Outcome of Oregon Shooting Case

peetzakilla said:
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...
Now, there is undoubtedly a lot of detail that is not disclosed by the media report. But I believe the above statement is just wrong, based on the facts of as stated. To wit:

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.
Click to expand...

So, the wife summons the husband from the local tavern. We can only guess at what he's told "Some guy got into the house and is sleeping on the sofa! I've never seen him before, I'm scared!"

There is some omitted information, but we glean that there was a fight of some kind ("He beat me up") which implies that the resident did not simply come home, grab his rifle and start firing. Some kind of contact was made where no lethal force was employed and the resident got his butt kicked.

Quite possibly, the deceased may have believed he was fighting a relative or room mate and unaware of his location. Who knows? We also don't know how the resident woke him up (a swift kick or shaking him awake).

Assuming the deceased got up swinging and beat the tar out of the resident, it is easy to see how many people would not tolerate someone intruding then using violence against the residents and believe him to be a credible threat.

Troubling is the deceased position on the sofa in post-mortem. Without detail it's hard to know if he fell back onto the sofa into a fetal position after being shot OR he tried to return to sleep and curled up on the sofa before being shot.

Even if you think the guy had time on his trip home to "premeditate", unless you could show that his initial acts were life-threatening to the deceased, I don't think you'll prove it. He could very well have been thinking "if he gets violent, I'll grab the .270 and blast him" -- but that does not rise to the level of malice aforethought because the alternative (that's implied above) is that if he is non-violent ...what happens? The bum's rush?

Again... the folks involved here (all around) reveal an astonishing lack of smarts or common sense.
 
Again... the folks involved here (all around) reveal an astonishing lack of smarts or common sense.
Click to expand...

Expressed as an equation:

(Stupid) + (Stupid) + (Firearm) = Death

or perhaps:

(Stupid) + (Drunk) + (Firearm) = Death
 
Pizza killer,
Search under 'voluntary intoxication' and 'diminished capacity'. This will start you off
www.courts.state.md.us/ble/gbanalysis/gbanalysis7-08.wpd
Intoxication is a complete defense when it was involuntary and so excessive as to temporarily deprive the defendant of his reason. Voluntary intoxication may be a defense if a specific intent is an essential element of an offense, such as common law burglary and common law larceny, and the defendant was so intoxicated as to be mentally incapable of entertaining the requisite intent. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a general intent crime, such as “break and enter a dwelling house.” Clark & Marshall, A Treatise on the Law of Crimes §§ 6.09-6.11 (7th ed. 1967).
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intoxication_defense

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1142/Excuse-Intoxication-Voluntary-intoxication.html

http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/nyregister.htm

http://www.ncids.org/Defender Training/2008 Spring Conference/VoluntaryIntoxication-LisaMiles.pdf

If you can find the what the judge wrote for the Oregon case, I'm sure it will discuss the issue of voluntary intoxication.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I'm a little dense, and I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how any of those laws would actually be helpful for the homeowner. In fact, it would appear as though at least some of the wording would be bad for him, by specifically excluding actions taken where voluntary intoxication is involved or requiring for the level of intoxication to be so high as to preclude rational thought.

Specifically how do you see these laws helping the homeowner?
 
Peetza,

They probably don't. But "diminished capacity" can be helpful when finer points of law are debated -- such as whether you were justified in shooting the intruder heading for the kitchen door. In a "diminished capacity" you may have believed he was going for a weapon -- kitchen knives -- instead of the back door. But in this case, it doesn't really apply unless the husband was flying high himself.

Courts have also ruled that one can suffer from "diminished capacity" after a fist fight if the person lost conciousness, suffered repeated blows to the head, has great pain or other incapacitating injuries. In such cases, the rational mind has a diminished capacity to control our actions. Something anyone who has suffered a debilitating backache, toothache or migraine can tell you about.
 
BillCA,

Does the introduction of a second person (the wife) change the arguments for the actions of the husband?

I understand "diminished capacity" in a general sense but, specifically in this case, would the presence of another person eliminate that argument? Would it matter if that other person was also in a "diminished" state.

I still say that the guy inserted himself needlessly into a situation that any "reasonable person" would know had a high probability of becoming dangerous. Yeah, I know, it's his home, his "castle" and all that and I don't totally disagree that he has the right to go in and confront the guy. On the other hand, a "reasonable person" would have called the police, multiple times along the way. The wife when she found the guy, the wife on the way to the bar, the husband or wife at the bar, either of them on the way home, either of them when they got home, either of them after waking the guy up, etc. The fact that they didn't call the police until after the entire event was over, despite having innumerable chances, adds to the idea of "malice aforethought", IMO.

Even in states where one can "assume" dangerous intent from an intruder, I should think that such an assumption is only valid when it has not been shown otherwise. A guy sleeping on the coach somewhat invalidates "assumed danger", IMO. IF you wake him up and start a fight, well, that's blood on your hands. (Granted we don't know who started what... just saying)

I mean, if a guy is sitting on your coach drinking a beer when you get home, a guy you don't know and have never seen, and you stand there and talk to him for a couple of minutes and he's all like "Hey bro, how 'bout them Yankees! Want a beer, bro?"..... well, you can't very well say "Sorry, uh, BRO, this here is a Castle Doctrine state. I'm gonna have to shoot you. Hold real still, I'll try to make it not hurt..."
 
Last edited:
If the intruder is actually asleep on the couch and remains so until the shot is fired, there is no theory under the law that would allow the shot to be justifiable homicide in the first place. The intruder caused the situation, but the shooter escalated it beyond reason.

Things get "interesting" when the intruder wakes up.

If the intruder wakes up and jumps up when you see them, you might reasonably and lawfully have a claim for self-defense if you fire depending on your state's law.

If they realize the situation they are in and remain still, you are in the same position as anyone who has a criminal at gun point (which is a bad position to be in by the way). If you tell them to leave, you have put yourself in extreme peril tactically and legally (complying with your instruction gives them the advantage of initiating action, and you can't use a "furtive movement"). If they remain still, you now have the pleasure of waiting until/if the cops show up.

Here's an interesting excercise to try. Put yourself in the convict's shoes. Your spouse calls and says there is an intruder. Do you tell the spouse to run or barricade? Do you stay on the phone with the spouse or have them call the cops? If you arrive before the cops (very likely in many areas) do you wait outside like many would suggest, or risk a confrontation by going in?

The opportunities for a catastrophe are ripe in this situation. That's why dogs and/or alarms are so important.
 
Put yourself in the convict's shoes. Your spouse calls and says there is an intruder. Do you tell the spouse to run or barricade? Do you stay on the phone with the spouse or have them call the cops? If you arrive before the cops (very likely in many areas) do you wait outside like many would suggest, or risk a confrontation by going in?
Click to expand...

Buzz Knox, the spouse did not stay in the house with the intruder. She left the house and went to the tavern where her husband was.
At no time was she or the husband in physical danger until they re-entered the house. And only then if the intruder woke up before he was shot and did indeed assault the husband.

When I place myself in the shooters position I call the cops from the tavern.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Yep, but I figure it is up to all of those "everyones" to worry about how their mothers are gonna feel if they do something stupid and end up getting hurt. If I am put in a situation to where I am concerned about my family's welfare by someone's silly mistake, how many mothers or brothers or sisters or kids they have is not on my list of immediate concerns.

Nevertheless, I would agree that to take another person's life as a result of a silly mistake is a tragedy to avoid if at all possible. If a person's family, self, and necessities of life can be protected without killing, I am all in favor!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top