Outcome of Oregon Shooting Case

O

OldMarksman

Staff
In an earlier post, I erroneously said that a man in Washington State had been charged with murder after shooting a man in his house who had entered while the resident was not in the house.

Memory failed me. The incident occurred in Oregon.

After plea bargaining, the charge was reduced from second degree manslaughter to negligent homicide.

The victim had entered the shooter's house when the shooter was not home. The shooter's wife discovered the man asleep on the couch and summoned her husband, who returned home, encountered the shooter, shot him fatally, and claimed self defense.

ROSEBURG, Ore. -- A Sutherlin man who shot and killed a man his wife found asleep on their couch last year will serve 19 months in prison as part of a plea deal.

Keith Cramer, 35, pleaded no contest to criminally negligent homicide with a firearm. In exchange, the district attorney dropped a charge of second degree manslaughter.

The charges stem from a shooting inside Cramer's home in Sutherlin, where Cramer's wife discovered a man sleeping on their couch last June.

She told police she went to a local tavern to get her husband, and the intruder, Michael Shane Smith, 35, of Alaska, was shot in the chest.

Cramer will be sentenced by Judge Ronald Poole in August. The two sides have agreed on a sentence of 19 months in exchange for the plea.

"He has tremendous sorrow for the death of Mr. Smith, and for his wife and family," defense attorney Jim Arneson said of Cramer, "and wishes to the bottom of his soul this had never happened."

Sentencing is set for Aug. 7 at 8:30 a.m.

'He beat me up, so I shot him. This is my house. He's an intruder'

According to police accounts, Cramer's wife found the stranger passed out on the family's couch and summoned her husband from a bar.

Cramer said that what happened next was self-defense. According to a search warrant affidavit, he told officers: "He beat me up, so I shot him. This is my house. He's an intruder."

Two Sutherlin police officers entered the home after the June 19 shooting and found the 35-year-old Smith. He was "lying on his side with his feet propped up on the couch, facing the center of the living room," the affidavit states.

Investigators said Smith appeared to have been shot in the chest with a high-powered hunting rifle.

Smith lived in Alaska, but had been in Sutherlin for several weeks mourning the May 29 death of his mother. A friend said Smith had been drinking heavily on the night of the shooting and might have become disoriented while walking back to his stepfather's house.

Smith had been at the same bar as Cramer, but it does not appear the men knew each other.
Click to expand...

http://www.kval.com/news/local/49453732.html
 
I remember that incident.

I knew at that time that he had done the wrong thing. This has been discussed at length already but they should have just called police and let the guy sleep until they got there.

Now he's a convicted felon. The 19 months in prison isn't the big deal IMO. The bigger deal is having a felony conviction following you around until you die.
 
You know, I can't be sure what the effect of Cramer's misstatements to the police ultimately was, but he lied to them. That was *after* he shot the guy, probably while not strictly sober. (Wife had just picked him up at the bar.)

This simply wasn't a self-defense case. I'm glad the DA agreed to the plea deal, because the lies were probably just the panicky nonsense so many people come up with when an unimaginably awful thing happens and they feel blindsided by events, not the cold and calculated attempt of a murderer to avoid justice. But manslaughter or negligent homicide sounds about right to me.

(sigh) Yet another illustration of why you simply *don't shoot* except in defense of yourself or innocent other people from a clear threat against life or limb.
 
From the description of the victim's position (on the floor, feet on the couch) it sounds like he was still on the couch when he was shot. If so, I'd say Mr. Cramer was pretty lucky to be allowed to plead to negligent homicide, especially if he was under the influence himself at the time, as his coming home from a bar sort of suggests.

Why on earth didn't his wife just call the cops? She left the house to get her husband, but she couldn't just stay away and let the police deal with the situation??

Gads.
 
Not sure about Murder I but definitely Murder II and he was lucky with the plea. Sometimes I feel like there are some people walking around and a few on this board just waiting for the chance to shoot someone legally. When you get your tactical Remmy 870 with extended mag, tactical lights, laser sights etc. are you really looking to defend your home or go to war?

This fellow walks in and goes to get his hunting rifle. It wasn't like he was carrying his gun on him. It doesn't give much detail but it appears that to call the ploice would have taken care of it. If he didn't wak up while she went to get her husband he probably wasn't going to wake up until the police got there.
 
I think the sentence was appropriate. Drunks should be judged the same as sober folks for their actions in public. But in their own home, the standard should be what a reasonable person of the same level of intoxication would do.

It is legal to drink at home, or drink in a bar and safely come home. Likewise, it is legal to take sleeping pills, or allergy pills, or pain meds. It isn't ok to be mentally-altered and go drive a vehicle, but being legally altered and home should be ok. Moreover, people shouldn't forfeit their rights to self-defense and defense of property because they are intoxicated or because they have a mental disease (e.g. diabetic shock, stroke, fever, insomnia).

Persons who trespass should bear the major burden of the risks of their trespass, including the risk that a drunk person might respond inappropriately. To a major extent, persons in their own home should be excused from their inappropriate spontanteous and passionate reactions when they took reasonable and appropriate steps to prevent the inciting action from occurring.
 
peetzakilla said:
Should have been Murder 1.
Click to expand...
So... where is the malice aforethought as and element of the crime? Murder II is about as high as something like this might get.

I'll agree with others -- calling the cops would have been the smart thing to do in the first place. Calling the cops would have been smart after dragging her hubby home from the pub. Calling the cops would have been smart when the fistfight began.

It just seems to me there was a lack of smarts here. :p
 
Drunks should be judged the same as sober folks for their actions in public. But in their own home, the standard should be what a reasonable person of the same level of intoxication would do.
Click to expand...

