Challenge

This is a discussion on Challenge within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by ericb327 The message I'm getting is keep your mouth shut till we accept you. I get it! psssssttt over here... here's what ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 50
Like Tree46Likes

Thread: Challenge

  1. #31
    Senior Member Array TheShadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Stuck In The 1970's
    Posts
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by ericb327 View Post
    The message I'm getting is keep your mouth shut till we accept you. I get it!
    psssssttt over here...

    here's what ya do.

    Get ya one of them fancy avatar pictures right by your name, create a catchy signature, then copy & past a "howdy"...

    in all the intro threads to bump up your post count

    look at me *pokes out chest* 800 posts in 4 years!

    still no one knows who the hell I am

    But I'd make one hell of a Walmart greeter

    J/K you'll fit in just fine here with a smidgen of forum decorum
    “Put your pain in a box. Lock it down. No man is stronger than one who can harness his emotions.” -Act of Valor

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Member Array Obie1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    WMass
    Posts
    25
    Hey, Okemo (and I skied there a lot in my youth), I wish we here in MA could get away with defending our mistress with deadly force. Pretty sure the wife would would have a differing opinion.

  4. #33
    Senior Member Array Okemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by Obie1 View Post
    Hey, Okemo (and I skied there a lot in my youth), I wish we here in MA could get away with defending our mistress with deadly force. Pretty sure the wife would would have a differing opinion.
    I can see year old ski mountain right from my front yard. Good luck with the mistress.

    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
    And you know I could have me a million more friends, and all I'd have to lose is my point of view. -- John Prine (A Good Time)

  5. #34
    Ex Member Array rambosky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    North Carolina, land of the free
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by ericb327 View Post
    After reading a few threads here I have come to the conclusion that a few people don't know or care what the laws of use of physical deadly force are in there state. Do you? My challenge is to post the use of physical deadly force for your state or just go find it and read it. I think you'll be surprised at what you find!
    Sorry, but you are a newbee with no history. I was taught the use of deadly force back in 1970 at the Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department's new Police Academy. It was built by funds requested by Richard Nixon with his "War on Crime" bill focusing on our nations capital. At that time it was second in size to only the LA Police Academy.

    So my challenge to you: How old were you in 1970? When did you first learn about the use of deadly force? And..... how much training have you had with handguns? Thanks in advance for your qualifications to be asking this board that question.
    Last edited by rambosky; April 6th, 2012 at 09:47 PM.
    Mike1956 likes this.

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array varob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,447
    The is very presumptuous of you to assume
    All right Suntzu, that's a $5 fine for using a $10 word!
    Don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see!
    -Tony Soprano

  7. #36
    Senior Member Array Okemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    531
    I need more popcorn.

    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
    And you know I could have me a million more friends, and all I'd have to lose is my point of view. -- John Prine (A Good Time)

  8. #37
    JD
    JD is offline
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    19,188
    Quote Originally Posted by rambosky View Post
    Sorry, but you are a newbee with no history.....
    RamboSky:
    Join Date
    March 14th, 2012




    I like where the OP is going with this and think it's good to see more people encouraging members to look up their state laws.

    I was taught the use of deadly force back in 1970 at the Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department's new Police Academy.
    Honest question, how well does what you learned in the 70s in another region as a police officer relate to current North Carolina code as a civilian?

  9. #38
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,525
    Georgia has a bunch of wordy stuff, with these particular highlights....

    § 16-3-21. Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution
    § 16-3-23. Use of force in defense of habitation
    § 16-3-23.1. No duty to retreat prior to use of force in self-defense
    § 16-3-24. Use of force in defense of property other than a habitation

    On a slightly less smarty pants note, I am a lawyer, and in the area I practice I usually read the statues and regulations several times a week. Yes, same statutes and same regs every week - I need to be sure. Good to know what the law is and all the stuff the goes with it. Same goes for self defense.

  10. #39
    Member Array Chadd1014's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Okemo View Post
    § 2305. Justifiable homicide

    If a person kills or wounds another under any of the circumstances enumerated below, he or she shall be guiltless:

    (1) In the just and necessary defense of his or her own life or the life of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, sister, master, mistress, servant, guardian or ward; or

    (2) In the suppression of a person attempting to commit murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, burglary or robbery, with force or violence; or

    (3) In the case of a civil officer; or a military officer or private soldier when lawfully called out to suppress riot or rebellion, or to prevent or suppress invasion, or to assist in serving legal process, in suppressing opposition against him or her in the just and necessary discharge of his or her duty. (Amended 1983, No. 23, § 2.)

    The Vermont Statutes Online

    I love a good challenge.

    Things are a lot easier in Vermont!!


    I'll play. The Oregon Statutes (and it does show that deadly physical force cannot be used for property crimes, only with a few exceptions and even just burglary doesn't come with a free pass to use deadly force unless a few conditions exist).

