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.

There's also a point to be made that although she was not charged, it's been less than 24 hours and it's wholly possible she could be charged in the coming days after an investigation turns up (whatever hypothetical situation). So saying "she hasn't been charged, therefore it was a righteous shoot" isn't exactly true.

 Ouze wrote:
There's also a point to be made that although she was not charged, it's been less than 24 hours and it's wholly possible she could be charged in the coming days after an investigation turns up (whatever hypothetical situation). So saying "she hasn't been charged, therefore it was a righteous shoot" isn't exactly true.

was the guy in the other case charged? that should give you a good idea since it was same jurisdiction as this incident.

Do you mean was a guy in a potentially totally different set of circumstances charged? I don't know, and it doesn't seem salient. The link in the OP is pretty light on specific details about this case.

 Ouze wrote:
Do you mean was a guy in a potentially totally different set of circumstances charged? I don't know, and it doesn't seem salient. The link in the OP is pretty light on specific details about this case.

well in this case a mother of 2 small children killed an intruder who was in the girls bedroom, the other case a man killed another naked man trying to break into his house, if he was not charged then seriously doubt she would be, since her was more threatening then his was, but of a similar nature.

 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.

Respectfully you don't seem to know what self defense laws are.

It really helps when arguing that people have an understanding of the basic law and how those laws work.
Again, none of the statements you made are present in any way in the news article. What is present is that the police did not charge her. The police did not arrest her. There is no statement that she is being prosecuted. Under most state laws outside of the Northeast (who's court antics drove the creation of the Castle Doctrine in the first place) this is textbook justified self defense.

Sure if she goes upstairs and Pope Franky is standing there blessing the beds then you might have an action. However, the articles don't say it was Pope Franky.

 Ouze wrote:
There's also a point to be made that although she was not charged, it's been less than 24 hours and it's wholly possible she could be charged in the coming days after an investigation turns up (whatever hypothetical situation). So saying "she hasn't been charged, therefore it was a righteous shoot" isn't exactly true.

I pointed out a couple times the 'yet' part, and even quoted from an article saying the cops were still investigating to determine if the shoot was justified/legal.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 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?

Exactly.
I am not understanding Peregrine's base desire to make a mother with two children discovering at best a felony burglar in her CHILD'S BEDROOM to be the bad guy here, to the extent of making up facts out of whole cloth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
There's also a point to be made that although she was not charged, it's been less than 24 hours and it's wholly possible she could be charged in the coming days after an investigation turns up (whatever hypothetical situation). So saying "she hasn't been charged, therefore it was a righteous shoot" isn't exactly true.

I pointed out a couple times the 'yet' part, and even quoted from an article saying the cops were still investigating to determine if the shoot was justified/legal.

if they haven't charged by now, they won't. No prosecutor who has any career aspirations would charge in this instance. His career would be over.

Will there be a civil suit for wrongful death by the family of the dead guy? Maybe. Will a prosecutor bother filing charges on this? Not if he likes his job.

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
Will there be a civil suit for wrongful death by the family of the dead guy? Maybe. Will a prosecutor bother filing charges on this? Not if he likes his job.

I don't think you'll see a wrongful death suit. I doubt a lawyer would take a contingent fee wrongful death case against a mother who was involved in the justified shooting of a burglar under Oregon's castle law. It would have to be proven that she committed a wrongful act or act of omission that caused the death. If she isn't charged with a crime and is protected by the state's castle doctrine I don't see how anyone could convincingly argue that she did anything wrong.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
Will there be a civil suit for wrongful death by the family of the dead guy? Maybe. Will a prosecutor bother filing charges on this? Not if he likes his job.

I don't think you'll see a wrongful death suit. I doubt a lawyer would take a contingent fee wrongful death case against a mother who was involved in the justified shooting of a burglar under Oregon's castle law. It would have to be proven that she committed a wrongful act or act of omission that caused the death. If she isn't charged with a crime and is protected by the state's castle doctrine I don't see how anyone could convincingly argue that she did anything wrong.

I see where you're going with this, but a plaintiff's lawyer doesn't take a case because he can win at trial. He takes it because he thinks he can get a quick pay-off settlement to go away. It will probably depend on the woman's assets. If she doesn't have that much nobody will bother. Plaintiff's lawyers are like flies. It's easier to get them to go away than swat them. Actually going to trial quickly depletes the profit you'll get for your time. Which is why I've met plaintiff's lawyers that haven't been to trial in decades.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
Will there be a civil suit for wrongful death by the family of the dead guy? Maybe. Will a prosecutor bother filing charges on this? Not if he likes his job.

I don't think you'll see a wrongful death suit. I doubt a lawyer would take a contingent fee wrongful death case against a mother who was involved in the justified shooting of a burglar under Oregon's castle law. It would have to be proven that she committed a wrongful act or act of omission that caused the death. If she isn't charged with a crime and is protected by the state's castle doctrine I don't see how anyone could convincingly argue that she did anything wrong.

as long as the lawyer is paid he will fight any case, or so it goes with ambulance chasing sleazy lawyers.

