[chetrogers]

I was reading a thread on a store owner shooting a robber.And was wondering if a person comes into your house ect. and is going to cause you harm and you shoot him in your house but he runs outside of your house trying to get away..and he then dies.Can you get in trouble or better yet if he lives can he really sue you..Im sure most people "Including me" would shoot to kill..

[jsalcedo]

There is always the chance of litigation and even if the perp dies their family might sue you.

It doesn't take a good reason to be party to a lawsuit.

[HS/LD]

Not in the great state of Colorado.

We have the "make my day" law.

If they illegally enter your home you have the 'right' to use ANY force necessary, including lethal force.

You are immune to both criminal and civil prosecution.

Here is the statute;

18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
Statute text
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.



Come on over I'll leave the door open. :D



HS/LD

[chetrogers]

Wow that sounds good to me..Anyone know where i can find Oregons law for this..thanks

[SKN]

I don't have the Oregon statute law references, known as Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), in front of me as it's all at work and though I'm not a lawyer I can tell you that:

Oregon statute law justifies the use of deadly physical force against a person you reasonably believe is committing a burglary (non-permissive entry) of your dwelling to perpetrate a crime; case law has deeemed that this must be a crime of violence. Oregon case law recognizes the 'castle doctrine', that you are presumed to be safe and secure in your home, but this applies to your physical safety and not to the safety of property as statute law does not justify the use of deadly physical force to protect property.

Oregon statute law has no requirement to retreat from danger, however, case law considers the issue of retreat as part of the imminent defense of life standard. 'Imminent' has been interpreted by the courts to mean here, now and unavoidable.

In the scenario you describe as long as the statutory and case law requirements are met, it matters not at what location the adversary succumbs to wounds. Physical and forensic evidence should bear out the scene of engagement and then it will be up to you to articulate justification. Oregon has no statute granting civil immunity.

Last point, when you are forced to use deadly physical force you use it to stop the threat. You do not want to say to either the investigating officer(s), your attorney, or the reviewing judicial authorities be they civil or criminal that you 'shot to kill'.

If you've not done so already I'd suggest taking a CHL class to get up to speed on Oregon statute and case law relating to the use of deadly physical force. Also, you might do a search at the now archived forum The Firing Line, where these issues were discussed.

When I get back to work next week I'll post the applicable ORS sections numbers unless you find them on your own before then.

[swingset]

imminent defense of life

BG comes to your house (presumably to hurt you), you slug him, and he dies (either in your house or outside of it).

"Officer I told him not to come any closer, that I was armed and would shoot, but he kept coming. I had no choice".

This would be my response, even if I said it in my head. :D

[Don Gwinn]

If you shoot someone in your house, he staggers outside, and expires on the lawn, it will be obvious to police from the evidence at the scene what happened. Just don't mess up any evidence.

Conversely, if you take the advice of Gun Shop Commandos and drag him inside and put a kitchen knife in his hand, it will be just as obvious what happened. Again, make sure you don't mess up any evidence.

Also, get used to thinking in terms of shooting to stop. That way you are less likely to take a shot a jury might decide was meant "to kill" rather than defend yourself from an active threat.

[Flashpoint]

what's the difference between a shoot meant to stop and one meant to kill? The way I see it if they are dead they stopped.

[Art Eatman]

Flashpoint, there are many prosecutors who do not believe in your right to own a personal firearm at all, much less a handgun for self defense. Some prosecutors regard all homicides as murder, not allowing for self defense. That's reality, and you'll never know ahead of time without seriously following the careers of your local prosecutors.

So, in front of a Grand Jury or if indicted a regular jury, you need all the positive spin available to you--and this means care in choosing the words that are used in testimony.

IOW, don't confuse reality with law.

:), Art

[TarpleyG]

Gotta love that Colorado law. I'd bet that home invasions/burglaries aren't on the top of the crimes there.

GT

[LightPlanePilot]

the police now use the term 'shoot to stop' rather than 'shoot to kill' so it would make sense to adopt the same.

Now, when you have to shoot, you're not going to shoot any differently, right? You're going to shoot like you train.

The verbalization is merely semantics.

I believe that the change in 'verbage' resulted from a SWAT incident. In that case, the sharpshooter fired two shots - both hitting the target. The defence made the case that the SWAT officer was a sharpshooter and that one shot should have done the job. The second shot he considered to be cruel and unusual.

