Sheriff Gil Gilbertson:Your Right to Self-Defense under Oregon Law
#1
Sheriff Gil Gilbertson will advise what public safety services could look like under the worst-case budget scenario and will then discuss what Oregon law says your rights are when it comes to using force to protect your home, your family and yourself.

http://jocosheriff.us/news/399-worst-case-scenario
Reply
#2
You know you've made people think if nothing else when they put you in their signature. Smiling
Reply
#3
(04-10-2012, 09:14 AM)PonderThis Wrote: You know you've made people think if nothing else when they put you in their signature. Smiling

DUNNO made a "funny!" Laughing
Reply
#4
There's Gilbertson playing both sides yet again:

"Be scared, you'll lose all law enforcement if you don't pony up more taxes!"

and...

"Hey right wingers, let's talk about self defense, guns and shooting people."

Appealing to both sides at the same time, you gotta hand it to the guy, he is one hell of a politician.

And no matter what happens with the - what is it, a 440% increase? - levy, guess who still gets a nice fat paycheck?

Gilbertson, of course.
Reply
#5
(04-10-2012, 09:41 AM)Green Wrote: There's Gilbertson playing both sides yet again:

"Be scared, you'll lose all law enforcement if you don't pony up more taxes!"

and...

"Hey right wingers, let's talk about self defense, guns and shooting people."

Appealing to both sides at the same time, you gotta hand it to the guy, he is one hell of a politician.

And no matter what happens with the - what is it, a 440% increase? - levy, guess who still gets a nice fat paycheck?

Gilbertson, of course.

Yep. Sad.Sad
But, after much soul searching, I don't think I can vote No on the levy.
Animosity towards Gil doesn't an excuse make...Josephine County has been needing to take this step for years.
$.58 per thousand is downright embarrassing.
Reply
#6
Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt your name calling before you can really get it going, but I thought that the STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS are probably factoring into why some people believe, and apparently are correct, that they will not be prosecuted for shooting and killing someone.

Stand-your-ground law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In some cases, a person may use deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit. The difference between immunity and a defense is that an immunity bars suit, charges, detention and arrest. A defense permits a plaintiff or the state to seek civil damages or a criminal conviction. More than half of the states in the United States have adopted the Castle doctrine, stating that a person has no duty to retreat when their home is attacked. Some states go a step further, removing the duty of retreat from any location. "Stand Your Ground", "Line In The Sand" or "No Duty To Retreat" laws thus state that a person has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which he has a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. Under such laws, there is no duty to retreat from anywhere the defender may legally be.[1] Other restrictions may still exist; when in public, a person must be carrying the firearm in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly............................
"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[2][3]
Reply
#7
Do you have any evidence Oregon is a "stand your ground" state? Then why do you keep bringing it up?
Reply
#8
(04-10-2012, 12:25 PM)PonderThis Wrote: Do you have any evidence Oregon is a "stand your ground" state? Then why do you keep bringing it up?
No, I don't think that Oregon is a STAND YOUR GROUND state. But most states have "CASTLE LAWS' and once the principle is extended to the ground on which you stand, by case law, even in other states, it will or won't become a pervasive reality in any case where it is argued.
I am suggesting that the nonchalance, that seems to have been an element in the Trayvon Martin case and the Adkins case, with which the guns were fired might be exactly that, a street level interpretation of the law. I believe both Florida and Arizona have Stand Your Ground laws.

Sorry if the connection is that obscure to you.
Reply
#9
I'll agree the nonchalance of Florida being a "stand your ground" state appears to have contributed to this tragedy, and in that regard I'm glad Oregon does not have similar laws. Indeed, I've heard a person in Oregon must make every effort to retreat and truly fear for his life both in order for it to be legal to shoot someone.
Reply
#10
(04-10-2012, 01:35 PM)PonderThis Wrote: I'll agree the nonchalance of Florida being a "stand your ground" state appears to have contributed to this tragedy, and in that regard I'm glad Oregon does not have similar laws. Indeed, I've heard a person in Oregon must make every effort to retreat and truly fear for his life both in order for it to be legal to shoot someone.

Can you find the law? I would like to see it

Reply
#11
I think it's in this section here, sorry, I don't interpret fine points of law:

JUSTIFICATION



161.190 Justification as a defense



161.195 “Justification” described



161.200 Choice of evils



161.205 Use of physical force generally



161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person



161.215 Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person



161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person



161.225 Use of physical force in defense of premises



161.229 Use of physical force in defense of property



161.235 Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape



161.239 Use of deadly physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape



161.245 “Reasonable belief” described; status of unlawful arrest



161.249 Use of physical force by private person assisting an arrest



161.255 Use of physical force by private person making citizen’s arrest



161.260 Use of physical force in resisting arrest prohibited



161.265 Use of physical force to prevent escape



161.267 Use of physical force by corrections officer or official employed by Department of Corrections



161.270 Duress



161.275 Entrapment
Reply
#12
This is probably one applicable ORS, I am sure that there are others. But stupid people will take laws like this and if they get a "street interpretation" you will certainly get a higher body count.

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]
Reply
#13
The entire self defense code can be found here:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/161.html
Reply
#14
This post has been removed due to a Terms of Service violation.
Reply
#15
I will gladly defend my family and property to the best of my ability--I am an expert shot--but what happens when I'm not at home? What do I do when I see burglars making off with my neighbor's new flat screen TV? Do I shoot the SOB and risk everything I own in a law suit? Wouldn't it be better to get a license number and call 911 and let the deputies handle it? We need to support the criminal justice levy!!
Reply
#16
Its not that Sheriff Gilbertson is playing both sides. He is addressing those whose argument is and always has been, I can take care of myself. I don't need no law enforcement! Maybe after pointing out what folks can and cannot or should not do will clarify things. Of course, speaking to many of those folks is an effort in futility!!
Reply
#17
I wonder which way Zimmerman voted on his levy. Smiling
Reply
#18
(04-10-2012, 03:59 PM)minuteman Wrote: I will gladly defend my family and property to the best of my ability--I am an expert shot--but what happens when I'm not at home? What do I do when I see burglars making off with my neighbor's new flat screen TV? Do I shoot the SOB and risk everything I own in a law suit? Wouldn't it be better to get a license number and call 911 and let the deputies handle it? We need to support the criminal justice levy!!

I agree!
Do we truly want folks to drink themselves crazy in a tavern then get behind the wheel with absolutely no fear of getting caught?
It gives me shivers.
Reply
#19
We pay for this gang, but their first allegiance is not to us. Not even to American interests. Maybe at the bottom, they are unaware they are the arms of The Nazis. But, if they were, what difference would it make, to sunkeneyed losers, with no real skills, in a bad economy?
Reply
#20
Why I support Sheriff Gil Gilbertson: He has researched the law and stands-up for JoCo against the long and extending overreach of the Federal Agencies as part of the Federal Government. He acknowledges and recognizes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, and that to change the Constitution requires an Amendment, not a bureaucratic rule issued by the Dept. of the Interior, Forest Service, BLM or some other power-grabber. As an elected official he can be held accountable by the people (we vote him out), unlike the bureaucrats that inhabit the aforementioned agencies. He is a servant of the people.

In the YouTube video at this link, you'll see a presentation made before other Constitutional Sheriffs regarding the LACK of Federal authority to hold onto the 68% of JoCo they hold in trust. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmQeJNG18vg

Its not the locals that we can hold accountable that are the problem, its the Feds that are the problem. (OK, and a bunch of Portlanders too...)
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)