Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Asterios wrote:
the problem is liberals would rather the intruder do harm before being stopped

Well, I can't speak for Dreadwinter - he's the King of all Liberals and only he can speak for them as a unified bloc- but personally, I lean liberal, I have a concealed carry permit, I carry, and I don't feel like I need to wait for harm to occur to either myself or my family before I feel it appropriate to use deadly force. My state has a castle doctrine and I'd feel pretty comfortable morally and legally assuming a strange man hiding in a child's closet posed a reasonable threat.

Did I misunderstand or was Ogrechubbs seriously saying the mom was a mentally ill murderer walking around her house looking in the closets for middle-aged men to gun down?

It constantly amazes me how people will try to demonize gun owners, even when they are a mom defending herself and her kids in her own home from an intruder.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Did I misunderstand or was Ogrechubbs seriously saying the mom was a mentally ill murderer walking around her house looking in the closets for middle-aged men to gun down?

It constantly amazes me how people will try to demonize gun owners, even when they are a mom defending herself and her kids in her own home from an intruder.

She did murder him.

Do not try to change it to self defense, it wasnt. It was not she walked into her daughters room and seen a man and fought him off and he did. She got home at 1am with two kids and found out someone broke into her house. Rather then being smart getting her kids out of danger going to a neighbors and calling the police she got a gun out and murdered him. She aimed the gun and pulled the trigger after he was dead called the cops.

This could of easly been she went in there to shoot him found out there was two was grabbed then her kids could of been grabbed and all of been murdered. She took it apon herself to hunt down the person/persons in her house and end their life. But I guess by the standard your setting the movie ( the children under the stairs) the home owners where victims defending their home?

TL;DR of this thread: "shooting Bad People is ok as long as you're sure they're Bad People, who cares about the laws on self defense and the use of lethal force".

Nothing in the article suggests she knew her home was broken into or that she knew he was there until she opened the closet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
TL;DR of this thread: "shooting Bad People is ok as long as you're sure they're Bad People, who cares about the laws on self defense and the use of lethal force".

Except the laws on self defense and lethal force completely justify this shoot.

 Peregrine wrote:
TL;DR of this thread: "shooting Bad People is ok as long as you're sure they're Bad People, who cares about the laws on self defense and the use of lethal force".

in the case of the incident that spawned this thread, there appear to be no break between what the laws on self defense and lethal force are, and shooting bad people. Right this very moment im about 5 miles from where this incident took place, and I can tell you that, at least with the information available, there was nothing illegal about this incident.

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Did I misunderstand or was Ogrechubbs seriously saying the mom was a mentally ill murderer walking around her house looking in the closets for middle-aged men to gun down?

It constantly amazes me how people will try to demonize gun owners, even when they are a mom defending herself and her kids in her own home from an intruder.

She did murder him.

Do not try to change it to self defense, it wasnt. It was not she walked into her daughters room and seen a man and fought him off and he did. She got home at 1am with two kids and found out someone broke into her house. Rather then being smart getting her kids out of danger going to a neighbors and calling the police she got a gun out and murdered him. She aimed the gun and pulled the trigger after he was dead called the cops.

This could of easly been she went in there to shoot him found out there was two was grabbed then her kids could of been grabbed and all of been murdered. She took it apon herself to hunt down the person/persons in her house and end their life. But I guess by the standard your setting the movie ( the children under the stairs) the home owners where victims defending their home?

Murder has a legal definition in Oregon. Obviously, the cops who responded don't think her actions met the standard to be called 'murder'. Pretty much no reasonable person who understands the laws based on castle doctrine would call it murder.

There is nothing in the story to indicate she 'hunted down' anyone. For all we know, she was genuinely surprised by the guy. We have no idea if he did attack her, or what his actions were or were not, all we do know is based on the story, he broke into her house and was in her kid's bedroom. You are making gak up to fit your ideas of what you want to have happened, but it is not based at all on the facts as presented in the article.

