Homeowner Kills Home Invader with Deer Rifle - Will DA prosecute??

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LanceOregon

Moderator
kpic%20061908%20crime%20lab%20van.jpg



A family in Oregon suffered a home invasion last night. A 35 yr old stranger came into their unlocked home, and then promptly passed out on their couch in their living room, apparently from drugs or alcohol.

This all happened at 3am in the middle of the night. The wife discovered the man, and immediately alerted her husband. Her husband armed himself with the only firearm that he had: a deer rifle.

Now our local TV news media tonight all reported that the homeowner shot the man while he was still passed out on the couch!! And that when the police arrived, they found the man dead, still lying on the couch.

Do you think the homeowner could have panicked and shot the fellow while he indeed was still passed out?

No charges have been filed at this time. The DA is reviewing the case. Do you think that the homeowner could get off, if indeed the fellow was unconscious when shot??

Hopefully we will learn more information soon. Right now, the reports are very sketchy. I sure hope that there is more to this story than what has been reported so far. Otherwise, this could perhaps become an example of how not to properly defend your home, and instead cause yourself a lot of grief. The Oregon State Police crime lab has been called into service to help in the investigation.

This certainly would be an unusual scenario for anyone defending their home to encounter, but obviously can happen. And thus perhaps one to think about.

Here are news reports:

http://www.kmtr.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=10d78d34-2bbb-465c-a990-b771cb3eabfd

http://www.kval.com/news/20580919.html

http://www.kval.com/news/20560579.html
.
 
Never believe the press. First lesson in law school.

By the way, thank you immensely for the U.S. vs. Lopez case.
I'm so used to congress passing illegal laws, against individual and states rights, that I almost gave up hope. I did a bunch of reading, and, it gives me a bit of hope for the future, other then death...
 
Well, the fact is Socrates, a lot of Federal legislation is really unconstitutional. The constitution only gave limited expressed powers to the Federal government, and reserved everything else for the states. But many other court rulings have unfortunately instead ruled in favor of giving more power to the Federal government. Courts are often interpreting the constitution in the most corrupt ways possible.

If our democracy was functioning at it was truly originally intended, we would all be much better off today, in my opinion.

In U.S vs Lopez, though, the Court did get it right, although only by a bare majority. Democratic leaders in Congress went absolutely livid over that ruling, by the way.

I think the future of our country greatly depends on what sort of folks become the next Supreme Court Justices.

.
 
I'll venture a few comments.

First off, did he have to shoot the intruder? Even if you legally can, doesn't mean you should. Maybe the intruder was very drunk and went 'home' to the wrong house. Their door wasn't locked so he didn't break and enter, just trespass.

Of course, too many unknowns right now to say for sure. Maybe he jumped up, yelled BOO!, and scared the scat out of the husband.
 
Well, the fact is Socrates, a lot of Federal legislation is really unconstitutional. The constitution only gave limited expressed powers to the Federal government, and reserved everything else for the states. But many other court rulings have unfortunately instead ruled in favor of giving more power to the Federal government. Courts are often interpreting the constitution in the most corrupt ways possible.

If our democracy was functioning at it was truly originally intended, we would all be much better off today, in my opinion.

In U.S vs Lopez, though, the Court did get it right, although only by a bare majority. Democratic leaders in Congress went absolutely livid over that ruling, by the way.

I think the future of our country greatly depends on what sort of folks become the next Supreme Court Justices.
Click to expand...

All I can do is agree.
I'm glad to hear the Demos went crazy, but, they are...

Do remember that all this evil came from FDR. He packed the court, and, generally did damage that not even the Constitution could prevent. It wasn't capable of dealing with a Napoleon in a wheel chair, even though it tried.:(

I do have a JD in Kali, but, the irony is that the year Lopez was ruled, I was graduating Magna Cum Laude from college...

I totally missed it, and, in 4 years of law school, the second amendment was considered taboo.

I talked to my Con Law teacher, who I also sleep with, and, she told me today that the edict from the school was the 2nd amendment was off limits...

She no longer works, or teaches...
 
The articles simple state a series of events and do NOT state what was occurring at the time of the shooting. We know 1)that there was a report of a passed out intruder, 2)that the intruder was shot and killed, and then 3)the police arrived.

I did not see any that stated that the intrude was shot while actually "passed out." This aspect is being read into the events.

It very well may have been that the "passed out" intruder was playing 'possum awoke, or otherwise because a treat and was shot by the homeowner.

The fact that a deer rifle was used is not material in any way. It could have been a pistol, military rifle, shotgun, bow and arrow, etc.
 
so since we don't know the details .... if the guy hopped off the sofa and attacked the man or his family, sounds like a good shoot ... if the guy was passed out on the sofa, sounds like murder ... and if the guy's so antsy about self-defense, why wasn't his door locked at 3a? that probably would have saved a life .. and saved him the trouble of hiring a lawyer and defending himself in court
 
It just depends on the laws in Oregon if he'll walk or not. I'm not sure even the Castle Doctrine would protect that action (shooting an intruder who is asleep in your house)...also we don't know any specifics. I think the real purpose of Castle Doctrine is to take the "location" out of the scenario and allow the individual to protect themselves and their homes.

If the guy was indeed asleep I think the better course of action would have been to call the cops and wait. If the guy woke up and was aggressive (remember that if he was drunk/mentally impaired whatever) that he might have thought YOU were in HIS house you'd have to take whatever action was appropriate to keep you and yours from harm.
 
Socrates said:
. . . who I also sleep with . . .
Click to expand...

Wha. . . ? As an excercise in charity, I am trying desperately to fashion any possible reason to post this, and to conceive of anything this contributed to the discussion - other than to call into question the moral probity and professionalism of your ConLaw professor.

As for the "story," why even speculate, since we don't even know the barest details of what took place in that house that morning?
 
At this point we know nothing so there is little point in hypothesizing.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm going to close this for that reason, but if the OP, or anyone else for that matter, can dig up more facts on this, feel free to start another thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top