User Panel
Posted: 3/10/2006 12:40:10 PM EDT
So, what I've gathered from this is, the "Good Guy" grabs a shotgun, shoots at the "Bad Guy", bad guy comes back, good guy shoots again, bad guy gets minor hits, takes the shotgun away, and throws it in the canal, and runs off. Months later, when all is said and done, the guy who had his home and his life violated by criminal scum is convicted of a felony, eliminating his right to own firearms. To add insult to injury, he received the same sentence as the actual criminal. Outrageous. |
||
|
|
I think this is what did him in. Its a BIG no-no to shot a fleeing felon. There is no protection for this under Oregon law. |
|
|
According to the second article, the first shot (as he was fleeing) was a misfire...
Either way, this happened in Albany. Part of Oregon's preemption law, ORS 166.172, gives city's the ability to regulat discharge of firearms.
Basically, I interpret this to read that counties and cities can't prohibit the discharge of a firearm in defense of person or property. Albany's ordinance on this, 7.16.030 reads:
Both seem to indicate that it's legal to discharge a firearm in defense of your person OR PROPERTY. Linn County doesn't appear to have anything in the County Code about firearms whatsoever. (ETA: Just confirmed with a Linn County Sheriff's Deputy, and the Linn County Clerk's Office - Linn County follows the Oregon Revised Statutes, and hasn't enacted any Code of their own.) I'm searching the ORS 166 stuff, which is where firearms are regulated, and I can't find any other ORS that says that you CAN'T use lethal force to defend your property. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying that I can't find it in my half-assed search. If you have the info, please, let me know, because I'd love to read it. |
||
|
story seems goofed anyway. accidental discharge and hits the guy while he flees? guy returns and takes another round but manages to get up to the owner and takes away his shotty and throws it in the water ditch? and these two are acquainted? only thing missing is the burglar didn't stick the shotty up the homeowners ass while a third person shot some video of it.
|
|
That section only regulates discharge of a firearm, and is there to ensure that if they can't get you for injuring/killing a criminal, then they get you for illegal discharge of a firearm.
You need to look at the sections regarding the use of force and deadly force. 161.205(5) says when you can use physical force when protecting self, other person or property:
So we are fine to use force, but so far, not deadly force in defense of property. The next sections deals with defense of property:
Section (2) covers deadly force. You are permitted to use deadly force to prevent arson -- so you can protect your property against that. Otherwise, you cannot, unless the perp. is using "force and violence" -- note this is prevention, not retribution, so once they are no longer persuing a path of force and violence -- like having left the premises, you no longer have justification. Keep reading... 161.219 lets us use deadly force, including in a dwelling to protect against burglary. Note "in a dwelling". Note that 161.229 explicitly says you may NOT use force in defense of property.
As for the "fleeing felon" part -- Only a "peace officer" may use deadly force:
So I see nothing there which permits you to follow a burglar out of your house and blast away at him -- but I do see prohibitions against doing so. |
||||
|
You should be an attorney. Sounds like their both dumbasses and Bradetich should never have fired. |
|
|
Like it or not Kythri. you cannot shoot a burglar while he (or she) is fleeing!
You can't kill someone while they are running off with your stereo! |
|
The problem with the law as it stands is that you can't shoot someone runninf off with your stereo -- which is (sort of) reasonable, but neither can you shoot someone you disturb cutting your kid's throat if he turns and runs.
Of course, find a jury that would actually convict (outside Portland) might be a challenge. |
|
(I'm going to summarize, and not quote the entire post, so I can make sure we're on the same page, and not have to create huge long replies )
Right.
I can use physical force to defend my premises, and can escalate to deadly physical force if I'm defending someone else, or if the guy is trying to burn my place down, or trying to commit a felony using force and violence of his own. This would be where I'm allowed to shoot the guy who's just busted into my house, and is holding a gun menacingly, I'd imagine.
So, I wake up, walk downstairs, and see some punk trying to steal, or stealing my DVD player - I can physically restraing him, etc., but can't use deadly physical force.
Burglary is defined as:
And so under 166.219, I'm allowed to shoot him if he "enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein", but once he starts trying to steal my shit, or commit any other crime for which deadly physical force is not allowed, I'm not allowed to shoot anymore?
Don't take this the wrong way - I'm not looking for the very narrow circumstances, because I'm itching to shoot someone - I'm just trying to understand all of this. With that said, it's a damned shame we don't have Texas-style laws here. It's asinine that we can be violated as such, and these maggots are allowed to live. |
|||||||
|
All of that aside, though, what's still completely screwed up in all of this is that the REAL criminal, the guy who burglarized the house and attempted to steal his stuff, received the exact same punishment as the guy had his home burglarized. |
|
|
I agree with your analysis -- except that deadly physical force is allowed under 161.219 says:
If you believe that the person is about to use physical or deadly force against you or someone else you are entitled to use deady force to prevent it. Its really all about what you believe, and how you justify that belief later. Convincing a grand jury that you believed someone running away, and who you shot in the back, to be a threat might take some doing. |
|
|
Ok, so it's agreed that you can't shoot a fleeing felon.
However, there was a thread with a video posted in GD a little while back, of a burglar attempting to rob a hotel at gun point. Hotel employee busts out a handgun, burglar turns around to run out, and hotel employee caps him three times. Pretty sure he got off without any punishment. Does the criminal bearing a firearm make a difference? |
|
Three words: roll them over |
|
|
Different state, mang. ETA: Also depends a lot on the DA. I'd imagine that if the video incident (I saw it too) happened in a state with laws like Oregon, and there was a large enough public outcry about the shooter not getting punished, the DA would change his tune. Linn County's DA, Jason Carlile, is kind of a douche. |
|
|
there is actually more to this story, I will ask and find out.
|
|
I think there must be. I'm trying to remember some details and the time frame but I think in the late 80s. There was a man in Albany who saw a guy breaking into his car that was parked on the street. He hollered at the guy who continued to rifle through his car, then he shot and killed the guy. There was a public outcry, the guy went to trial, and was acquitted. I don't remember exactly what they charged him with. This Bradetich pled no contest and I don't understand why he would have done that if there wasn't something else going on. Makes you wonder if the other guy was trying to steal his favorite bong or something. NMSight |
|
|
Maybe it was a "coustomer" whod decided the product he recieved was not worth the stereo he traded for it? Regardless, if tghey run out of your house, don't chase them down and shoot them. We need more laws like FL and TN. |
||
|
Oregon laws really are like the FL law already -- if you believe that you, or someone else, is in danger you can use deadly force to stop it. Inside your home, or outside. The only fly in the ointment is this little gem:
Although it doesn't say it, this has been interpreted by Oregon's supreme court to require retreat if at all possible. They used another test not mentioned in the law, that of "the reasonable man", and their reasonable man would always try to avoid using deadly force if possible. We just need to add one more line, saying quite simply that there is no requirement to retreat before using physical or deadly force to meet agression. We should use the liberal's own tactics, and just slip such an amendment into an unrelated bill -- something on school funding for example. |
||
|
On a completely different note, we need to enact legislation at the state and federal level that prevents amendments unrelated to the host bill. |
|||
|
Sliping our little gem into a school funding bill would encourage the dems to back such a law
|
|
Not picking a fight but pointing that out as a liberal tactic is way one-sided. That tactic is used by both sides of the aisle, frequently.
Totally agree. Also we should prevent the 'gut-and-replace' manuever that has been used before (wait until the bill gets past some hurdles and then amend it by completely replacing the content with something else). |
||
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.