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.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 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.

Well, maybe he was. But potentially in a very very bad way.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
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.

And this is what I mean about "he was a Bad Person therefore it was ok to shoot him". It doesn't matter what bad things he may have had in mind (which could, of course, have been mere robbery and the kids' room was just the place he had to hide when the owners came home unexpectedly), all that matters is whether or not there is an immediate threat at the moment lethal force is used. If the creep is cowering on the floor after realizing that he has been caught and making no attempt to attack then lethal force is not justified, and the creep gets to be dealt with by the police.

Asterios wrote:
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.

No, I'm saying she should have held the guy at gunpoint while one of the other people in the house called the police. You don't get to shoot someone just because they might have a weapon somewhere and might somehow use it in the future.

 Vaktathi wrote:
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...

That is a rather odd claim given that in most other places self defense is considered an affirmative defense, even if the burden of proof it places on the defendant is lower than "beyond any reasonable doubt".

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
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.

No, I'm saying she should have held the guy at gunpoint while one of the other people in the house called the police. You don't get to shoot someone just because they might have a weapon somewhere and might somehow use it in the future.

what other people? she had 2 kids ages not mentioned so i'm gonna say pretty young, since they say child's bedroom, not teens room or such so we are talking little kids here, do you want to try answering that better?

It can be used as an affirmative defense in a case with questionable circumstances, however, if the police get there and there's no evidence to indicate that the dude found in a child's room in the early AM hours was attempting to flee or the like, then they're not going to bring it to that point because they have nothing to prove that something illegal happened.

You also dont have to hold them at gunpoint, that would fall under a duty to retreat, and in fact is probably the most dangerous course of possible action. Likewise there is no need for the intruder to be armed, people can be plenty dangerous unarmed, they have to present a threat, not be armed.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
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.

And this is what I mean about "he was a Bad Person therefore it was ok to shoot him". It doesn't matter what bad things he may have had in mind (which could, of course, have been mere robbery and the kids' room was just the place he had to hide when the owners came home unexpectedly), all that matters is whether or not there is an immediate threat at the moment lethal force is used. If the creep is cowering on the floor after realizing that he has been caught and making no attempt to attack then lethal force is not justified, and the creep gets to be dealt with by the police.

Asterios wrote:
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.

No, I'm saying she should have held the guy at gunpoint while one of the other people in the house called the police. You don't get to shoot someone just because they might have a weapon somewhere and might somehow use it in the future.

 Vaktathi wrote:
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...

That is a rather odd claim given that in most other places self defense is considered an affirmative defense, even if the burden of proof it places on the defendant is lower than "beyond any reasonable doubt".

So far there is no public information available regarding what transpired in the room prior to the mother shooting. There is no evidence that the man didn't make a threatening action beyond just breaking into her house and being in her kids room in the middle of hte night (which already creates a reasonable threat). The news reports I've read/seen all state that the mother is cooperating with the police and hasn't been arrested or charged. If the local PD and DA are satisfied that she doesn't need to be charged then that means they believe she had a reasonable belief that the intruder was a threat. She's not being charged because the police don't think she did anything wrong and there's no evidence to the contrary.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
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.

And this is what I mean about "he was a Bad Person therefore it was ok to shoot him". It doesn't matter what bad things he may have had in mind (which could, of course, have been mere robbery and the kids' room was just the place he had to hide when the owners came home unexpectedly), all that matters is whether or not there is an immediate threat at the moment lethal force is used. If the creep is cowering on the floor after realizing that he has been caught and making no attempt to attack then lethal force is not justified, and the creep gets to be dealt with by the police.

No, that is absolutely not how it works. The requirement is that the home owner believes they or someone else is at risk of grave harm. There does not have to be an immediate threat, instead, an immediate threat must be perceived. A subtle difference, but an important one. And in this case, clearly the mother felt a threat. And clearly up to this point the cops feel there was indeed reason for her to do so.

