DEFENSE OF PROPERTY IN OREGON
This is a brief blurb of a case under Oregon law that I grabbed off internet after reading this post.
“Under our Code, the killing of a human being is justifiable, when committed by a person "to prevent the commission of a felony upon the property of such person, or upon property in his possession, or upon or in any dwelling house where such person may be." Or. L. § 1909, subd. 2. And such killing is generally denominated by criminal law writers as a homicide *475 committed in self-defense. To point a gun at a midnight burglar to prevent his felonious purpose is an act of self-defense; but neither the deceased nor his companions were engaged in the commission of a crime when the defendant pointed his gun at and towards them.â€
State v. Trent, 259 P. 893 Or., 1927.
This is obviously an old case. Further research reveals:
“Defense of persons or property can justify otherwise unlawful show or threat of force. ORS 161.209.†State ex rel. Juvenile Dept. of Coos County v. Poston, 873 P.2d 429 Or.App.,1994.
Another last blurb:
Defense of persons or property can also justify an otherwise unlawful show or threat of force. In State v. Lockwood, 43 Or.App. 639, 603 P.2d 1231 (1979), the defendant was convicted of menacing for pointing an unloaded pistol at a group of juveniles parked in his driveway. We reversed the conviction, holding that the defendant was entitled to jury instructions on self-defense and defense of property, because the evidence supported his theory that he could reasonably believe that some show of force was necessary to defend against damage to his property and the imminent use of unlawful physical force. The defendant had been vandalized in the past and knew that one of the juveniles in the car had a reputation for vandalism. The occupants of the car had earlier confronted a friend of the defendant's son. The car already had driven past the defendant's home three times that night, each time speeding away. The defendant could see that there were four people in the car, the hour was late, and he knew that the car belonged to a juvenile who had challenged others to fight with him.
This is all I have time to comment on this at this time, but I will try and get the statute up regarding protection of property for Ohio as well after work today. I did read a lot of Oregon defense of person or persons information and there’s a very clear duty to retreat, not seek out BG, etc.
Carl