Legality of Defending One's Home from Rioters

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by KVFirearmTalk, Jun 1, 2020.

  1. sheriffjohn

    sheriffjohn Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,678
    3,045
    113
    Always consult an attorney knowledgable in regard to use of force law, not Uncle Bill who's livlihood is divorce and slip & falls. Here's my point, having survived many lawsuits and involved in mnay more - A statute is NOT the final word on anything, it's the case law that follows enactment you'd best abide by. That's where a good attorney is invaluable.

    Rau will back me on this as we share mnay years and experiences dealing with use of force issues. Years ago, it was lawful to shoot ANY fleeing felon regardless of the nature of the crime. Stealing over $50 was a felony as was passing a closed account check, stealing chickens at night, bigamy,homosexual relations, dynamiting fish, etc. Such laws stayed on the books long after the U.S.Supreme Court "laid down the law". Many statutes are still on the books (in the books?) which, even if followed to the letter, will end badly for someone trying to "do the right thing". Attorneys get a bad rap but they can also keep YOU from getting a "Rap Sheet".

    Anyway, be careful, be aware, and keep your family safe.
     
    bluez, Ghost1958 and G66enigma like this.
  2. Mcsorleyprobert

    Mcsorleyprobert Active Member

    134
    127
    43
    We have castle doctrine as well, but in the garage, it’s illegal to use deadly force! The garage is not the home per our laws!

    Must be in the home living area to use force.

    Times have changed.
    I remember as a youngin, police were called by a man who broke in to my Fathers garage.

    Police showed up, the man,who broke in my dads garage wanted to file a complaint.

    he had half his calf ripped off, and wanted press charges.

    My father said, “officer, my garage was locked right, I keep my dog in there at night, why was he in my garage??”

    End of call.
    These days, it would be different with these lib cupcake rooms.

    My how times have changed!!
     

  3. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    625
    874
    93
    That's basically where I'm at, in life, as well.

    I'll know the applicable state law. And I'll do my best to take reasonable care it's respected. However, I'll absolutely do what I deem necessary and appropriate at the time, if a dire threat arises, whatever it takes to deal with and survive it, relying on my handling of it and articulation of what occurred. I'm okay with that.
     
    Ghost1958 likes this.
  4. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    625
    874
    93
    ^ This.

    In any statement I've ever made about "state statutes" or "the law" in terms of what will be held as the standard of behavior, I've always meant the statutes + case law. (The whole of "the law" that's applicable.)

    You're correct, that having a competent attorney who's well-versed and experienced in the case law relevant to self-defense and use-of-force can be vital.
     
    Ghost1958 likes this.
  5. Nmwabbit

    Nmwabbit Well-Known Member

    925
    497
    63
    it is absolutely fascinating and astounding all the hearsay and misinformation rhetoric being spouted about...

    in my state you can shoot, kill, maime, for...blah, blah, blah -- all stated without a single shred of objective knowledge base to substantiate the hearsay.

    what a bloody disservice being done to members/readers far and wide who might engage in believing the rhetoric and actually hurt or kill someone!

    further the stupidity of publicly stating "imma going shoot to kill, imma going do this" all presupposes premeditated activities and gives the prosecutor a huge advantage to convict you for your "imma gonna cause death/harm"

    truly unfathomable
     
    W.T. Sherman likes this.
  6. KVFirearmTalk

    KVFirearmTalk New Member

    4
    4
    3
    Thanks for the opinions. I honestly fear that sometime in my life I may have to make these life and death decisions.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2020
  7. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    625
    874
    93
    It is, indeed, a disservice to simply lay out a "kill 'em all" dogma without backing it up or having a basis for stating what's true in a state. (To say nothing of a "kill 'em all" attitude to be perfect fodder for a DA to string a person up by his toenails to rot.)


    One practical example might be Oregon.

    Among the relevant statutes in Oregon, consider ORS 161.205, 161.209, 161.215 and 161.219.

    ORS 161.205 -- Use of physical force generally.