 Peregrine wrote:
all that matters is whether or not there is an immediate threat at the moment lethal force is used.

And she believes there was, which is all that matters with the actual castle law in place. The burden is on the prosecutor to prove otherwise.

 Peregrine wrote:
If the creep is cowering on the floor after realizing that he has been caught and making no attempt to attack then lethal force is not justified, and the creep gets to be dealt with by the police.

You keep saying he was cowering on the floor but have not provided evidence that this was the case. Do you have any? Or just making gak up to try to win an arguement that you have no hope of winning?

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
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.

No, I'm saying she should have held the guy at gunpoint while one of the other people in the house called the police. You don't get to shoot someone just because they might have a weapon somewhere and might somehow use it in the future.

what other people? she had 2 kids ages not mentioned so i'm gonna say pretty young, since they say child's bedroom, not teens room or such so we are talking little kids here, do you want to try answering that better?

To be fair basically every media outlet will call children children even if they are 17 years old.

as well will call them teens even if they are 19 years old instead of an adult. which both cases are still true.

its mostly to drum up sympathy or whatever.

 Desubot wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
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.

No, I'm saying she should have held the guy at gunpoint while one of the other people in the house called the police. You don't get to shoot someone just because they might have a weapon somewhere and might somehow use it in the future.

what other people? she had 2 kids ages not mentioned so i'm gonna say pretty young, since they say child's bedroom, not teens room or such so we are talking little kids here, do you want to try answering that better?

To be fair basically every media outlet will call children children even if they are 17 years old.

as well will call them teens even if they are 19 years old instead of an adult. which both cases are still true.

its mostly to drum up sympathy or whatever.

really what news you watch? the news is very liberal about using young teens or teens and such.

Kids were 5 and 10.

According to detectives, McCrary broke into Ford's home through a back window. He was found by Ford in the bedroom of her 10-year-old daughter, where the shooting happened. Ford's daughter and her 5-year-old son were in a different bedroom at the time.

Ford remains cooperative with investigators and was not arrested. The investigation, which is ongoing, will determine whether she acted in self defense and if she'll face charges.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/portland-woman-shoots-and-kills-home-intruder/256234379

If the details are correct, I say good job on the mother for not freezing up in a dangerous situation.

 CptJake wrote:
Kids were 5 and 10.

According to detectives, McCrary broke into Ford's home through a back window. He was found by Ford in the bedroom of her 10-year-old daughter, where the shooting happened. Ford's daughter and her 5-year-old son were in a different bedroom at the time.

Ford remains cooperative with investigators and was not arrested. The investigation, which is ongoing, will determine whether she acted in self defense and if she'll face charges.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/portland-woman-shoots-and-kills-home-intruder/256234379

so considering how young the children were, better to keep them with her since it was unknown by her if any other intruders lurked in the house, I say justified shooting.

There is a sentence I made my men rehearse. "I felt like my life was in danger"

You do not need to be in imminent danger, the threat of danger will suffice. Man, breaking in house, Woman in house with young children, man with ill intentions satisfies the above quote. If you want to have a cup of tea with a criminal, please do. ill read about you on the news as the savior of criminals life, or his victim. Mostly likely you will be sorely disapointed if you were to live through such ordeal or come out able to speak coherently.

We are not talking about a grey line, American Law, not canadian law is what we are discussing. Your moral outrage has no true bearing on this, and your victim blaming is deplorable. Would you blame a rape victim for wearing a skirt? Would you blame a woman who died from stoning because her father felt obligated since she allowed her hair and face to be seen? NO, you know why, we don't blame victims. She was a victim till she pulled the trigger, and then she was a survivor.

 redleger wrote:
There is a sentence I made my men rehearse. "I felt like my life was in danger"

In South Park, it's "He's coming right for us!"

But either way, this certainly seems like a justifiable self defense case.

 kronk wrote:

 redleger wrote:
There is a sentence I made my men rehearse. "I felt like my life was in danger"

In South Park, it's "He's coming right for us!"

