Shootem with rubber one dirt bag in pain

[newgun]

You all might like this. In portland a man came face to face with scum ball, who had been in his garage. At a range of about 6" he shot him with a rubber round in his shot gun. Then shot him 2 more times as he fled. Cops got the dirt bag and he is in hospital with non life threatening. I bet if the dirt bag was dead this guy would be in jail -- for a very long time?????? Cop say they will not charge him.
Plus one for the home owner!!

 

[KMart]

In Oregon maybe, but not in Texas. Texas law subscribes to the "Castle Doctrine".
There may be a penalty for using rubber instead of lead.

 

[Nomad47]

In Oregon maybe, but not in Texas. Texas law subscribes to the "Castle Doctrine".
There may be a penalty for using rubber instead of lead.

I like that. Too bad all states don't agree with Texas.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

Oregon's laws are, in fact, quite similar to Texas. Deadly physical force can legally be used to terminate a burglary of your dwelling (castle doctrine). If the person isn't in your dwelling (I am not a lawyer, and don't know if "dwelling would include your garage), then non-lethal force may be used to terminate a criminal trespass or property crime. That is why the rubber bullets didn't land the guy in jail.

NOTE: I am not a lawyer, and this does not, in any way, constitute legal advice.

Here are the Oregon statues:

161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or

(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]



161.220 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]



161.225 Use of physical force in defense of premises. (1) A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

(2) A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (1) of this section only:

(a) In defense of a person as provided in ORS 161.219; or

(b) When the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson or a felony by force and violence by the trespasser.

(3) As used in subsection (1) and subsection (2)(a) of this section, “premises” includes any building as defined in ORS 164.205 and any real property. As used in subsection (2)(b) of this section, “premises” includes any building. [1971 c.743 §25]



161.229 Use of physical force in defense of property. A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief of property. [1971 c.743 §26]

 

[KMart]

Texas laws are a little more liberal. I too am not a lawyer or LEO nor do I play one on TV. Do a Google search for...joe horn texas shooting. This man killed 2 Columbian gang bangers while they were leaving his neighbors residence after a burgulary. He also had 911 on the phone at the same time. The Grand Jury no billed him. I am quite sure that Joe's pockets were very empty after the lawyers got through with him.
As for the guy in Oregon that shot the guy with the rubber bullets, he will most likely face a lawsuit from the "victim" and his pockets will be lighter afterwards.
No good deed goes unpunished.

 

[jonbearman]

You should feel lucky you dont live in new york state. If you yell obcenities at a crook or burglar,he can sue you for defamation of character. If you have to shoot somebody in your home and he lives and sues you for injurys,he WILL WIN. If you kill the intruder,they strip your house of all your firearms and you go straight to jail and you are guilty till proven innocent.I am not joking. State troopers can interpet the gun laws any way they see fit. If they abscond with your legally owned firearms,you cant afford to pay for a lawyer long enough to get your guns back which incidently,they take them out and beat the crap out of them,and they let them rust and take parts off them. Their anser,thats the way we recieved them. It happened to a friend going through a divorce. His wife claimed to have threatened her and they took his guns(he had an ffl) and it took him 4 years plus to get them back and they ruined 2 of his ar's he had bought for resale.

 

[TheSnake]

It's very unfortunate that some states like NY are the way they are and don't give a rats axx about the 2nd amendment or our rights to protect ourself. Poor Joe Horn may have been in his rights to do what he did but it cost him almost 250K to defend himself and last in heard, he moved out of the state due to harassment. But the way he did it and what he said on the 911 call were way controversial.

Here in Texas we have a law firm "Texas Law Shield" that sales insurance if you will, where they will defend you both criminally and civilly in a gun related incident at no additional cost other than the annual fee. They are expanding the coverage to other state currently and I have had it since I got my CHL. They so far, have not lost a case defending a client. You don't even have to have a CHL to get the coverage.

In Texas, we can all carry a concealed weapon in our car and out of the city on our person on our property without a CHL.

I am glad this person with the rubber bullets is not getting charged.