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Did I misunderstand or was Ogrechubbs seriously saying the mom was a mentally ill murderer walking around her house looking in the closets for middle-aged men to gun down?

It constantly amazes me how people will try to demonize gun owners, even when they are a mom defending herself and her kids in her own home from an intruder.

She did murder him.

Do not try to change it to self defense, it wasnt. It was not she walked into her daughters room and seen a man and fought him off and he did. She got home at 1am with two kids and found out someone broke into her house. Rather then being smart getting her kids out of danger going to a neighbors and calling the police she got a gun out and murdered him. She aimed the gun and pulled the trigger after he was dead called the cops.

This could of easly been she went in there to shoot him found out there was two was grabbed then her kids could of been grabbed and all of been murdered. She took it apon herself to hunt down the person/persons in her house and end their life. But I guess by the standard your setting the movie ( the children under the stairs) the home owners where victims defending their home?

Do you have access to a news article the rest of us don't? All I am seeing is this and this
http://fox40.com/2016/06/27/oregon-mother-shoots-kills-intruder-found-hiding-in-kids-bedroom/
http://www.kgw.com/news/local/portland-woman-shoots-and-kills-home-intruder/256234379

These do not corraborate statement you just made. I'll quote one again:

The woman, 33, told police she returned home with her two children, ages 5 and 10, and found a stranger in one of her child’s bedrooms. She was armed with a handgun and fired at least one shot at the man.

 CptJake wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Did I misunderstand or was Ogrechubbs seriously saying the mom was a mentally ill murderer walking around her house looking in the closets for middle-aged men to gun down?

It constantly amazes me how people will try to demonize gun owners, even when they are a mom defending herself and her kids in her own home from an intruder.

She did murder him.

Do not try to change it to self defense, it wasnt. It was not she walked into her daughters room and seen a man and fought him off and he did. She got home at 1am with two kids and found out someone broke into her house. Rather then being smart getting her kids out of danger going to a neighbors and calling the police she got a gun out and murdered him. She aimed the gun and pulled the trigger after he was dead called the cops.

This could of easly been she went in there to shoot him found out there was two was grabbed then her kids could of been grabbed and all of been murdered. She took it apon herself to hunt down the person/persons in her house and end their life. But I guess by the standard your setting the movie ( the children under the stairs) the home owners where victims defending their home?

Murder has a legal definition in Oregon. Obviously, the cops who responded don't think her actions met the standard to be called 'murder'. Pretty much no reasonable person who understands the laws based on castle doctrine would call it murder.

There is nothing in the story to indicate she 'hunted down' anyone. For all we know, she was genuinely surprised by the guy. We have no idea if he did attack her, or what his actions were or were not, all we do know is based on the story, he broke into her house and was in her kid's bedroom. You are making gak up to fit your ideas of what you want to have happened, but it is not based at all on the facts as presented in the article.

How big are your closets?

You can open them see someone pull a fire arm out aim it and shoot all before they can respond?

Yes the castle law anyone who is in your house or on your land you did not onvite there you may shoot to death with out any verbal warnings. Must be interesting tricker treating.

But seriously think about it if she did not know she was there or someone broke in why was she checking her daughters closet at 1 am? Was he told to leave or threatened with the gun? Was there any warning or sign that he was indeed a danger? I do not expect her to treat him like a friend but if you are aiming a gun at someone who is not showing themselves to be a threat then shooting them is murder.

So think this through she was checkig closets at 1 am she had a gun, there is no record that he was armed or had a weapon. She shot him dead before calling the cops. She let her children stay in danger to do this rather then removing them from danger.

Self defense is when your life is at risk and it is yours or theirs. Not I sen them and I aimed a gun at them then decided to shoot them because of a self thought danger.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Except the laws on self defense and lethal force completely justify this shoot.

So there was an immediate threat to the safety of the shooter or her family? That certainly isn't stated in the (brief) article in the OP. Do you have evidence to confirm this theory, or are you merely speculating about it?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Except the laws on self defense and lethal force completely justify this shoot.

