Aside from violent entry to an occupied home and disregarding warnings the occupant is armed and will fire, he means.
Originally Posted by From the article
Oregon Revised Statutes, regarding use of force: click.
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]
Perhaps the LE believed he was merely defending premises, not his person. But even if the presumption is it's "only" a burglary attempt, ORS 161.219 clearly specifies that burglary in a dwelling (home) justifies use of deadly force. Lest they forget, burglary's a felony (ORS 164.215, 164.225) in Oregon. Of course, it's all subject to interpretation of the "reasonable man" standard, what's deemed is "reasonable" in a situation.
This is the sort of BS that caused "castle" laws to come about. Ridiculous.
Medford, hm? One of the growing liberal infestations in the state of Oregon? Say it ain't so! Had this occurred in Grant County (out by John Day), they'd have patted the citizen on the back, hitched up their holstered guns and simply gone looking for the felon.