrors!

    It's really a shame we don't have a lawyer-to-English dictionary readily available... I read this a couple of times and all I got out of it was a headache!


    da Ooreegoon law

    "161.225 Use of physical force in defense of premises. (1) A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

    (2) A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (1) of this section only:

    (a) In defense of a person as provided in ORS 161.219 * ; or

    (b) When the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson or a felony by force and violence by the trespasser.


    (3) As used in subsection (1) and subsection (2)(a) of this section, “premises†includes any building as defined in ORS 164.205 and any real property. As used in subsection (2)(b) of this section, “premises†includes any building. [1971 c.743 §25]"


    * "161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, 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]"



    And this means, if I may paraphrase foshizzle, who so eloquently stated it... "Bust into mah house an', in accordance with ORS 161.219, Ah'm gonna bust ah cap in yore ass! Actually, several!!!"


    Or, to phrase it a bit more succinctly, I hereby retract my original message "subject" line. :oops:



    .
     
  13. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    I'll try to do my best lawyer to english translation after a few beers...so I may have to clean this up in the morning.

    Basically, per 161.225, person A can use physical force against person B when person B to stop or keep from happening criminal trespass.

    ALSO
    Person A may use deadly force if they are in lawful possession or control of the place AND IF they do so in defense of another as prescribed by 161.219 OR person A reasonably believes they need to use deadly force to stop an arson or a forcible felony or "violence by the trespasser".
     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,387
    394
    83
    161.219(2) - burglary counts.