Oregon is a castle doctrine state, which means that a homeowner or property owner does not have the duty to retreat from protecting themselves, family or property if the premises is in their legal possession.
In general though, one should not think of castle doctrine as authorizing you to shoot a burglar or home invader, rather you should think of the law as authorizing a defense in court to such an action.
Ideally the armed and alert homeowner who catches an intruder would hold him or her at gunpoint until the police arrived. Of course, in reality, many such situations are far from ideal.
If you do shoot, and subsequently kill an intruder, you can expect a deadly serious investigation by the police and the district attorney into whether your claim of self-defense and castle doctrine is proper.
Moreover, remember that the DA can still try to put you on trial and force you to prove it yourself to a jury of your peers, causing months or even years of legal headaches, finances, and anxiety. If for example, you shot a burglar in the back, that could be evidence that you could not reasonably fear for your life at the time you fired.
The bottom line is that although castle doctrine says you do not have to retreat in your home before defending yourself or property with deadly force, you should still try to avoid shooting anyone, even an intruder, unless you are in imminent danger of death or serious harm.
If you break into someone’s home, you forfeit your right to live.
I understand the intent. We do not as humans wish to cause harm to another, and no one should be shot in the back. But when the pursuer has been at it for months and the authorities have been involved twice to no avail, I think deadly force is warranted. How many others will a perpetrator haunt? And if not deadly, because as I mentioned no one wants to take a life, then perhaps debilitating. So law I enforcement will take the next call seriously.
I believe that homeowners have every right to shoot an intruder. It’s an invasion of privacy and it’s morally wrong on the intruders behalf. They basically have it coming. They don’t deserve to just get away with a little bit of jail time and fines and charges, they need to be taken care of. And honestly, armed or not, they are putting you, your family, and your possessions in danger. I would shoot someone who broke into my home uninvited. I don’t honestly don’t understand why people should punish homeowners trying to defend themselves and their families. It’s quite outrageous that it’s punishable. If anyone enters my home, (and I’m sure this applies to many) they’ve crossed the line, they’ve signed themselves away. They could’ve just NOT robbed a home, and decided to maybe focus on safer and more legal alternatives (such as getting a job!). Again, it’s just an invasion of privacy and your life, so they get their karma for making a stupid decision such as burglary. Face it; deep down inside, everyone reading this would want to shoot a burglar in their home, even if you’re not a killer, it’s just how it should work. So anyways, I hope I got my point across, and I hope some officials who aren’t so blind to reality will come to the realization that people firing in home defense are not, in any way, wrong.
Hi there friends, its great piece of writing regarding teachingand
completely defined, keep it up all the time.
Like!! I blog frequently and I really thank you for your content. The article has truly peaked my interest.
I like the valuable information you provide in your articles.
I learn something new and challenging on blogs I stumbleupon everyday.