Don't feed the trolls, just hi the alert.

Thanks,

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

That might actually be reprehensible. Why do they need to "rehearse" a story, rather than tell the truth? The implication here is that you're advocating murdering someone (who may or may not be a threat), and then game the system by lying with a rehearsed story. I think this actually pin points everything that's wrong with allowing people to have weapons for legal "self defence". If you already have your story rehearsed, then it seems clear that you're actually planning to use the weapon in an aggressive, merciless, and possibly illegal manner, and then lie that you felt threatened. Why not have them rehearse the proper and legal course of action, instead of "shoot first, then say you were scared for your life, to get away with it".

 Smacks wrote:

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

That might actually be reprehensible. Why do they need to "rehearse" a story, rather than tell the truth? The implication here is that you're advocating murdering someone (who may or may not be a threat), and then game the system by lying with a rehearsed story. I think this actually pin points everything that's wrong with allowing people to have weapons for legal "self defence". If you already have your story rehearsed, then it seems clear that you're actually planning to use the weapon in an aggressive, merciless, and possibly illegal manner, and then lie that you felt threatened. Why not have them rehearse the proper and legal course of action, instead of "shoot first, then say you were scared for your life, to get away with it".

I get what you are saying, but as someone who does carry, and fully understands the laws, abides by them, and hopes to never be put into the position where taking a life is a 'good' option, I still know damned well the words out of my mouth if the cops come will be "I fully intend to cooperate, but I need to call my lawyer first'.

It is too easy for someone under stress to say something dumb and have some district attorney trying to make a name for himself decide to crucify that person and twist what ever they said.

I have insurance through these guys: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com and they provide a card with what to say and who to contact and ask you to give the cop the card:




I guess you could see this as premeditation, but the reality is it is just covering your bases if forced into a really bad situation. I carry more than the minimum auto insurance not because I intend to crash my car. I carry home owners insurance on the house I own and renters insurance on the house I rent, not because I intend to have those places damaged or property destroyed. I wear a helmet when I ride my bike not because I intend to wreck.

 Smacks wrote:

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

That might actually be reprehensible. Why do they need to "rehearse" a story, rather than tell the truth? The implication here is that you're advocating murdering someone (who may or may not be a threat), and then game the system by lying with a rehearsed story. I think this actually pin points everything that's wrong with allowing people to have weapons for legal "self defence". If you already have your story rehearsed, then it seems clear that you're actually planning to use the weapon in an aggressive, merciless, and possibly illegal manner, and then lie that you felt threatened. Why not have them rehearse the proper and legal course of action, instead of "shoot first, then say you were scared for your life, to get away with it".

The point is not that there is a lie to be told, the point is, when you know everyone is out to get you if you do need to defend your life, then you will hesitate. Now America is a different situation, however when we used lethal force, there was always an investigation, and depending on which officer did it, would depend on the angle he came from. When you shoot someone in america, you are a criminal until proven innocent regardless of what the laws of our country say, you see guilty until proven innocent happen all the time.

Off topic discussion pruned.

The topic is shootings in the US, specifically the one in the OP. Stop going off topic. Thanks

I don't think it's as much "guilty until proven innocent", but whenever someone is shot it is considered a homicide. Once the homicide is established the investigators need to find out who committed the homicide, and also determine if the homicide was justified.

Guy who capped the ex-football player had his shoot ruled justified:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/07/da_finds_ex-nfl_shooting_justi.html

That bodes well for the mother in this story.

 CptJake wrote:

Spoiler:

I get what you are saying, but as someone who does carry, and fully understands the laws, abides by them, and hopes to never be put into the position where taking a life is a 'good' option, I still know damned well the words out of my mouth if the cops come will be "I fully intend to cooperate, but I need to call my lawyer first'.

It is too easy for someone under stress to say something dumb and have some district attorney trying to make a name for himself decide to crucify that person and twist what ever they said.

I have insurance through these guys: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com and they provide a card with what to say and who to contact and ask you to give the cop the card:




I guess you could see this as premeditation, but the reality is it is just covering your bases if forced into a really bad situation. I carry more than the minimum auto insurance not because I intend to crash my car. I carry home owners insurance on the house I own and renters insurance on the house I rent, not because I intend to have those places damaged or property destroyed. I wear a helmet when I ride my bike not because I intend to wreck.

Thank you for posting the card CptJake, that's actually a really interesting insight into a different culture. I would have never seen anything like that here.

I also understand that it's important to choose your words carefully, even when you've acted within the law.

 Smacks wrote:

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

That might actually be reprehensible. Why do they need to "rehearse" a story, rather than tell the truth? The implication here is that you're advocating murdering someone (who may or may not be a threat), and then game the system by lying with a rehearsed story. I think this actually pin points everything that's wrong with allowing people to have weapons for legal "self defence". If you already have your story rehearsed, then it seems clear that you're actually planning to use the weapon in an aggressive, merciless, and possibly illegal manner, and then lie that you felt threatened. Why not have them rehearse the proper and legal course of action, instead of "shoot first, then say you were scared for your life, to get away with it".