There is no logic whatsoever in that standard. In public you must act like everyone else, drunk or not. At home, being drunk is an excuse to be stupid?


To a major extent, persons in their own home should be excused from their inappropriate spontanteous and passionate reactions when they took reasonable and appropriate steps to prevent the inciting action from occurring.
Click to expand...

Spontaneous:
spontaneously - ad lib: without advance preparation;

"Spontaneous" might be an excuse when somebody kicks your door down. It most certainly is not an excuse when someone is sleeping on your couch, and has been for long enough for your wife to find them and come back to a bar to get you and return home and retrieve your rifle....



Think of it this way:

Your wife finds a man sleeping on a park bench. She goes and finds you and you return and kill him. Murder 1? You betcha. Now, is his being in your home UNDER THE EXACT SAME OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, really that much different?

So... where is the malice aforethought...
Click to expand...

He had the entire trip home and all the time it took him to retrieve his rifle for "malice aforethought". He obviously decided he was going to shoot this guy and took absolutely no action of any kind to avoid it. Planning to kill someone doesn't require weeks of time to become Murder 1. The trip home from the bar is plenty.
 
Should have been Murder 1.
Click to expand...

I Agree.

So... where is the malice aforethought as and element of the crime?
Click to expand...

Pete hit the nail on the head;

He had the entire trip home and all the time it took him to retrieve his rifle for "malice aforethought". He obviously decided he was going to shoot this guy and took absolutely no action of any kind to avoid it. Planning to kill someone doesn't require weeks of time to become Murder 1. The trip home from the bar is plenty.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of "plea deal" excrement that worries me the most about our justice system. I can think of another case we are discussing in another thread that could wind up like this, and a cold blooded murder suddenly turns into a "horrible accident" of sorts, and a killer gets a simple slap on the wrist.
 
Smith lived in Alaska, but had been in Sutherlin for several weeks mourning the May 29 death of his mother. A friend said Smith had been drinking heavily on the night of the shooting and might have become disoriented while walking back to his stepfather's house.

Cramer's wife found the stranger passed out on the family's couch and summoned her husband from a bar.
Click to expand...

Seen something similar to this in the same thread as well. The outcome was a lot different though.
 
Peet,
Is it legal to be drunk in public where you live? Is it legal to be drunk in your own home? Different legal standards create different standards of behavior yes. If it is legal to drink in your home, it is legal to drink yourself stupid.

Alcohol intoxication is recognized as a (temporary) disease, and our society considers diseases as mitigating factors.

If I lock up my house, black out on valu rite vodka, and wake up to find that I've killed 2 burglars in my house - temporary insanity defense or the equivalent. No criminal intent = no crime.

If the Oregon shooter killed the guy because he, the shooter, was drunk, no crime. If he killed the guy and happened to be drunk while he did it, crime. Here, his being drunk was obviously considered a factor for adjudication.
 
Seen those words in threads before haven't we

WildcastlesgonewildAlaska

Yes we have.. And yes this person was an intruder. It is that simple to be in a residence unlawfully is to be an intruder.

However the level of force used should be in proportion to the level of threat present. In this case a simple call to th cops would have worked.
 
Last edited:
Alcohol intoxication is recognized as a (temporary) disease, and our society considers diseases as mitigating factors.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about Pathological Intoxication? If you're not, being drunk is often cause for additional charges, not fewer. Alcoholism is a "disease" (even that's debatable), being drunk is not.


If the Oregon shooter killed the guy because he, the shooter, was drunk, no crime. If he killed the guy and happened to be drunk while he did it, crime. Here, his being drunk was obviously considered a factor for adjudication.
Click to expand...

A convenient excuse for a plea bargain, you mean. Since correlation does not equal causality there is no way on earth to known if the answer is "a because b" or "a + b".


Is it legal to be drunk in public where you live? Is it legal to be drunk in your own home? Different legal standards create different standards of behavior yes. If it is legal to drink in your home, it is legal to drink yourself stupid.
Click to expand...

It is entirely legal to drink yourself stupid. It is not legal to do things which are illegal because you are stupid drunk.
 
Well, this is proof that (1) folks should know the laws of their state, and (2) a good attorney is priceless.

Personally, I wouldn't convict anyone of shooting an intruder in their home, regardless of the reason.

Drunk, crazy, or just plain stupid, if you go in to someone's home uninvited then you're risking your life.
And the sooner we get this message in the heads of criminals and idiots who break in to homes, the better off we will all be.
 
easyG said:
Personally, I wouldn't convict anyone of shooting an intruder in their home, regardless of the reason.
Drunk, crazy, or just plain stupid, if you go in to someone's home uninvited then you're risking your life.
And the sooner we get this message in the heads of criminals and idiots who break in to homes, the better off we will all be.
Click to expand...

EasyG, have you read the thread to which Pax posted a link, above? I recommend it. Think about whether all the people involved in all the similar incidents described in that thread (including a bunch of 1st person accounts of waking up in someone else's house) really should've been shot as a warning to others... which is basically what you're saying.
 
Happened to my brother, he was 15, got drunk went to the wrong house, went inside, cops found him eating a bowl of cereal at the table. Cops brought him 4 houses up to our house.

Sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes people make a mistake, should they die for it? I would hope not.

Maybe someone needs to mature a little bit, outgrow his childlike ways, put aside his thirst to kill. Everyone has a mom. This is how I think of folks, and then how will their mom feel after her kid is killed for a silly mistake that a call to the cops would have taken care of instead of the morgue?

I try to find the way that is best for all, killing or even shooting someone isnt something I really want to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top