(OR) Self Defense Laws?

[LonWilson]

Since we're talking about Florida self defense laws in another thread, I want to bring up Oregon's self defense situation.

I know that in pretty much every western state, they do not have a "duty to retreat" provision in the case law. Is this the case in OR?

Also, I read about Oregon's law. From first reading, the OR CCW statute is even better than FL's. No reciprocity though, so I'm going to get or change to a non-resident Florida carry permit as soon as I might move there.

Anything else interesting? If I move, I am going to be joining Oregon Firearms Federation as soon as I move.

 

[LonWilson]

btt

 

[ViLLain]

Oregon statute requires that licensee make an effort to retreat from any life threatening situation.

 

[LonWilson]

It does? There's a duty to retreat? Crap.

 

[SKN]

ViLLain

Would you cite the source of that requirement? I find it nowhere in my reading of the ORS as the statutes relate to the use of deadly physical force but perhaps I've missed something.

 

[LonWilson]

Florida's statute, I don't think, is in statute, but in court cases. But my impressions was that ALL of the Western States, except from HI and AK, doesn't have a duty to retreat in case law or statute.

 

[ViLLain]

SKN,

I have a Oregon non residence license. Took my safety course at Janzen Beach. During the three hour required safety course, it was explicitly stated that licensee must make an attempt to flee. It you have a CHL, you weren't listening.

 

[John Marshall]

ViLLain:

Who taught the course you took? Could the instructor have been giving his own interpretation of Oregon law? I have to agree with SKN, I don't find anything in the ORS to support the position requiring retreat.

Check out www.leg.state.or.us/ors/161.html . Specifically Sections 161.209 through 161.229.

 

[ViLLain]

Couldn't find jack, but still doesn't mean it is not possible. The statutes you linked me to refer to "physical force" and not "deadly force" in most of the provisions. I'm obviously not a lawyer, but have talked to a few in regards this and similar issues. Case law is an entirely different ball game and the possibility that there is some court precedent may have made my instructor say this. Took the class at the "The Place to Shoot" in Janzen Beach about three years ago. I don't remember the guy's name, but he state over and over again that the law requires an attempt to escape. It has always stuck in my head.

I would suggest to anyone that if they wish to stand their ground where the outcome will result in a shooting to talk to an attorney first. Criminal lawyer preferably. Start by asking what he would charge per hour to defend you.

 

[ViLLain]

John,

Again I'm not an attorney, but the preambles of the statutes seems to have a standard. It could mean anything, but.... Who know? Just hope I never have to deal with this issue.

161.200 Choice of evils. (1) Unless inconsistent with other provisions of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, defining justifiable use
of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not
criminal when:

(a) That conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury; and

(b) The threatened injury is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the
offense in issue.

(2) The necessity and justifiability of conduct under subsection (1) of this section shall not rest upon considerations pertaining only to
the morality and advisability of the statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of
cases arising thereunder. [1971 c.743 §20]

 

[SKN]

ViLLain

You were right. You're not a lawyer.

I had a conversation with a Portland Metro area prosecutor and did some research into Oregon Supreme Court cases addressing the 'duty to retreat' issue. There is NO _statutory_ requirement to do so as 161.200 has not yet been applied to nor was it intended to apply to the limitations on the use of deadly physical force as defined in 161.219.

Oregon case law has consistently held that self defense is justified on the basis of necessity and retreat may be excused when the danger is so absolute and imminent that there is no possibility to do so with safety. The victim of an attack when in his "castle", which includes his business or place of employment, is not required to retreat in some instances.

The Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that the standard for self defense does include 'retreat' but as part of the larger concept of necessity and based on the imminence and gravity of the threat posed in a particular factual situation. The Court has never laid down an absolute rule endorsing either retreat or no retreat and has stated that this is dependent upon the threat posed and the facts of the cases presented before it:

State v Porter, 32 Or. 135, 157, 49 P. 964, 970 (1897): The danger "...must be absolute, imminent, and unavoidable, or the defendant must, from all circumstances have honestly belived it to be so".

State v Butler, 96 Or. 219, 242-243, 186 P. 55, 60-61 (1920): "...the necessity for taking human life is actual, present, urgent...".

State v Holbrook, 98 Or. 43, 71, 188 P. 947, 956 (1920) and State v Banks, 147 Or. 157, 32 P.2d 571 (1934): "...the killing is absolutely or apparently absolutely necessary..."

State v Barnes, 150 Or. 375, 382, 44 P.2d 1071, 1079 (1935): There was no "reasonable opportunity to escape and to avoid the affray...".

State v Joseph, 230 Or. 585, 371 P.2d 689 (1962): That "...there was no other means of avoiding or declining the combat...".

The Oregon legislature has had the opportunity to consider adopting a general rule requiring retreat but has not.

In the final analysis NO Oregon case has explicitly held that there is a duty to retreat. An Oregonian is required only to avoid a threatened danger where it is possible to do so without sacrificing their own safety.

So you were wrong. I was listening.