Carrying a GUN

psychetool

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 6, 2003
Messages
6,186
After a few of my friends have been jacked recently (houses broken into) and I have been thinking about purchasing a gun for protection.

I had a few questions though, say someone is breaking an entering to steal your personal property (drugs, stereo equipment, ect) is it legal to put a few slugs in him as long as your not ATTEMPTING to kill him ? Or would you have to wait until he made some kind of threatening motions towards you until you could open fire ?

If this belongs in Legal Q & A i'm sorry.
 
Well, this does belong in Legal Q&A because it's a legal question and not a drug question....

I'm guessing that you can't just shoot anybody that walks into your house, they need to pose a threat on your life before you start your shooting... so if someone walks into your house with no weapon and you shoot them, I'd think you'd go to jail as well... but then again, I'm not a lawyer and I'm just assuming, so ask in Legal chat..
 
Sure but this was in reference to getting drugs jacked. Move it if you please, I thought it might get a little more exposure here. If anyone was in my house stealing from me (armed or not) I would shoot him a few times and call the police.

A major problem with this scenario is getting rid of the drug evidence, it might look a bit shady to the neighbors if right after they hear a few gunshots they see a guy running down the street with a little box to throw away in the dumpster.

Yeah, I don't carry a peice, but it seems like it could be a lifesaver.
 
You're in Oregon, right? One of my neighbors a few years back shot a burgalar breaking into his apartment. He didn't get in trouble for that incident, but he did a bunch of other tweaker shit and got his ass arrested (hit & run, dui) a few months later. Last I heard it was legal to shoot somebody who breaks and enters into your home. I'm not sure if this is federal mandate or state law. Can anyone else help shed light on this?
 
Oh, you didn't mention the drugs part in the first post.. but someone should move it so that you can get more reliable and accurate replies.

I got this from a FAQ though regarding self-defense...
Self-defense is rooted in the belief that people should be allowed to protect themselves from physical harm. This means that a person does not have to wait until she is actually struck to act in self-defense. If a reasonable person would think that she is about to be physically attacked, she has the right to strike first and prevent the attack. But she cannot use more force than is reasonable-if she does, she may be guilty of a crime.

I'm guessing you can shoot someone if they break into your house but you can't unload a whole magazine on them or else you will probably be charged because you went beyond self-defense. If you shoot them only to make them hit the ground that would be considered self-defense. About the drugs though... You said it's in a little box, which to me means there isn't much of it. You have to ask yourself is it worth all the trouble (legally) of shooting someone for just a few drugs? Why dont you just invest in a nice metal bat. If you say it is worth it then you have to ask yourself is it worth the cops seeing it? Or is it better to just flush it and eat the loss... either way I doubt they will search your house for drugs if someone broke in.. unless they are suspicious of you in the first place.
 
if you feel like your post is going to get better responses here, i'll allow it to remain here. my suspicion is that you're just going to elicit a bunch of legal speculation rather than the actual answers you're looking for.

i think this would be better suited in Legal Q & A, but let's let it hang out here for the rest of the day and see what happens :)
 
The little box was an analogy, besides there could be any number of expensive drugs (shrooms, bud, research chems) in a small box that would make it worthwhile to shoot them.

So, it IS legal to shoot people who break and enter even if they are not armed, correct ?
 
I'm sure it's state dependent. I suppose I shouldn't question your decision, but you know you're much more likely to be shot if you own a gun than if you don't?
 
Shooting somebody is a use of deadly force. And deadly force is only justified when you have good reason to believe your life is in serious jeopardy.

In a personal defense situation when deadly force is justified, you should always shoot to kill. Do not shoot to simply "disable" an attacker or intruder.

A wounded attacker who lives can testify in court that they simply meant to steal from you, not harm you, and they were begging for you not to shoot them. And he can also take to you civil court to sue for damages. You could get in alot more trouble than the intruder.

If you fear for your safety but do not believe that deadly force is justified, you should try to evacuate the scene and report the incident to police. Do not get a loaded gun out unless you intend to use it to kill your attacker.
 
It may be less hassel to just kill them but you are talking about someone's life.
 
nc. said:
It may be less hassel to just kill them but you are talking about someone's life.

I agree! Get a chainsaw, some bin bags/a carpet and a car too and make sure the neighbours don't mind the chainsaw going off at 3 in the morning when you're chopping the intruder up.

;) Trust me, you'll be fine!
 
psychetool said:
The little box was an analogy, besides there could be any number of expensive drugs (shrooms, bud, research chems) in a small box that would make it worthwhile to shoot them.

So, it IS legal to shoot people who break and enter even if they are not armed, correct ?

I disagree with you that any amount of expensive drugs justifies taking someone's life, but I am going to stay on topic.