So there was an immediate threat to the safety of the shooter or her family? That certainly isn't stated in the (brief) article in the OP. Do you have evidence to confirm this theory, or are you merely speculating about it?

She was neither charged nor arrested. An intruder in your children's bedroom at 1.45Am does indeed represent an immediate threat to you and your children. I am not seeing how you can argue otherwise unless your intent is to show that she is somehow at fault.

Look I'm not going hurr hurr heh heh. Its a terrible thing in real life. Imagine how the children are now. But is it a Legally Justifiable use of Self Defense. Absent some other factor the police are acting as such.

Wait people are not allowed to drive home at 1 am?

when did this happen?

and unless the living room is also the children bed room, how in the heck would the lady have known the house was broken into.

hell my house was broken into and we didn't notice until we got upstairs where all the rummaging was. most burgles will go after the bedroom and closest in search of jewelry and cash.

besides that you have no idea if this person is also armed and dangerous or if you could out run them with 3 children in toe to your neighbors house. if defending your family makes you a murderer then i dont know what to say.

edit mind you i dont know the whole story is being told here. but off the basic info id probably had done the same thing.

OgreChubbs wrote:
How big are your closets?

You can open them see someone pull a fire arm out aim it and shoot all before they can respond?

Yes the castle law anyone who is in your house or on your land you did not onvite there you may shoot to death with out any verbal warnings. Must be interesting tricker treating.

But seriously think about it if she did not know she was there or someone broke in why was she checking her daughters closet at 1 am? Was he told to leave or threatened with the gun? Was there any warning or sign that he was indeed a danger? I do not expect her to treat him like a friend but if you are aiming a gun at someone who is not showing themselves to be a threat then shooting them is murder.

So think this through she was checkig closets at 1 am she had a gun, there is no record that he was armed or had a weapon. She shot him dead before calling the cops. She let her children stay in danger to do this rather then removing them from danger.

Self defense is when your life is at risk and it is yours or theirs. Not I sen them and I aimed a gun at them then decided to shoot them because of a self thought danger.

Because no parent ever has opened their kid's closet to get something out. Or maybe turns on the closet light as a night light. Or really needs a reason to justify any damned thing to you. Again, you are stating she is a murderer. Yet there is ZERO evidence to support that, all info available to us indicates a legal defensive shooting. She is under no obligation to wait for the guy to pull out a weapon, but again, we don;t know if he did have one, do we? The story does not indicate if he was armed or not. You, again, are making gak up to justify what is frankly an unjustifiable view.

OgreChubbs wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Did I misunderstand or was Ogrechubbs seriously saying the mom was a mentally ill murderer walking around her house looking in the closets for middle-aged men to gun down?

It constantly amazes me how people will try to demonize gun owners, even when they are a mom defending herself and her kids in her own home from an intruder.

She did murder him.

Do not try to change it to self defense, it wasnt. It was not she walked into her daughters room and seen a man and fought him off and he did. She got home at 1am with two kids and found out someone broke into her house. Rather then being smart getting her kids out of danger going to a neighbors and calling the police she got a gun out and murdered him. She aimed the gun and pulled the trigger after he was dead called the cops.

This could of easly been she went in there to shoot him found out there was two was grabbed then her kids could of been grabbed and all of been murdered. She took it apon herself to hunt down the person/persons in her house and end their life. But I guess by the standard your setting the movie ( the children under the stairs) the home owners where victims defending their home?

Murder has a legal definition in Oregon. Obviously, the cops who responded don't think her actions met the standard to be called 'murder'. Pretty much no reasonable person who understands the laws based on castle doctrine would call it murder.

There is nothing in the story to indicate she 'hunted down' anyone. For all we know, she was genuinely surprised by the guy. We have no idea if he did attack her, or what his actions were or were not, all we do know is based on the story, he broke into her house and was in her kid's bedroom. You are making gak up to fit your ideas of what you want to have happened, but it is not based at all on the facts as presented in the article.

How big are your closets?

You can open them see someone pull a fire arm out aim it and shoot all before they can respond?