    Quote Originally Posted by ORS Chapter 161
    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 section 1, chapter 665, Oregon Laws 2011, may use reasonable physical force upon a student when and to the extent the application of force is consistent with section 3, chapter 665, Oregon Laws 2011.
    (2) 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]


    Note 1: The amendments to 161.205 by section 10, chapter 665, Oregon Laws 2011, become operative July 1, 2012. See section 12, chapter 665, Oregon Laws 2011. The text that is operative until July 1, 2012, is set forth for the user’s convenience.
    161.205. 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 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. A teacher may use reasonable physical force upon a student when and to the extent the teacher reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order in the school or classroom or at a school activity or event, whether or not it is held on school property.
    (2) 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.

    Note 2: The amendments to 161.205 by section 11, chapter 665, Oregon Laws 2011, become operative June 30, 2017. See section 12, chapter 665, Oregon Laws 2011. The text that is operative on and after June 30, 2017, is set forth for the user’s convenience.
    161.205. 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 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. A teacher may use reasonable physical force upon a student when and to the extent the teacher reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order in the school or classroom or at a school activity or event, whether or not it is held on school property.
    (2) 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.

    161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person. Except as provided in ORS 161.215 and 161.219, 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]

    161.215 Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding ORS 161.209, 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]

    161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, 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]

    161.220 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

    161.225 Use of physical force in defense of premises. (1) A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.
    (2) A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (1) of this section only:
    (a) In defense of a person as provided in ORS 161.219; or
    (b) When the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson or a felony by force and violence by the trespasser.
    (3) As used in subsection (1) and subsection (2)(a) of this section, “premises” includes any building as defined in ORS 164.205 and any real property. As used in subsection (2)(b) of this section, “premises” includes any building. [1971 c.743 §25]

    161.229 Use of physical force in defense of property. A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief of property. [1971 c.743 §26]

    161.230 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

    161.235 Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape. Except as provided in ORS 161.239, a peace officer is justified in using physical force upon another person only when and to the extent that the peace officer reasonably believes it necessary:
    (1) To make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person unless the peace officer knows that the arrest is unlawful; or
    (2) For self-defense or to defend a third person from what the peace officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force while making or attempting to make an arrest or while preventing or attempting to prevent an escape. [1971 c.743 §27]

    161.239 Use of deadly physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.235, a peace officer may use deadly physical force only when the peace officer reasonably believes that:
    (a) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
    (b) The crime committed by the person was kidnapping, arson, escape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree or any attempt to commit such a crime; or
    (c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is necessary to defend the peace officer or another person from the use or threatened imminent use of deadly physical force; or
    (d) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony and under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time and place, the use of such force is necessary; or
    (e) The officer’s life or personal safety is endangered in the particular circumstances involved.
    (2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section constitutes justification for reckless or criminally negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom the peace officer is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody. [1971 c.743 §28]

    161.240 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

    161.245 “Reasonable belief” described; status of unlawful arrest. (1) For the purposes of ORS 161.235 and 161.239, a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense means a reasonable belief in facts or circumstances which if true would in law constitute an offense. If the believed facts or circumstances would not in law constitute an offense, an erroneous though not unreasonable belief that the law is otherwise does not render justifiable the use of force to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody.
    (2) A peace officer who is making an arrest is justified in using the physical force prescribed in ORS 161.235 and 161.239 unless the arrest is unlawful and is known by the officer to be unlawful. [1971 c.743 §29]

    161.249 Use of physical force by private person assisting an arrest. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person who has been directed by a peace officer to assist the peace officer to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody is justified in using physical force when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force to be necessary to carry out the peace officer’s direction.
    (2) A person who has been directed to assist a peace officer under circumstances specified in subsection (1) of this section may use deadly physical force to make an arrest or to prevent an escape only when:
    (a) The person reasonably believes that force to be necessary for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or
    (b) The person is directed or authorized by the peace officer to use deadly physical force unless the person knows that the peace officer is not authorized to use deadly physical force under the circumstances. [1971 c.743 §30]

    161.250 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

    161.255 Use of physical force by private person making citizen’s arrest. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a private person acting on the person’s own account is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom the person has arrested under ORS 133.225.
    (2) A private person acting under the circumstances prescribed in subsection (1) of this section is justified in using deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. [1971 c.743 §31; 1973 c.836 §339]

    161.260 Use of physical force in resisting arrest prohibited. A person may not use physical force to resist an arrest by a peace officer who is known or reasonably appears to be a peace officer, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful. [1971 c.743 §32]

    161.265 Use of physical force to prevent escape. (1) A guard or other peace officer employed in a correctional facility, as that term is defined in ORS 162.135, is justified in using physical force, including deadly physical force, when and to the extent that the guard or peace officer reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner from a correctional facility.
    (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a guard or other peace officer employed by the Department of Corrections may not use deadly physical force in the circumstances described in ORS 161.267 (3). [1971 c.743 §33; 2005 c.431 §3]