    The use of physical force upon another person that would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:

    (1)(a) A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or an incompetent person may use reasonable physical force upon such minor or incompetent person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of the minor or incompetent person.

    (b) Personnel of a public education program, as that term is defined in ORS 339.285 (Definitions for ORS 339.285 to 339.303), may use reasonable physical force upon a student when and to the extent the application of force is consistent with ORS 339.285 (Definitions for ORS 339.285 to 339.303) to 339.303 (Rules for complaints, investigations and seclusion rooms).

    (2) Subject to ORS 421.107 (Use of dog for cell extraction prohibited), an authorized official of a jail, prison or correctional facility may use physical force when and to the extent that the official reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order and discipline or as is authorized by law.

    (3) A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common carrier of passengers, or a person acting under the direction of the person, may use physical force when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order, but the person may use deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.

    (4) A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical self-injury may use physical force upon that person to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to thwart the result.

    (5) A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in defending property, in making an arrest or in preventing an escape, as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971. [1971 c.743 §21; 1981 c.246 §1; 2011 c.665 §§10,11; 2013 c.133 §4; 2013 c.267 §4; 2019 c.267 §7; 2019 c.333 §2]
    ORS 161.209 -- Use of physical force in defense of a person.

    Except as provided in ORS 161.215 (Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person) and 161.219 (Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person), 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]
    ORS 161.215 -- Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person.

    Notwithstanding ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), 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]
    ORS 161.219 -- Limitations on use of deadly force in defense of a person.

    Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of 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


    ^ Pretty much, you're authorized as a citizen to act if you reasonably suspect imminent felony violence upon a person and take reasonable steps to halt it, using such force as is necessary, up to and including lethal force. (With the above-noted caveats.)

    Not every state is so basically tolerant of the citizens retaining "the law" in their own hands, sadly.

    Of course, state case law goes beyond the statutes and applies to a person in that state as well, when engaging in the use force upon another.​
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2020
  8. Sniper03

    Sniper03 Supporting Member Supporter

    10,811
    7,915
    113
    OLD MAN.jpg
    Grumpy Old Men are DANGEROUS!
    We have put up with too much Cr*p in our lives to put up with any like what is going on!:rolleyes:

    Attack my home, family or friends! And you are in for a "ONE TIME ONLY" Surprise!;)
    Deadly Force is applicable when in fear of your or someone's life, or in fear of serious bodily injury.
    Example: The Store Owner in Texas that was beaten yesterday by the "Democrat's" peaceful protestors! And died today! Peaceful?:rolleyes: And the officer who was shot in the Head at point black range at Vegas last night! The Federal Officer who was shot and killed on the steps of the Federal Building.What part of Anarchy do they not understand.:rolleyes:
    Sure, almost everyone in the Country does not condone what happened to George Floyd. And their thoughts go out to the family. I do not care that he might not have been an upstanding citizen or not. The Cop was wrong and should face justice. And justice will be served and also some justice for the other officers who were complacent and just stood by! But some are missing the point here, that we are at war with the Anarchist!
    I never thought I would ever see Police Departments allowed to be overrun and burnt without some of the infiltrators being killed or arrested in the act!
    Moral of the story don't mess with Grumpy Old Men! Or a Patriotic American!:mad:
    03
     
    RJF22553 and Oldoutlaw like this.
  9. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    3,891
    4,088
    113
    That a police precinct got over run didnt surprize me. I was surprized it hadn't happened long before now during some upheaval.

    The public will be policed as long as it allows itself to be policed. Past that point LE is much to woefully outnumbered and outgunned to do anything else but run.

    That said. Pretty much the whole country agrees the cop murdered Floyd. Understood the protests against what has become an overly militarized and heavy handed version of LE.
    Violence directed at the police during this mess isnt the correct response but it should have been expected.

    The nationwide looting and attacking of innocent citizens just because they are in the vicinity is way over the top however.

    I hope I am wrong. I truly do. But I am leery of Trump " taking over" by forcing active military into civilian domestic matters. There is no guarantee how that will be recieved even by those who oppose ths protests and supported Trump.