Yes the castle law anyone who is in your house or on your land you did not onvite there you may shoot to death with out any verbal warnings. Must be interesting tricker treating.

But seriously think about it if she did not know she was there or someone broke in why was she checking her daughters closet at 1 am? Was he told to leave or threatened with the gun? Was there any warning or sign that he was indeed a danger? I do not expect her to treat him like a friend but if you are aiming a gun at someone who is not showing themselves to be a threat then shooting them is murder.

So think this through she was checkig closets at 1 am she had a gun, there is no record that he was armed or had a weapon. She shot him dead before calling the cops. She let her children stay in danger to do this rather then removing them from danger.

Self defense is when your life is at risk and it is yours or theirs. Not I sen them and I aimed a gun at them then decided to shoot them because of a self thought danger.

That's not how that works. If you are in my house at 1 am, I couldn't care less why you are there, but I can be almost certain your intentions are ill-willed and the shooting of said person in my house is legally justified. I'd really like to see you walk into your house and not be creeped out by some dude stalking around. I'm sure you can discuss the guy's plans over tea.

Or she told the kids "Go outside, I heard a noise" and went to investigate said noise. I can't see the articles because I'm at work but does it say anywhere she was dragging her kids with one hand while holding her gun aloft in the other saying "OKAY TIME TO CHECK YOUR CLOSETS" with a wild eyed feral look? Then she finds someone and tells her kids "Hey lookie what we have here, I AM FINALLY JUSTIFIED IN MY PARANOID CLOSET-CHECKING HABITS."

There is no record the man was armed, I'll give you that. Does that mean she's just supposed to have a conversation with him? Ask him what he's packing? Because lying isn't a thing, right? Would you believe someone when they tell you "Oh I'm not armed, I was just here for a burgle 'n' run" when you find them hiding in your kid's room? I wouldn't. I wouldn't trust that for a second.

"Not being armed" does not mean "not a threat to her and her children."

 Peregrine wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Except the laws on self defense and lethal force completely justify this shoot.

So there was an immediate threat to the safety of the shooter or her family? That certainly isn't stated in the (brief) article in the OP. Do you have evidence to confirm this theory, or are you merely speculating about it?

Under Oregon law, this event is basically a textbook case of satisfying castle doctrine. An intruder present, in the night, in a child's bedroom is absolutely sufficient cause of fear for an imminent threat to safety. There's a reason the mother was not charged.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Except the laws on self defense and lethal force completely justify this shoot.

So there was an immediate threat to the safety of the shooter or her family? That certainly isn't stated in the (brief) article in the OP. Do you have evidence to confirm this theory, or are you merely speculating about it?

She found a man she did not know hiding in her kid's closet after breaking into her home. That gives her reasonable belief that there was immediate danger to herself and her family. That is all castle law requires to justify a self defense shoot.

 Frazzled wrote:
An intruder in your children's bedroom at 1.45Am does indeed represent an immediate threat to you and your children.

No it doesn't. An intruder attempting to attack you represents an immediate threat. An intruder cowering on the floor saying "I SURRENDER, DON'T SHOOT" is not an immediate threat and the use of lethal force is not justified. So far we have seen lots of attempts to justify the shooting with "he was a Bad Person" but no evidence at all for an immediate physical threat.

OgreChubbs wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Did I misunderstand or was Ogrechubbs seriously saying the mom was a mentally ill murderer walking around her house looking in the closets for middle-aged men to gun down?

It constantly amazes me how people will try to demonize gun owners, even when they are a mom defending herself and her kids in her own home from an intruder.

She did murder him.

Do not try to change it to self defense, it wasnt. It was not she walked into her daughters room and seen a man and fought him off and he did. She got home at 1am with two kids and found out someone broke into her house. Rather then being smart getting her kids out of danger going to a neighbors and calling the police she got a gun out and murdered him. She aimed the gun and pulled the trigger after he was dead called the cops.