    161.267 Use of physical force by corrections officer or official employed by Department of Corrections. (1) As used in this section:
    (a) “Colocated minimum security facility” means a Department of Corrections institution that has been designated by the Department of Corrections as a minimum security facility and has been located by the department on the grounds of a medium or higher security Department of Corrections institution.
    (b) “Department of Corrections institution” has the meaning given that term in ORS 421.005.
    (c) “Stand-alone minimum security facility” means a Department of Corrections institution that has been designated by the department as a minimum security facility and that has been located by the department separate and apart from other Department of Corrections institutions.
    (2) A corrections officer or other official employed by the Department of Corrections is justified in using physical force, including deadly physical force, when and to the extent that the officer or official reasonably believes it necessary to:
    (a) Prevent the escape of an inmate from a Department of Corrections institution, including the grounds of the institution, or from custody;
    (b) Maintain or restore order and discipline in a Department of Corrections institution, or any part of the institution, in the event of a riot, disturbance or other occurrence that threatens the safety of inmates, department employees or other persons; or
    (c) Prevent serious physical injury to or the death of the officer, official or another person.
    (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2)(a) of this section, a corrections officer or other official employed by the department may not use deadly physical force to prevent the escape of an inmate from:
    (a) A stand-alone minimum security facility;
    (b) A colocated minimum security facility, if the corrections officer or other official knows that the inmate has been classified by the department as minimum custody; or
    (c) Custody outside of a Department of Corrections institution:
    (A) While the inmate is assigned to an inmate work crew; or
    (B) During transport or other supervised activity, if the inmate is classified by the department as minimum custody and the inmate is not being transported or supervised with an inmate who has been classified by the department as medium or higher custody.
    (4) Nothing in this section limits the authority of a person to use physical force under ORS 161.205 (2) or 161.265. [2005 c.431 §2]

    161.270 Duress. (1) The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense, other than murder, is not criminal if the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because the actor was coerced to do so by the use or threatened use of unlawful physical force upon the actor or a third person, which force or threatened force was of such nature or degree to overcome earnest resistance.
    (2) Duress is not a defense for one who intentionally or recklessly places oneself in a situation in which it is probable that one will be subjected to duress.
    (3) It is not a defense that a spouse acted on the command of the other spouse, unless the spouse acted under such coercion as would establish a defense under subsection (1) of this section. [1971 c.743 §34; 1987 c.158 §22]

    161.275 Entrapment. (1) The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because the actor was induced to do so by a law enforcement official, or by a person acting in cooperation with a law enforcement official, for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used against the actor in a criminal prosecution.
    (2) As used in this section, “induced” means that the actor did not contemplate and would not otherwise have engaged in the proscribed conduct. Merely affording the actor an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment. [1971 c.743 §35]

  11. #40
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    In addition to knowing our actual statute and particularly for us Common-law / case-law State, the following is a dang good read:

    Defending the Self-Defense Case

    Especially note the AOJ Triad discussion.
    Stubborn likes this.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  12. #41
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    If a new CC permit holder does not take the time to find out what their law states on the use of deadly force (and all the other laws pertaining to carrying) why do you think they will even take the time on this forum to read it.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  13. #42
    Distinguished Member Array ericb327's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bellevue, Ky/Cincinatti
    Posts
    1,414
    it seems quite a few people did look and read. Just sayin.

  14. #43
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Is there really I need to attack someone just because they do not show 1000's of posts. It really isn't about how many posts its about what is posted by someone.

    Funny I have yet to see anyone on this forum that "knows it all".

    Lets try to make new posters to this forum feel welcome so they do not get turned off and move on.
    JD, gottabkiddin and Stubborn like this.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  15. #44
    Senior Member Array TheShadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Stuck In The 1970's
    Posts
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by ericb327 View Post
    it seems quite a few people did look and read. Just sayin.
    Yep!

    Spent about an hour refreshing my memory. Darn these legal documents are so long. I wish my issuing state would update there www, as some things have changed and are no longer valid.
    “Put your pain in a box. Lock it down. No man is stronger than one who can harness his emotions.” -Act of Valor

  16. #45
    Member Array jasgo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by ericb327 View Post
    After reading a few threads here I have come to the conclusion that a few people don't know or care what the laws of use of physical deadly force are in there state. Do you? My challenge is to post the use of physical deadly force for your state or just go find it and read it. I think you'll be surprised at what you find!
    Knowing the laws is one thing. Having common sense is another. Knowing what will happen and what you will have to go through if you ever have to shoot someone is just as or more important. It makes you think about the seriousness and the implications that wil result if you ever have to use deadly force (lawyers, money, court, stress, effect on family members, etc). Take the fellow in the recent national news. He probably knew the Florida SYG law but if he had only thought through in advance what would happen if his weapon were ever used, I think he might have made different decisions. Or how would he have acted if he could not carry a gun.

    I always preach to anyone wanting to get a gun for SD use is that you do not let the ability to carry a gun to subvert common sense. As an aside, it is not a bad thing to find a good criminal defense lawyer you like and spend some money on a consultation to get legal advice for the vicinity and what to do if involved in a shooting. If it is an experienced lawyer, he/she will have practical legal advice.
    ericb327 likes this.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

duty to retreat in oregon

Click on a term to search for related topics.