What is the alternative to Stand Your Ground?

[Denny Crane]

It is not running from immediate threat of attack so what do you think it is?

It is self defense, as defined by 1000+ years of common law, and the law in states in the US that don't have stand your ground provisions. Those recent provisions are radical and dangerous changes to established law that works fine.

 

[MarAzul]

It is self defense, as defined by 1000+ years of common law, and the law in states in the US that don't have stand your ground provisions. Those recent provisions are radical and dangerous changes to established law that works fine.

It is the same thing in this State (Oregon) The self defense law has been tested in court, there is not need to retreat from a threat in order to use deadly force in self defense. Where as it use to be that a retreat was required before using force. So this has become ( by court ruling) the same as Stand your Ground without saying precisely this in the code.

So this liberal State has in the law what is considered the same as Stand your ground., like about 30 states do. But damned if I know why this is considered "hateful"?

 

[Denny Crane]

It is the same thing in this State (Oregon) The self defense law has been tested in court, there is not need to retreat from a threat in order to use deadly force in self defense. Where as it use to be that a retreat was required before using force. So this has become ( by court ruling) the same as Stand your Ground without saying precisely this in the code.

So this liberal State has in the law what is considered the same as Stand your ground., like about 30 states do. But damned if I know why this is considered "hateful"?

The Supreme Court of Oregon overruled itself, again a recent and dangerous change.

http://www.pdxcriminallawyers.com/articles-by-castleberry-elison/oregons-stand-your-ground-statute/

In 1982, the Oregon Supreme Court had to decide whether Oregon’s use of deadly force in selfdefense law imposed a duty to retreat when outside of the home. Citing previous case law, the Court noted: “(a)ny civilized system of law recognizes the supreme value of human life, and excuses or justifies its taking only in cases of absolute necessity.” State v. Charles, 293 Or. 273, 281 (1982) abrogated by State v. Sandoval, 342 Or. 506 (2007). The Court ultimately decided that Oregon law imposed a “duty to retreat” when outside of the home, thus relegating the use of deadly force in self-defense only when there is no reasonable opportunity to escape. State v. Charles, 293 Or. 273 (1982). For 25 years, this was the rule in Oregon. If you kill in self defense outside of your home, you better not have been able to avoid the killing.

In 2007, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed itself stating that the analysis in Charles was, “distinctly odd.” To determine whether Oregon law imposed a duty to retreat, the Court looked only at the language of the statute. It concluded that: “the legislature’s intent is clear on the face of ORS 161.219: The legislature did not intend to require a person to retreat before using deadly force to defend against the imminent use of deadly physical force by another.” State v. Sandoval, 342 Or. 506, 513-14, (2007). This seems like a bold statement from the Oregon Supreme Court seeing how in the previous 25 years the law was the inverse. The Oregon statute does not make the intent of the legislature nearly as clear as Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law. Furthermore, the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision in 2007 ignores its previous recognition that “any civilized system of law recognizes the supreme value of human life, and excuses or justifies its taking only in cases of absolute necessity.” Are we to infer that Oregon is no longer a civilized system of law? Perhaps the state of Oregon no longer recognizes the supreme value of human life.

Whether you support or oppose the use of deadly force in self-defense, the Oregon Supreme Court says you have no duty to retreat outside of your home. Is the Oregon Supreme Court’s interpretation of ORS 161.219 the correct interpretation? It has been 41 years since the Oregon legislature passed ORS 161.219. For at least 25 years it has required a duty to retreat, and for the last seven it has not. Perhaps the Oregon legislature should consider revisiting and clarifying ORS 161.219.

 

[MarAzul]

The Supreme Court of Oregon overruled itself, again a recent and dangerous change.

http://www.pdxcriminallawyers.com/articles-by-castleberry-elison/oregons-stand-your-ground-statute/

In 1982, the Oregon Supreme Court had to decide whether Oregon’s use of deadly force in selfdefense law imposed a duty to retreat when outside of the home. Citing previous case law, the Court noted: “(a)ny civilized system of law recognizes the supreme value of human life, and excuses or justifies its taking only in cases of absolute necessity.” State v. Charles, 293 Or. 273, 281 (1982) abrogated by State v. Sandoval, 342 Or. 506 (2007). The Court ultimately decided that Oregon law imposed a “duty to retreat” when outside of the home, thus relegating the use of deadly force in self-defense only when there is no reasonable opportunity to escape. State v. Charles, 293 Or. 273 (1982). For 25 years, this was the rule in Oregon. If you kill in self defense outside of your home, you better not have been able to avoid the killing.