OK, I will come at this another way. Your statement that we planned on using our weapons in an aggressive and merciless manner is correct. Illegal not so much, as we were acting within the parameters of the ROE. How it relates to this current situation is the same. This mother, acting within the castle law has been attacked on this very forum for her actions, what makes you think any other American would not be treated the same way?

 redleger wrote:
OK, I will come at this another way. Your statement that we planned on using our weapons in an aggressive and merciless manner is correct. Illegal not so much, as we were acting within the parameters of the ROE. How it relates to this current situation is the same. This mother, acting within the castle law has been attacked on this very forum for her actions, what makes you think any other American would not be treated the same way?

I guessed you were talking about soldiers, but you could have been talking about police, or mall cops, or your husband and sons. I don't know who "your men" are.

I don't really have a problem with the woman's actions being heavily scrutinised. In a situation where you have an obvious homicide, an investigation (possibly a murder investigation) needs to take place, and that investigation aught to be conducted with all the veracity and vigour you would expect, following such a serious incident.

In cases where you have someone who admits to the killing, that person is (for lack of a better word) "responsible". Self defence often falls under affirmative defence (where the person admits the facts, but claims extenuating circumstances). In such cases it's fairly normal for some of the burden of proof to be on the defendant, to show that their actions were justified and not illegal (there is a section specifically about 'burden of proof' in the link I provided).

 Smacks wrote:

 redleger wrote:
OK, I will come at this another way. Your statement that we planned on using our weapons in an aggressive and merciless manner is correct. Illegal not so much, as we were acting within the parameters of the ROE. How it relates to this current situation is the same. This mother, acting within the castle law has been attacked on this very forum for her actions, what makes you think any other American would not be treated the same way?

I guessed you were talking about soldiers, but you could have been talking about police, or mall cops, or your husband and sons. I don't know who "your men" are.

I don't really have a problem with the woman's actions being heavily scrutinised. In a situation where you have an obvious homicide, an investigation (possibly a murder investigation) needs to take place, and that investigation aught to be conducted with all the veracity and vigour you would expect, following such a serious incident.

In cases where you have someone who admits to the killing, that person is (for lack of a better word) "responsible". Self defence often falls under affirmative defence (where the person admits the facts, but claims extenuating circumstances). In such cases it's fairly normal for some of the burden of proof to be on the defendant, to show that their actions were justified and not illegal (there is a section specifically about 'burden of proof' in the link I provided).

wrong burden of proof will all be on the prosecution, they have to show there is reason to charge, you have to remember they are going to be spending state money so have to show a reason why they are spending it, and too be honest not a single states attorney would ever touch this case, its what they call an emotional loser, no jury would convict a woman defending herself and her kids.

After reading this thread I honestly think that if someone was running at you with a knife and you shot them, there would be people who would criticise you for it.

 Daemonhammer wrote:
After reading this thread I honestly think that if someone was running at you with a knife and you shot them, there would be people who would criticise you for it.

Depends on the circumstance.

If, say, they were on the other side of a field and I was sitting in a locked car then I don't think I'd be justified in shooting them over just driving away (unless they happened to be Sir Lancelot, in which case he'd still take me by surprise)

 Daemonhammer wrote:
After reading this thread I honestly think that if someone was running at you with a knife and you shot them, there would be people who would criticise you for it.

Were they enthusiastically helping you slice a birthday cake?

 kronk wrote:

 Daemonhammer wrote:
After reading this thread I honestly think that if someone was running at you with a knife and you shot them, there would be people who would criticise you for it.

Were they enthusiastically helping you slice a birthday cake?

NOBODY cuts the cake for me.

 Daemonhammer wrote:
After reading this thread I honestly think that if someone was running at you with a knife and you shot them, there would be people who would criticise you for it.

Yes. Only a coward brings a gun to a knife fight. As a true manly man, you should have taken the guy out of action with nothing but your bare fists and the awesome power of your moustache.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Daemonhammer wrote:
After reading this thread I honestly think that if someone was running at you with a knife and you shot them, there would be people who would criticise you for it.

Yes. Only a coward brings a gun to a knife fight. As a true manly man, you should have taken the guy out of action with nothing but your bare fists and the awesome power of your moustache.

we should all be Chuck Norris.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Daemonhammer wrote:
After reading this thread I honestly think that if someone was running at you with a knife and you shot them, there would be people who would criticise you for it.

Yes. Only a coward brings a gun to a knife fight. As a true manly man, you should have taken the guy out of action with nothing but your bare fists and the awesome power of your moustache.

I dont have a moustache but I have a beard, will that do?

 Daemonhammer wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Daemonhammer wrote:
After reading this thread I honestly think that if someone was running at you with a knife and you shot them, there would be people who would criticise you for it.

Yes. Only a coward brings a gun to a knife fight. As a true manly man, you should have taken the guy out of action with nothing but your bare fists and the awesome power of your moustache.

I dont have a moustache but I have a beard, will that do?

Depends. Is it a neckbeard or a manly one?

I kid, I kid!