This could of easly been she went in there to shoot him found out there was two was grabbed then her kids could of been grabbed and all of been murdered. She took it apon herself to hunt down the person/persons in her house and end their life. But I guess by the standard your setting the movie ( the children under the stairs) the home owners where victims defending their home?

Murder has a legal definition in Oregon. Obviously, the cops who responded don't think her actions met the standard to be called 'murder'. Pretty much no reasonable person who understands the laws based on castle doctrine would call it murder.

There is nothing in the story to indicate she 'hunted down' anyone. For all we know, she was genuinely surprised by the guy. We have no idea if he did attack her, or what his actions were or were not, all we do know is based on the story, he broke into her house and was in her kid's bedroom. You are making gak up to fit your ideas of what you want to have happened, but it is not based at all on the facts as presented in the article.

How big are your closets?

You can open them see someone pull a fire arm out aim it and shoot all before they can respond?

Yes the castle law anyone who is in your house or on your land you did not onvite there you may shoot to death with out any verbal warnings. Must be interesting tricker treating.

But seriously think about it if she did not know she was there or someone broke in why was she checking her daughters closet at 1 am? Was he told to leave or threatened with the gun? Was there any warning or sign that he was indeed a danger? I do not expect her to treat him like a friend but if you are aiming a gun at someone who is not showing themselves to be a threat then shooting them is murder.

So think this through she was checkig closets at 1 am she had a gun, there is no record that he was armed or had a weapon. She shot him dead before calling the cops. She let her children stay in danger to do this rather then removing them from danger.

Self defense is when your life is at risk and it is yours or theirs. Not I sen them and I aimed a gun at them then decided to shoot them because of a self thought danger.

where are you getting a closet out of this? all any article I have seen is the intruder was in the child's bedroom, no mention of a closet. oh wait did i just blow this theory of yours out of the water?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
An intruder in your children's bedroom at 1.45Am does indeed represent an immediate threat to you and your children.

No it doesn't. An intruder attempting to attack you represents an immediate threat. An intruder cowering on the floor saying "I SURRENDER, DON'T SHOOT" is not an immediate threat and the use of lethal force is not justified. So far we have seen lots of attempts to justify the shooting with "he was a Bad Person" but no evidence at all for an immediate physical threat.

If there is evidence that the intruder was attempting to surrender or flee, you would be correct. There does not appear to be any however. Absent said evidence, the shoot was not illegal.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
She found a man she did not know hiding in her kid's closet after breaking into her home. That gives her reasonable belief that there was immediate danger to herself and her family. That is all castle law requires to justify a self defense shoot.

No, that is clearly not how it works. If you shoot someone in the back as they run out the door with your TV it isn't justifiable homicide just because the body landed within your house. Castle doctrine removes the duty to retreat but it does not allow you to shoot someone who is not a threat merely for being present illegally in your house.

Well time to pull my adult card out here. We will never agree on this and until more information (if any) comes out this is talking in circles. I say if you have time to pull a gun out because you see someone then the threat is over, anything further is excess. But until new information comes out this is pointless bickering.

Long story short do not live there so not my problem who shoots who, and whats a legal murder vs illegal just think its wrong either way unless your about to die.

But I will always try and respond when someone quotes me so I a, just done checking back on this topic Good luck all watch your step NOt on my land dannit lol.

 Vaktathi wrote:
If there is evidence that the intruder was attempting to surrender or flee, you would be correct. There does not appear to be any however. Absent said evidence, the shoot was not illegal.

You're misunderstanding how "self defense" as a defense works. The burden of proof is on the shooter to establish that their use of lethal force was justified, if you fail to prove it then you get to spend a long time in prison because you admitted to committing a crime.

 Peregrine wrote:
An intruder cowering on the floor saying "I SURRENDER, DON'T SHOOT" is not an immediate threat and the use of lethal force is not justified.

Where does it say that the intruder was cowering on the floor saying that? Do you have evidence to confirm this theory, or are you merely speculating about it?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
An intruder in your children's bedroom at 1.45Am does indeed represent an immediate threat to you and your children.