The case got tossed obviously. However, police no longer get graded or ranked - they either qualify or do not. And they've adopted the term 'shoot to stop' rather than 'shoot to kill'.

[foghornl]

If somebody comes into your house?

They will be treated as the un-invited vermin they are.

[geekWithA.45]

Flashpoint:

"Shoot to stop" has an important practical semantic:

In the presence of an imminent threat to life and limb, you may apply force until the threat is no longer present.

This means you may shoot until the assailant drops, runs away, or is otherwise neutralized. If he happens to be dead, that's incidental to the issue.

You may not, however, "shoot him till he's dead". If he's on the ground, for example, you may not "finish him off". If he's on the ground, and still has a projectile weapon, and he is pointing it at you, the threat is still present, and you may take the appropriate action.

If he runs away, the threat is no longer present, unless he was seeking better cover from which to shoot at you from, in which case the threat has re-emerged. From the legal perspective in many jurisdictions, your right of self defense can evaporate if you chase him out onto the lawn, for example. They may view that you had the right of self defense in the first engagement, but by giving chase, you open a second engagement in which _you_ are the assailant.

It's all very fluid, and the best overall policy is not to shoot unless you really have to. Unfortunately, the time in which you have to make that decision is measured in fractions of a second.

See the difference?

[Partisan Ranger]

I think this is a good reason to live in a pro-gun state. If, God forbid, you have to use deadly force to defend yourself, you're more likely to not be prosecuted in Texas or Virginia, for example, than NJ or (shudder) CA.

[Double Naught Spy]

Simply put in regard to criminal law, the location where the suspect dies has no bearing on the circumstances that came about where you decided you needed to shoot him - assuming you were justified in using lethal force. If you were in fear for your life when you shot the guy and your local laws allow for you to shoot intruders, then the shooting should be justified. If you and the suspect have NO other interaction, let's say he disengages at that moment and flees, the circumstances of the shooting itself end at that time.

The salient point here which cannot be overstated is that the circumstances of the shooting cannot be changed. If you were justified in shooting, that is all that matters. Somebody posted concern about using ammo NOT used by the police and if you could get in trouble for using different ammo and of course the answer is that you cannot, so long as the ammo and shoot are legal. The type of ammo chosen will not alter whether or not you used lethal force under legal circumstances. Where the guy dies doesn't change the circumstances.

Say you are in fear for your life and all you have are two chainsaws. Circumstances progress and you have to use chainsaw lethal force on the bad guy to protect yourself and family. Whether you use your Homelite electric tree trimmer chainsaw or your National Match Kawasaki 250 cc turbocharged competition race saw that has no chain guard does not matter from a criminal perspective.

As for civil suits, he may sue you for his injuries pertaining to the shooting, or his family may sue you for wrongful death. Even if you don't hit him with your shots and he flees, catching his shoulder on a nail, breaking the skin, and he gets an infection, he could still sue you in civil court. It sounds really stupid, but there is nothings to stop him from suing in civil court.

[Pilgrim]

I think this is a good reason to live in a pro-gun state. If, God forbid, you have to use deadly force to defend yourself, you're more likely to not be prosecuted in Texas or Virginia, for example, than NJ or (shudder) CA.

Actually, CA is not that bad in this regard. CA has a "home - castle" law similar to CO and other states that says if a homeowner or resident believes a person not a member of his family has entered his house through stealth, violence, or surprise, it is presumed the homeowner or resident feared death or great bodily harm by the intruder to him or his family.

The burden is on the prosecutor to prove otherwise.

In one case I saw one district attorney refuse to prosecute a homeowner who fired through a window at a 14 year old who was trying to break into the garage. The 14 year old ran away and died in a neighbor's backyard. The reasoning the DA gave for not prosecuting was that once the 14 year old gained entrance to the garage there was but a flimsy, unlockable door between the garage and the homeowners family.

Pilgrim

[fish2xs]

I believe in most states (even MA) your home is still your castle. A little while ago, a woman in her Arlington house shot an intruder in the neck with a handgun. The local press made a huge point to mention the handgun was legal. They seemed to focus on that like the handgun was the big story, not the B+E. Sadly, the perp lived.

There are a few things to keep in mind, however. If the autopsy shows that the perp was shot while cowering in a corner of your kitchen, then you may have problems. However, if I suprised a BG with any sort of weapon in their hand (ie. screwdriver) I will shoot first. I'd sleep better in prison on a bogus charge than I would at home knowing harm had come to my family while I could have stopped it.

