Driver, licensed to carry, opened fire after getting hit by vehicle

 @Fancy Jack  @Baldr  @Baldr Likewise, Jack.

@Baldr Odinson @Baldr You are the definition of evil

 @Fancy Jack  @Baldr  @Baldr Wow, you like to ramble, Jack.  I disagree with your rant, though.  Your gun does not give me the right to express my view, it only threatens me.  I should know.  I've looked down the wrong end of one, and held a dying boy in my arms because of one.  In those moments, that gun ceased to be a symbol of justice and equality, and became exactly what it was designed to be: a killing machine.

 

And before you accuse me of being naive to the issue, you should know that I am from a traditionally pro-gun family with veterans in it.  Sorry, man, but your definition of "evil" and "good" don't jive with me, and your revisionist history lesson is what is myopic.

@Baldr Odinson @Baldr This very conversation is an act of violence, two competing ideas, diametrically opposed trying to influence our peers, I am comitted to the preservation of our rights, rights that were conceived in violence and rights I am prepared to preserve with violence and I am not alone. Your myopic perspectives are not lost on me, I know what evil looks like and men like me, protect men like you, from evil. The Meek inherit what ever the tyrant gives them, the gun gives you the right to express your views. When the Britished first founded this country, one Governor proclaimed that two things you would never find in New York would be printing presses and schools, he would not tolerate dissenting views and knew that the ignorant man was easily manipulated and if they could not read, be corrupted by dissenting literature. The right to an education was secured with the gun, the right to a free press was secured with the gun, the right to a dissenting point of view was secured with a gun. This nation is founded on violence, it is a founding priciple, ignore it to your own demise. Teach your children violence, it may preserve their life, When I worked for the Infantry School at Ft Benning, we analyzed the Vietnam casualties, what we discovered was that drafted young men that were familiar with firearms had a 90% survival rate in combat while kids with no experience with a firearm represent 90% of the names on the wall. I taught all my children to be proficient with firearms, you should too. 

 @Jason Marks Who are you replying to? Me?I'm far from an attorney...but it happens that I do know Oregon's laws when it comes to firearms quite well. Only because I have taken the time to study them thoroughly and keep current on them so that I don't give others bad advice. Nobody is disputing your idea that a firearm is a tool of last resort...and that if there is another way out of a situation, one should take it. What we are saying, is that there is no LEGAL duty to retreat from a life/limb threat. You're getting mighty defensive. You have eluded to the idea that you are/were an attorney, so I simply asked you to tell me where in Oregon's law it stated that one must "pull back and take cover" as you stated.I will tell you this. If I WAS to shoot at you on a misunderstanding...you wouldn't have the chance to return fire. BUT...when it comes to my gun, I misunderstand nothing. 

Okay, simple.  When I got my concealed permit back in 1999 that law was on the books as I stated. 

 

You might say that the info is dated and incorrect, but either way, what was law when I got my permit still makes more sense than not retreating (and I am not talking about your castle).  Alot of hot shots blab their mouths and say they don't have to do anything.  If you have no conscience to go ahead and potentinally murder someone (by misundertanding of course) or at least shoot them because you are trigger happy and you want to risk a felony, have at it.  I am the last person to stop you.  You are free to do what you want.  Until a jury, grand jury or DA charges you.  After all, attorneys and courts are free.  Matter of fact, I am sure mr smarty, that you are a free attorney yourself.

 

I will tell you this, if  you shoot at me on a misunderstanding, I will return fire and assist you in a dirt nap.  As an expert marksman, I don't miss.

 @Jason Marks  You still haven't put up the law. Because there is no duty to retreat in this state and your information is dated and incorrect.

 @Jason Marks  @SwiftlyJust I took the concealed handguns class and one of my instructors was the lawyer from Salem.  The main thing they said was to keep the file from the class because if I ever shot anyone I would need them as witnesses on the stand that I took the class and learned what is right and wrong according to the law.  I would never use my gun for anything unless I was sure that I or a loved one etc was about to get hurt or killed.  As for the guy that did use his gun....maybe he thought that the other driver deliberately was trying to run over him so he could take off and not report the original accident.  The lawyer from Salem also told us that he carries his gun everywhere...and that it is concealed....hence concealed weapons permit.  Some people get the permit and think that they should run around with the weapon showing to all.  

"The BEST person to take the class from is the guy out of Salem who is an attorney and trains Police.  "

jason, i agree with you pretty often, but if you are talking about the guy i think you are talking about, he is a prima donna and just because a person KNOWS the law does not always mean he can teach the law.