No it doesn't. An intruder attempting to attack you represents an immediate threat. An intruder cowering on the floor saying "I SURRENDER, DON'T SHOOT" is not an immediate threat and the use of lethal force is not justified. So far we have seen lots of attempts to justify the shooting with "he was a Bad Person" but no evidence at all for an immediate physical threat.

so you are saying she should have done nothing meanwhile the guy with a gun pointed at him is cowering and hiding a weapon of his own and as soon as he can he will shoot her or disarm her, so yes in this circumstance i'm all for erring on the side of caution.

OgreChubbs wrote:
Well time to pull my adult card out here. We will never agree on this and until more information (if any) comes out this is talking in circles. I say if you have time to pull a gun out because you see someone then the threat is over, anything further is excess. But until new information comes out this is pointless bickering.

Long story short do not live there so not my problem who shoots who, and whats a legal murder vs illegal just think its wrong either way unless your about to die.

But I will always try and respond when someone quotes me so I a, just done checking back on this topic Good luck all watch your step NOt on my land dannit lol.

and I repeat where is this magical closet you keep speaking of?

It certainly seems like the kinda job the a florescence team to figure out. considering the other half is kinda dead.

Also could of sworn the burden of proof was squarely on the prosecution or did i suddenly move to north Korea?

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
An intruder in your children's bedroom at 1.45Am does indeed represent an immediate threat to you and your children.

No it doesn't. An intruder attempting to attack you represents an immediate threat. An intruder cowering on the floor saying "I SURRENDER, DON'T SHOOT" is not an immediate threat and the use of lethal force is not justified. So far we have seen lots of attempts to justify the shooting with "he was a Bad Person" but no evidence at all for an immediate physical threat.

so you are saying she should have done nothing meanwhile the guy with a gun pointed at him is cowering and hiding a weapon of his own and as soon as he can he will shoot her or disarm her, so yes in this circumstance i'm all for erring on the side of caution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Well time to pull my adult card out here. We will never agree on this and until more information (if any) comes out this is talking in circles. I say if you have time to pull a gun out because you see someone then the threat is over, anything further is excess. But until new information comes out this is pointless bickering.

Long story short do not live there so not my problem who shoots who, and whats a legal murder vs illegal just think its wrong either way unless your about to die.

But I will always try and respond when someone quotes me so I a, just done checking back on this topic Good luck all watch your step NOt on my land dannit lol.

and I repeat where is this magical closet you keep speaking of?

Ya that theory worked out good for trevon martin aswell. Better safe then sorry

I'm one of the other flaming concealed carry licensed liberals on this board, and a stranger in your child's bedroom in the middle of the night constitutes an immediate threat IMO. Pretty cut and dry case, so we might as well just lock the thread before the bans get issued.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
She found a man she did not know hiding in her kid's closet after breaking into her home. That gives her reasonable belief that there was immediate danger to herself and her family. That is all castle law requires to justify a self defense shoot.

No, that is clearly not how it works. If you shoot someone in the back as they run out the door with your TV it isn't justifiable homicide just because the body landed within your house. Castle doctrine removes the duty to retreat but it does not allow you to shoot someone who is not a threat merely for being present illegally in your house.

But he wasn't running away with a TV. And the requirement is that the mother would have to reasonably believe there was imminent threat. A fething creep hiding in her kids' room at 1am isn't there to juggle and make balloon animals for them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
If there is evidence that the intruder was attempting to surrender or flee, you would be correct. There does not appear to be any however. Absent said evidence, the shoot was not illegal.

You're misunderstanding how "self defense" as a defense works. The burden of proof is on the shooter to establish that their use of lethal force was justified, if you fail to prove it then you get to spend a long time in prison because you admitted to committing a crime.

As an Oregon resident and licensed concealed carry holder, who, again, is about a 5-10 minute drive from where this happened, no, it is up to the police and a prosecutor to prove you did not have justifiable cause. That's criminal law 101. There is a reason the mother was not charged...