Incidentally, I do not know the legalities around 'challenging' a BG in your house, ie. saying "drop it, I have a gun". However, I find it noteable that it is called a 'challenge'. I would see no reason to 'challenge' a BG in my house holding any sort of weapon.

So for the executive summary: BG comes in your house and presents a clear danger. You shoot - maybe BG dies, maybe not. You call 911. Expect to be arrested in MA, probably some other states as well. Resist the urge to defend your actions. REPEAT: SAY NOTHING!!! My wife, while not a lawyer, is a paralegal -and the rule is - KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT UNTIL YOU GET A LAWYER.

Don't just prep yourself for defending against a home invasion, prep for what happens afterwards....

[HankB]

Resist the urge to defend your actions. REPEAT: SAY NOTHING!!! My wife, while not a lawyer, is a paralegal -and the rule is - KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT UNTIL YOU GET A LAWYER. Along with not tampering with or altering evidence, this is absolutely the best advice posted yet. Anything you say can, AND WILL, be twisted to show you in the worst possible light.

What you DON'T say can't be used against you.

As far as shooting to stop vs. shooting to kill . . . actually the best answer I've heard when someone was asked if they shot to kill was "No, I shot to LIVE!" (Hopefully, they said it AFTER talking to a lawyer.)

[Flashpoint]

Thanks guys.
I see what you are saying.

This means you may shoot until the assailant drops, runs away, or is otherwise neutralized. If he happens to be dead, that's incidental to the issue.


If he runs away, the threat is no longer present, unless he was seeking better cover from which to shoot at you from, in which case the threat has re-emerged. From the legal perspective in many jurisdictions, your right of self defense can evaporate if you chase him out onto the lawn, for example. They may view that you had the right of self defense in the first engagement, but by giving chase, you open a second engagement in which _you_ are the assailant.

This sounds like what they taught in my CCW course.

What I had pictured in my head was

shoot to stop=shot in the leg

shoot to kill=shot in the chest/abnominal/head area
(though a head shot is unlikly in a high stress situation)

I just couldn't imagin trying to shoot a BG in the leg and hoping he would stop.

[Partisan Ranger]

"The reasoning the DA gave for not prosecuting was that once the 14 year old gained entrance to the garage there was but a flimsy, unlockable door between the garage and the homeowners family"

Wow, I stand corrected. A DA in CA didn't prosecute this? I live in gun-friendly VA and I wouldn't think about shooting someone breaking into my house unless I warned them to leave first. My NRA Basic Pistol instructor told us that you better be damned sure your life is in danger if you shoot a perp, because you may well end up in the slammer if it looks like afterward that it was unnecessary use of force.

[Mastrogiacomo]

In my state, a woman was alone in her house at night while a repeat offender high or drunk tried to break in. She shot him in the throat after screaming at him to stop. He survived. Last I heard she had to hire a lawyer when his family took her to court for his injuries. I'd say, shoot to kill....depending on the situation, age of the intruder and whether they comply...

[willyjixx]

how the hell did the world get so twisted where a criminal who was commiting a crime can take the victim to civil court to sue him for damages? he was the one who caused his damages by commiting the crime? an who the hell are they putting on juries where these criminals actually win these cases?

i see the legalese of saying you shot to stop the immediate threat but it seems alot safer financially an legally in the long run to kill the #@%$#@$%!

i remember a case a while ago where a man shot another in self defense. prosecution tried to use his reloaded ammo as part of the case that the defendant made "Mankiller" bullets.

since that i use store bough self defense rounds

[SaintofKillers]

I dont see any other way to shoot except to stop the BG. Center mass is the way I have been taught and dont see any other reason to attempt the "wound the leg" or " blow his head off" either way I think it is just asking for trouble. I think once the threat has been assessed, action is taken and then the threat is reassessed. I have been taught and feel that the "double tap" is the best action to take circumstances barring more than one assailant. Either way I would NEVER say that I shot to kill, a good lawyer would tell you to say that you shot the assailant to stop the threat.:evil:

[themic]

flashpoint, yeah that's exactly why it's sometimes phrased as
authroized to use lethal force to stop the threat

i.e. you don't have to aim for the legs, you can use lethal force. but you aren't trying to kill them. you want them to stop.

really it's mostly about second engagements and not executing people on the ground.