    One thing is certain. We have less time to exist as a free nation in the future than we have in the past.
     
  10. RaySendero

    RaySendero Active Member

    348
    237
    43
    I, too, am concerned about using the military police. That alone just sets a bad precedent.

    Also concerned about President Trump getting involved with everyone of these demonratic run cities. Its the mayor's problems - Their people both shop owners and rioters, Their Police, Their policies, Their short-sightedness and Their lack of planning and preparation. AND these mayor's are running from any responsibility. They do nothing while their police stations are overrun and their cities burn.
    These weasel mayors and the media will make all their BS
    "Trump's Fault" !
     
    bluez and Ghost1958 like this.
  11. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,694
    3,242
    113
    They used the military here to help police rioters, that did not always end well.
     
    Nmwabbit and W.T. Sherman like this.
  12. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    3,891
    4,088
    113
    Isnt ending real well here either it seems.
     
    primer1, manta and Nmwabbit like this.
  13. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,694
    3,242
    113
    They were necessary here because of the terrorist campaign, that is not the case in America.
     
  14. sheriffjohn

    sheriffjohn Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,678
    3,045
    113
    "I read on facebook ....." Yesterday it was two busloads of Black Lives Matter protestors coming to Quincy from Chicago. Today, at the Silver Anchor Diner, it's now eight busloads. Old bag sitting at a table near us declared it was true because she read it on facebook.

    Pharmacy has put up stacks of pallets to cover windows, Farm and Home using pallets of what looks like landscaping gravel. Protestors in Hannibal was an old lady in a wheelchair and someone pushing her around. Police chief on news said he'd heard rumors. I blurted out to the old woman, "B.S.", which sent her into a thumbing frenzy on her cellphone. There are some really stupid people walking around, for sure.
     
    Oldoutlaw and Ghost1958 like this.
  15. primer1

    primer1 Well-Known Member Supporter

    11,400
    3,298
    113
    That's assuming it's ending.
     
    Ghost1958 and Mister Dave like this.
  16. Mister Dave

    Mister Dave Well-Known Member

    4,207
    9,332
    113
    My guns are more at the ready than usual.
     
    RJF22553, Ghost1958 and Oldoutlaw like this.
  17. BK3220

    BK3220 Active Member Lifetime Supporter

    250
    152
    43
    Everyone is thinking military as boots at the line. Maybe think Sig-Int? If the rioters are coordinating using radio or cell communications it would help get a step ahead of their next move. Few LE agencies have much in the way of intercept capabilities.
     
    RJF22553 likes this.
  18. Nmwabbit

    Nmwabbit Well-Known Member

    925
    497
    63
    er, uh, excuse the intrusion into your conversation of sending military active duty law enforcement into the cities...

    might just consider this factoid from USA Today's 30 March 2017, quote:

    The debate over the militarization of America’s police has focused on the accumulation of war-grade vehicles and artillery and the spread of paramilitary SWAT teams. What has gone largely unstudied, however, is the impact of military veterans migrating into law enforcement. Even as departments around the country have sought a cultural transformation from “warriors” to “guardians,” one in five police officers are literally warriors, returned from Afghanistan, Iraq or other assignments. unquote
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ans-become-cops-some-bring-war-home/99349228/

    too late...their already ingrained into the blue brotherhood's problem!
     
  19. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,954
    2,346
    113
    BAD policy

    Firearms Liability Insurance will protect against the costs associated with a claim—on a reimbursement basis— once all charges are dropped, or you are acquitted of all charges,

    I only recommend FLP and USCCA. Personally, I have a family FLP policy
     
  20. JTJ

    JTJ Well-Known Member Supporter

    13,067
    6,963
    113
    Evidence is building that it is a terrorist campaign with ANTIFA behind it.

    In Florida one sheriff has publicly proclaimed if a looter breaks into an occupied home he expects the occupants to blow them out the door.

    When you are too old to run or fight your choices are limited and most of mine go bang.
     
    RJF22553 likes this.