But either way, this certainly seems like a justifiable self defense case.

South park may or may not have come up in casual conversation down range, that was a great season. Parker and Stone are geniuses. However very different situation, its not about justification for shooting someone or something.
The point of the statement is this: You should never ever hesitate when you feel your life may be in danger. It causes not only harm to you, but harm to the personnel you are charged to help protect. In this case it was a mother and her children. For us it was each other. The statement was not about getting away with anything, simply ensuring that understanding rules of engagement and training kicked in. More than once I know of that fear of prosecution caused Soldiers to hesitate even for a second when instead they should have been reacting. This woman reacted, acted with in the law, and protected her children. That is the end result, and anyone who would have wished her to take a chance, hesitate and risk the lives of her children is probably living in a different world than the rest of us.

Wait. Did we all miss this?

This is the second instance of a homeowner shooting an intruder in Portland in less than a week. On Wednesday a man shot a naked man trying to break into his house. That burglar turned out to be Stanford graduate and former Detroit Lion Stanley Wilson II.

http://patch.com/oregon/portland/woman-kills-intruder-childs-bedroom


I knew that playing for Detroit could have negative mental consequences, but......

Not sure Detroit lost anything.

 agnosto wrote:
Wait. Did we all miss this?

This is the second instance of a homeowner shooting an intruder in Portland in less than a week. On Wednesday a man shot a naked man trying to break into his house. That burglar turned out to be Stanford graduate and former Detroit Lion Stanley Wilson II.

http://patch.com/oregon/portland/woman-kills-intruder-childs-bedroom


I knew that playing for Detroit could have negative mental consequences, but......

man that is just wrong on all levels breaking into someones house in your birthday suit.

Asterios wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Wait. Did we all miss this?

This is the second instance of a homeowner shooting an intruder in Portland in less than a week. On Wednesday a man shot a naked man trying to break into his house. That burglar turned out to be Stanford graduate and former Detroit Lion Stanley Wilson II.

http://patch.com/oregon/portland/woman-kills-intruder-childs-bedroom


I knew that playing for Detroit could have negative mental consequences, but......

man that is just wrong on all levels breaking into someones house in your birthday suit.

And this is why you should never do crack, kids.

Asterios wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Wait. Did we all miss this?

This is the second instance of a homeowner shooting an intruder in Portland in less than a week. On Wednesday a man shot a naked man trying to break into his house. That burglar turned out to be Stanford graduate and former Detroit Lion Stanley Wilson II.

http://patch.com/oregon/portland/woman-kills-intruder-childs-bedroom


I knew that playing for Detroit could have negative mental consequences, but......

man that is just wrong on all levels breaking into someones house in your birthday suit.

But was he a real threat?

Oh man, not again. Did he attempt to gain unlawful entry into said persons house? Yes. Did the homeowner enact lethal force to said criminal as he was moving in, not out? Yes. Was the dude literally built like a NFL player? double check. I am a muscular dude but not NFL muscular, I would definately shoot a person of that size before I hung around to see what his intentions are.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
But was he a real threat?

Ex-Lions player. Probably not.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
But was he a real threat?

Ex-Lions player. Probably not.

giggidy

A little more info on the OP:

Neighbor Amber Murray told the station the home was vacant for a while before the woman and her children moved in recently.

"I know when the previous renters were there, there was a lot of mischief," Murray said. "After they moved out I think there were a few squatters in and out of there.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-portland-oregon-mom-shoots-kills-intruder-in-childs-bedroom/


I read in another article that he had a history of mental illness. Possibly homeless? Maybe squatted there sometime in the past and came back after the family moved in? Tragic for everybody. I hope that she and kids will be OK; that's a heck of a thing to have to live with, all because some guy broke into her home.

I was just reading up on the new reports as well. But a squatter can see the difference between a vacant home and one that is furnished being lived in. Tragic yes, for the family and the scars this will create, but it can be overcome.

RULE #1 and RULE #2.