"stop" also gives immediacy. you can use the force right then and there.

handguns likely take a little while to stop someone because of delayed effects fo bleeding and how long it takes someone to physically stop (inertia) compared to your rate of fire. i could personally envision situations where the whole magazine was unloaded into someone before they physically fell and no longer looked like a threat.

[gypsy3]

Oklahoma has the same type of law as Colorado. It too is referred to as the "Make My Day" law.

Someone enters your house, uninvited, you can use any force necessary, up to and including lethal, and the law provides immunity against prosecution or suits unless the investigation proves otherwise...

[synoptic]

Conversely, if you take the advice of Gun Shop Commandos and drag him inside and put a kitchen knife in his hand, it will be just as obvious what happened. Again, make sure you don't mess up any evidence.

Unfortunately it is not just the advice of Commandos. Me and my dad got in an argument about this the other day, some POLICE OFFICERS actually told him that in a home defense scenario to make sure the body was in the house and if not to drag it inside. My dad is a fairly smart man and I sure hope if he was ever in this situation that he would gain the sense real quick to NOT do what he has been advised.

[geekWithA.45]

Unfortunately it is not just the advice of Commandos. Me and my dad got in an argument about this the other day, some POLICE OFFICERS actually told him that in a home defense scenario to make sure the body was in the house and if not to drag it inside


It is because some LEO's are poorly trained in matters of the law and what actually is and isn't legal that we have the 4th and other amendments.

in NJ, the situation is deplorable.

In your own home you MUST (if possible) retreat to the farthest point in your home before you can use ANY level of force.

We also have the "vampire clause", which means that if the person had ever been allowed into the house at any time, they can come in at any time.

:fire: :fire: :fire:

[Standing Wolf]

Although I live in Colorado, and could legally shoot anyone who invaded my home, I'm sure I'd be unable to shoot a kid unless he was armed.

If it's an adult, its life is worth less than the dust cougars under my refrigerator.

[dairycreek]

In Oregon, to justify the use of lethal force, you must be able to prove that the BG has Means, Opportunity, and Intent. That applies as well to someone who enters your house. So, if the BG turns to run and gets shot in the back then intent would be lacking. It can get tricky but, just because someone is in your house illegally, you do not have the right to use lethal force. Good shooting;)

[willyjixx]

just use a big enough gun so they cant tell the exit from the entrance wound..................im joking:D

[Flashpoint]

handguns likely take a little while to stop someone because of delayed effects fo bleeding and how long it takes someone to physically stop (inertia) compared to your rate of fire. i could personally envision situations where the whole magazine was unloaded into someone before they physically fell and no longer looked like a threat.

So in the case of home defense would it be better to use a shotgun, given that the shotgun has more stopping power?

[willyjixx]

thats a hole nuther arguement (pardon the pun:D )


you would think so at least thats my belief. plus the wife can handle it more comfortably than my pistols

[Jesse H]

Unfortunately it is not just the advice of Commandos. Me and my dad got in an argument about this the other day, some POLICE OFFICERS actually told him that in a home defense scenario to make sure the body was in the house and if not to drag it inside. My dad is a fairly smart man and I sure hope if he was ever in this situation that he would gain the sense real quick to NOT do what he has been advised.

Yup. Had a business law professor tell the entire class the same thing. I wanted to pipe up but waited till after class to bring that up. I thought he had made the comment as a joke but he seriously believed it.

He was a weird liberal Democrat that went to Texas A&M.

[synoptic]

A liberal democrat at A&M? Students must have hated him. Even at A&M's galveston campus where the focus was marine biology and such (you'd think big treehuggers) it was difficult to find a prof who was noticeably liberal

[Pilgrim]

Wow, I stand corrected. A DA in CA didn't prosecute this?

"The reasoning the DA gave for not prosecuting was that once the 14 year old gained entrance to the garage there was but a flimsy, unlockable door between the garage and the homeowners family"

It was a surprise to me too. I expected the homeowner to fry when I first heard the circumstances of the shooting. However, the same DA later brought suit against the Attorney General saying that California's assault weapons ban is vague and impossible to enforce.

Pilgrim

[CZ-100]

handguns likely take a little while to stop someone because of delayed effects fo bleeding and how long it takes someone to physically stop (inertia) compared to your rate of fire. i could personally envision situations where the whole magazine was unloaded into someone before they physically fell and no longer looked like a threat.