In 2007, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed itself stating that the analysis in Charles was, “distinctly odd.” To determine whether Oregon law imposed a duty to retreat, the Court looked only at the language of the statute. It concluded that: “the legislature’s intent is clear on the face of ORS 161.219: The legislature did not intend to require a person to retreat before using deadly force to defend against the imminent use of deadly physical force by another.” State v. Sandoval, 342 Or. 506, 513-14, (2007). This seems like a bold statement from the Oregon Supreme Court seeing how in the previous 25 years the law was the inverse. The Oregon statute does not make the intent of the legislature nearly as clear as Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law. Furthermore, the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision in 2007 ignores its previous recognition that “any civilized system of law recognizes the supreme value of human life, and excuses or justifies its taking only in cases of absolute necessity.” Are we to infer that Oregon is no longer a civilized system of law? Perhaps the state of Oregon no longer recognizes the supreme value of human life.

Whether you support or oppose the use of deadly force in self-defense, the Oregon Supreme Court says you have no duty to retreat outside of your home. Is the Oregon Supreme Court’s interpretation of ORS 161.219 the correct interpretation? It has been 41 years since the Oregon legislature passed ORS 161.219. For at least 25 years it has required a duty to retreat, and for the last seven it has not. Perhaps the Oregon legislature should consider revisiting and clarifying ORS 161.219.

I do believe they finally did the logical ruling and correct it is.

 

[Denny Crane]

I do believe they finally did the logical ruling and correct it is.

The CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY from Portland disagrees with you. See the link. He gets paid for defending people who commit murder.

The police are against stand your ground, as are the district attorneys.

 

[PapaG]

The CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY from Portland disagrees with you. See the link. He gets paid for defending people who commit murder.

The police are against stand your ground, as are the district attorneys.

A public defender still has his wages paid by the people who pay the for the DA office.

What's your point, again?

 

[Denny Crane]

A public defender still has his wages paid by the people who pay the for the DA office.

What's your point, again?

Stand your ground laws are a very new thing. The question is "what is the alternative to stand your ground?" How about the alternative we had before stand your ground?

And that wasn't a public defender. That post was from Caslteberry & Elison, PC, Attorneys at Law WWW site.

 

[riverman]

The CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY from Portland disagrees with you. See the link. He gets paid for defending people who commit murder.

The police are against stand your ground, as are the district attorneys.

I see your point here Denny but I think I'd change
"gets paid to defend people who commit murder" to "gets paid to make sure people who allegedly committed murder get their day in court and a fair trial" There are some damned fine public defenders out there.

 

[Denny Crane]

I see your point here Denny but I think I'd change
"gets paid to defend people who commit murder" to "gets paid to make sure people who allegedly committed murder get their day in court and a fair trial" There are some damned fine public defenders out there.

This guy gets paid by people who have the money to hire him. He isn't a public defender.

 

[MarAzul]

I guess Denny would say, give them your daughter and retreat to save the precious life. You can tell the cops later where you last saw her.

 

[Denny Crane]

I guess Denny would say, give them your daughter and retreat to save the precious life. You can tell the cops later where you last saw her.

Keep guessing. Stand your ground has nothing to do with your scenario. It's almost laughable that you support what you clearly don't understand.

 

[MarAzul]

Keep guessing. Stand your ground has nothing to do with your scenario. It's almost laughable that you support what you clearly don't understand.

Here you go Denny. This is what I understand, but I don't know what you find to laugh about.

Ha! Laugh all you want but I don't think I will retreat.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html

 

[oldmangrouch]

I guess Denny would say, give them your daughter and retreat to save the precious life. You can tell the cops later where you last saw her.

Strawman argument. The "obligation to retreat" never applied in situations where retreat put you or others at risk. It was intended for situations where violence was avoidable.

 

[Denny Crane]

Strawman argument. The "obligation to retreat" never applied in situations where retreat put you or others at risk. It was intended for situations where violence was avoidable.

Exactly.

 

[riverman]

This guy gets paid by people who have the money to hire him. He isn't a public defender.

Thanks, I misunderstood at first. Gotta love threads where I learn something.

 

[MarAzul]

Strawman argument. The "obligation to retreat" never applied in situations where retreat put you or others at risk. It was intended for situations where violence was avoidable.

Clarity has now been achieved. No need to understand the circumstances, no retreat required period. However a man may choose to do so when ever he deems it appropriate. Seems down right logical.