Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Koda94
Quote:
ORS 161.219 Limitations on use of deadly 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]
|
(emphasis mine)
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/161.219
In regards to (2) it seems like too much of a "blanket statement" to describe all situations of lethal force exceptions during a burglary. How is it possible to be justified in using lethal force if the defender is not in jeopardy? Also, does this section apply only to the property owner, like say if you see someone breaking into your neighbors house?...
|
Okay, let's walk through this.
- In some ways ORS 161.219(2) is a sort of variation on a Castle Doctrine law. For example, California's version, Penal Code 198.5, reads (emphasis added):
Quote:
|
Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.
|
This is the customary phrasing of a Castle Doctrine -- a presumption of a fear of death or great bodily injury if someone breaks into your home.
- This is consistent with the general definition of burglary: The breaking and entering of a dwelling house for the purposes of committing a felony therein.
- Note also Oregon's statutory definition of burglary in the first degree, ORS 164.225:
Quote:
(1) A person commits the crime of burglary in the first degree if the person violates ORS 164.215 (Burglary in the second degree) and the building is a dwelling, or if in effecting entry or while in a building or in immediate flight therefrom the person:
(a) Is armed with a burglary tool or theft device as defined in ORS 164.235 (Possession of a burglary tool or theft device) or a deadly weapon;
(b) Causes or attempts to cause physical injury to any person; or
(c) Uses or threatens to use a dangerous weapon.
(2) Burglary in the first degree is a Class A felony. [1971 c.743 §137; 2003 c.577 §10]
|
- Historically, under Common Law, the breaking and entering of a person's home was considered a very serious crime and by it's very nature to inherently pose a grave threat to the well being and security of the inhabitants.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kilimanjaro
How are Oregonians going to determine intent? Doesn't seem to be a requirement of the law.
|
No matter what the particular law regarding the justifiable use of violence against another human might be, you will always have the problem of exercising judgement and articulating why, under the circumstances, you decided that you had no choice but to intentionally hurt of kill someone. You will need to make an assessment based on what's happening.
So if someone kicks in your door and yells, "Where is your jewelry?", that sounds like a burglary. If your neighbor falls through your door, forcing it open, muttering, "dis don't look like my house", you've probably got a lost and drunk neighbor.
So as we've said before, these laws don't create a free-fire zone, nor are they licenses to kill. They are more like escape hatches when your left with absolutely no other choice.