This reminds me of the other thred about the guy that ran the red light and pulled in to the store parking lot and got out pointing the cell phone at the cops.

He was shot 8 times before he hit the ground :what:

And YES I think he deserved it!:eek:

[Carlos]

Here are applicable Oregon statutes.

Source: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/161.html

Here’s the short story:

161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person. Except as provided in ORS 161.215 and 161.219, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 §22]

161.215 Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using physical force upon another person if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, the person provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that person; or

(2) The person is the initial aggressor, except that the use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person the intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful physical force; or

(3) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. [1971 c.743 §24]

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]
161.220 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
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]
161.229 Use of physical force in defense of property. A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief of property. [1971 c.743 §26]

Hit the source for more exhaustive reading.

Personally, a perp invades my home, my fear will be that if I comply with a creep, I'll be killed when he's done taking advantage of me. Deadly force will certainly be in order. How can I possibly read a criminal's mind and establish his intent. I can only logically assume he's there to do me harm, and that's my story, and I'm sticking by it. :rolleyes:

[sig970]

The lone woman (or man) facing a civil complaint after shooting an intruder makes my blood boil.

Anything can happen. Are we all assuming that a two shots to the chest one shot to the head situation will present itself? Someone could be running from your house, but still inside when you fire.

Isn't it prudent to use the words "I shot to Stop" the perp? In my CCL class they drilled us with the potential chance of civil complaints coming our way. It's a factor even though it's cr*p IMHO.

Someone enters my house, with my wife and kids in their beds.

BANG

[A. Partisan]

If someone comes into my house with bad intent. Hmmmm............Let's see.............#1. I could try to reason with the person and hope to find some bit of humanity way down deep in their soul and they would see their mistake and leave.# 2. Shoot 'em........... eenie, meenie.......... #&%@ it #2

[Don Gwinn]

Don't be too quick to dismiss "mere semantics." Semantics deal with meanings, and if you dismiss the meaning of the words you use, you're missing an important point. Words mean things, and meanings matter.

If you train to shoot to stop, you train to shoot until the threat ends and then stop shooting. If you train to shoot to kill, what does that logically entail? If you shoot him twice and he's on the ground, his weapon out of his reach, no longer a threat, do you stop shooting? Maybe you do, but if so, you weren't really shooting "to kill," were you?

In shooting to stop, you accept that you may kill your opponent. Obviously, to shoot at anyone at any time must require that you accept that. However, you don't have to seek to kill him no matter what, and that's what "shoot to kill" means.

I know that most people, in reality, believe that shooting to kill in self defense is righteous and should be legal. Well, maybe it is righteous--hard to say. But it is not legal.

[Don Gwinn]

This reminds me of the other thred about the guy that ran the red light and pulled in to the store parking lot and got out pointing the cell phone at the cops.

He was shot 8 times before he hit the ground

And YES I think he deserved it!

That proves my point. He didn't get shot eight times because he deserved it, he got shot eight times because that's what it took before he finally stopped and went down. But watch the video; when he stopped resisting, they stopped shooting. Nobody walked up and executed him after he was down.

He did die, but he died because of wounds sustained while they were trying to stop him. If he had lived, that would have been all right with the cops, one must assume. Therefore they were not "shooting to kill."

[Moparmike]

I believe here in Arkansas we have to have evidence of intent to harm life within the confines of the home. Property is no excuse to shoot someone, as well as B&E. However, my thoughts on the issue is that if the perp is dead, YOU are the only one with a story to tell, as 'dead men tell no tales.'

Unfortunately, Arkansas also has the law-ignorant LEO's who say to kill if you are going to shoot, and make sure its in the house when you do it. They also said the same thing about the 'dragging in the house' too.

I love that one "Hell no, I shot to LIVE!!" Great post.

Later,

[JPM70535]

My former state (Louisiana) had what was called the "Shoot the Burglar" bill. As it was explained to me, the BG didn't have to be completely inside your home for the authorization of deadly force to be allowed. If the BG was trying to break down your door and you believed you were in danger of death or great bodily harm should he complete entry, the necessary action could be taken, i.e. shoot him through the door. No criminal liability could ensue. I am not certain of the Civil Liability issue but IIRC, that was also covered.

Correct me if the law has been changed, Ive been away for 15 years and my info is dated.