Final warning before...warnings and suspensions.

 redleger wrote:
I was just reading up on the new reports as well. But a squatter can see the difference between a vacant home and one that is furnished being lived in. Tragic yes, for the family and the scars this will create, but it can be overcome.

Yeah, I hope there's some trauma counseling available in the area and that she accesses it for her and the kids. The 5 year old might be able to bounce back but she and the 10 year old might be in for some tough times. One guy was stupid now this family gets to live with the consequences. The big bonus is that the she and the kids are physically safe. We'll likely never know if the man posed a risk but that doesn't mean her actions weren't warranted and understandable. I hope that I'll never be in that position.

CptJake wrote:No, that is absolutely not how it works. The requirement is that the home owner believes they or someone else is at risk of grave harm. There does not have to be an immediate threat, instead, an immediate threat must be perceived. A subtle difference, but an important one. And in this case, clearly the mother felt a threat. And clearly up to this point the cops feel there was indeed reason for her to do so.

redleger wrote:There is a sentence I made my men rehearse. "I felt like my life was in danger"

Weeeelll. Since we got into the subtle, important differences - then I'd feel obligated to point out that that generally the wording is a reasonable fear of death or grave injury to yourself or someone else. As Peregrine said, there definitely situations where the castle doctrine is not going to apply - a person running away, a person lying on the floor surrendering, and so on. "I felt my life was in danger" isn't a blank check to murder someone and you might be explaining to a jury why precisely you felt like you were in imminent danger of death or bodily injury.

As always, it varies by state, and even then it varies by prosecutorial discretion - a mother finds a stranger in her kid's bedroom in the middle of the night, she's going to have a pretty heavy dose of presumption of good faith.

 Ouze wrote:

CptJake wrote:No, that is absolutely not how it works. The requirement is that the home owner believes they or someone else is at risk of grave harm. There does not have to be an immediate threat, instead, an immediate threat must be perceived. A subtle difference, but an important one. And in this case, clearly the mother felt a threat. And clearly up to this point the cops feel there was indeed reason for her to do so.

redleger wrote:There is a sentence I made my men rehearse. "I felt like my life was in danger"

Weeeelll. Since we got into the subtle, important differences - then I'd feel obligated to point out that that generally the wording is a reasonable fear of death or grave injury to yourself or someone else. As Peregrine said, there definitely situations where the castle doctrine is not going to apply - a person running away, a person lying on the floor surrendering, and so on. "I felt my life was in danger" isn't a blank check to murder someone and you might be explaining to a jury why precisely you felt like you were in imminent danger of death or bodily injury.

As always, it varies by state, and even then it varies by prosecutorial discretion - a mother finds a stranger in her kid's bedroom in the middle of the night, she's going to have a pretty heavy dose of presumption of good faith.

Whole heartedly agree. As I explained in the post after I was quoted before, it is absolutely not about murder, but about ensuring you protect yourself. If you read up a few posts, you will see what I was explaining about that sentence.

It applies differently where I was speaking it with my men, I was simply making a point that in that situation, hesitating would have been a potentially horrible call. Dude running out the door, let insurance handle it.

 Ouze wrote:

As always, it varies by state, and even then it varies by prosecutorial discretion - a mother finds a stranger in her kid's bedroom in the middle of the night, she's going to have a pretty heavy dose of presumption of good faith.

I'll state that I'm not second-guessing the woman's decision nor am I commenting on how she reacted. Out of academic interest Oregon's castle law is such:

Oregon has no duty to retreat. The use of force for self defense can only be used, when it is reasonably believed that it is needed to prevent immediate harm. This applies to defense of one's self or defense of a third party. The force used for self defense, must be proportional to the believed force that the aggressor would have used.

Deadly force can only be used to defend one's self when it is believed that there is an immediate threat of a forcible felony. Or when the aggressor is "about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person." ORS 161.219

There's a lot of room for justifying a shoot in this case since a woman and two, young children were involved.