From the Oregon Revised Statutes:

ORS 166.220 Unlawful use of weapon. (1) A person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if the person:

(a) Attempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous or deadly weapon as defined in ORS 161.015; or

(b) Intentionally discharges a firearm, blowgun, bow and arrow, crossbow or explosive device within the city limits of any city or within residential areas within urban growth boundaries at or in the direction of any person, building, structure or vehicle within the range of the weapon without having legal authority for such discharge.

Link

161.205 Use of physical force generally. The use of physical force upon another person that would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:

(1) A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or an incompetent person may use reasonable physical force upon such minor or incompetent person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of the minor or incompetent person. A teacher may use reasonable physical force upon a student when and to the extent the teacher reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order in the school or classroom or at a school activity or event, whether or not it is held on school property.

(2) An authorized official of a jail, prison or correctional facility may use physical force when and to the extent that the official reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order and discipline or as is authorized by law.

(3) A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common carrier of passengers, or a person acting under the direction of the person, may use physical force when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order, but the person may use deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.

(4) A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical self-injury may use physical force upon that person to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to thwart the result.

(5) A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in defending property, in making an arrest or in preventing an escape, as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971. [1971 c.743 §21; 1981 c.246 §1]

Link

Now here are the specific instances in which physical use might be used to defend premises, the source of which is the previous link, further down the page:

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]

Notwithstanding the right of someone to defend their premises as defined above, I think you would have an extremely hard time convincing a judge you were justified in shooting an intruder to protect your stash of illegal drugs.

This is an issue that is addressed in state statutes; if anyone knows of any Federal law other than the Second Amendment (which is ambiguous with respect to the personal possession of a modern firearm to begin with) concerning the possession and use of a firearm in this manner, please feel free to post it.

Blue Lava is correct that on many occasions the owner of a firearm is shot with his/her own gun. If you intend to buy a gun, I strongly encourage you to take a firearms class and not to buy the gun on the black market. Get your concealed weapons permit and this may seem obvious, but using a gun is an absolute last resort and should be taken seriously.

I think this is a good topic for discussion, but I know I don't have to ask twice to keep the discussion constructive and avoid being a smartass as guns and deadly force are serious issues.
 
Last edited:
Notwithstanding the right of someone to defend their premises as defined above, I think you would have an extremely hard time convincing a judge you were justified in shooting an intruder to protect your stash of illegal drugs.

Theft of personal property would definitely be included with charges as I doubt they would steal a small amount of drugs, yet leave an expensive computer & television.

Second, lets say that you decide to be sparing and only put a slug in his leg, will his testimony that he was attempting to steal your drugs as well as personal property effect your justification in shooting him ?

Just for kicks, lets say that he lets the cops know he saw you destroying drug evidence - what would happen then ?

I would never consider buying a gun on the blackmarket or carrying a peice during the day (concealed weapons permit) but I do thank you for all this detailed information. If I actually do decide to purchase a gun you can beleive inbelieveaith that it will be legal and kept in a safe location.

It's all about the harm reduction, thank you bluelight.

Psychetool

ps. This is all speculation.
 
slightly off topic

i wonder why there are less firearms deaths here in England? Damn if you shoot an intruder you end up in prison. Given that there is supposed to be 1 illegal firemarm per 20 people per capita. Although most guns here never see the light of day. I am really appalled that you can just shoot an intruder who isnt armed or intent on killing you and get no comeback.

The more guns there are the more deaths from guns there will be.
 
Maybe I am just brainwashed American youth but if someone breaks into my home I am shooting him, preferably in the lower leg. If I miss and the criminal dies, that's too bad for him he shoudn't have been breaking into my house.
I would only shoot someone in that circumstance if I was absolutely certain he was breaking into my house with the intent to rob or kill me or others.
 
EvMan717 said:
Maybe I am just brainwashed American youth but if someone breaks into my home I am shooting him, preferably in the lower leg. If I miss and the criminal dies, that's too bad for him he shoudn't have been breaking into my house.
I would only shoot someone in that circumstance if I was absolutely certain he was breaking into my house with the intent to rob or kill me or others.

Is a human life worth more than your property? You know many robbers are not going to actualy hurt you. Maybe indeed you are a brainwashed American if you think that someone's life is worth less than your tv or stereo.
 
You fucking disgust me psychetool.

I thought Michael Moore was wrong about you yanks.

Guess I was wrong.
 
YEAH!

I have to say, I think psychetool is onto something. I think I'm going to go and get a gun too. Then when the black and asian hordes come to ravage our white women I will be able to protect them. The government is lying to us man, there is an international Jewish CIA conspiracy. Where can I join an Australasian branch of the Michigan Militia?

Is it worth possibly killing or maiming someone for life becuase they try to steal a goddamned stereo? I really fail to understand the mindset required to undertake this kind of action. I think its small minded, petty, CRIMINALLY STUPID, and is far more likely to get YOU shot in return. If you do this, you are a fucktard, simple as that.

Now what you gonna do. Shoot me?

-plaz out-
 
Top