 @Jason Marks I understand what you're saying and I agree with you regarding frivolous use or "wildly brandishing" a weapon. However, regardless of case law, Oregon's Revised Statutes are VERY clear that there is NO duty to retreat. (Even when not in your home.) Neither are you required to give someone  a "warning" before you shoot in self defense. We don't have a castle doctrine in Oregon at this time, although I'm hopeful that one will be introduced within fairly short order. Oregon's law states that in order to use deadly force, you must believe that your life or the life of another is in immediate danger. THAT is a very "gray" law. In order for someone to prevail in a court, they must be able to prove that the "bad guy" had the ability and opportunity to seriously injure or kill...and that a life was in jeopardy. We call it A.O.J. While I would personally love to be a vigilante and execute every rapist and child molester myself, I am sane enough to know when and where I can, and cannot, pull my gun. Personally, I doubt that I would have pulled it in the situation described in this news story...but then again, I wasn't there.

 

 @SwiftlyJust 

 In this case, as the state concedes, Sandoval is controlling.   In light of Sandoval, the instruction that the trial court delivered does not state correctly current Oregon law.   Moreover, defendant expressly asserted that he was not required to retreat in order to employ deadly force in defense of himself and the others in his home.   As in Sandoval, we cannot say in this case that the delivery of the erroneous instruction was harmless.   That does not necessarily mean that defendant's conduct was justified.   The state, for example, contests defendant's version of the events-in particular, his description of the nature of the threat that the intruders posed to him and the other occupants of the residence.   The jury will be required to resolve those factual issues in a new trial.  (state v. lang)

 

That specific case had to do with the castle law "in your home" 

I don't think the castle law applies to a freeway overpass. 

 

You can shoot, but again, any reasonable person SHOULD attempt to pull back.  It could save you jail at at very least, even if you got charged and won, it will cost you something.   I personally don't have time to wildly brandish a weapon and go around shooting at anyone and anything that tickles my fancy.  Its foolish and if you want to avoid "case law", you should avoid stupid decisions like shooting someone on an overpass.  Now,  just because the person walked away without being charged at that moment, doesn't mean the DA or the Grand Jury are finished with it. 

 

The castle law ruling has alot of uncharted territory to walk down yet in Oregon because the law isn't specific enough on very many types of cases.  AVOID is the word of the day. 

 

The very fact that the court in "Lang" said that more rulings (a new case) was needed to clarify area's of this law, offers the best suggestion I have as well, stay clear of being the proud owner of case law.  Like I said, if you have been in any supreme court ruling that involves case law, you will understand what i am saying. 

 

@Jason Marks However, on March 29, 2007, the Oregon Supreme Court overturned this ruling. 

In their decision, State of Oregon v. Sandoval, the Supreme Court correctly notes that Oregon law contains no requirement to retreat from an attacker and that previous rulings to the contrary are not only incorrect, but obviously so,

The Court noted “On a purely textual level, ORS 161.219 contains no specific reference to “retreat”, “escape,” or “other means of avoiding” a deadly confrontation. Neither, in our view, does it contain any other wording that would suggest a duty of that kind.”

 

@mackenzie0158 You need to stay on point, we were talking about asinine comments, PTSD is for the weak, guys like me cause PTSD,we do not suffer from it. You are upset that some poor slob brought fists to a gun fight and has a gunshot wound for his trouble, we kill millions, why is this guy special, is it because it is not all nice, neat, and clean over in some other country? My comments are factual, you should not be shocked, it is our history. When you do Bomb Damage Assessment (BDA), you notice that bombs do not discriminate, high exposive shock  and blast waves separate limbs for torsos, the only whole bodies you find are in covered positions. I am retired from the VA, we send our misfits to the CBOCs, most are staffed with folks that could not work successfully in the hospital, so I steer clear,SeattleVA is the best on the West Coast. I find it odd that you make a distinction between individuals engaged in mutual combat,warzone or not, I have met soldiers who were unfortunate enough to be shot in combat and in their civilian life, the trauma and wound care is the same, as I understand the narrative, there was one innocent being, folks that share your values killed him. 

@Fancy Jack: A soldier fighting in a war zone has nothing to do with a story about a road rage shooting. You just liked the shock value of your comment. You need to visit your VA CBOC to check for PTSD.

@mackenzie0158 Ever had to rationalize the killing of a child for God and Country, we kill millions of children here and around the world, You are not suggesting that we kill innocent children are you? Do BDA for a while, it is easy, you stack all the arms and legs in a pile and then divide by four. What is asinine is to pretend that it does not happen and Piously project indignant morality over mindless banter. As a soldier, I never killed a father or mother, son or daughter, or brother or sister, never killed an innocent, shot a lot of targets though, dehumanized cretins that the user agreement will not let you describe in these sacrosanct postings

@umpqua rafter @ST4 Why don't you try just for once, having a discussion about the facts at hand instead of meandering off like a drunken monkey into conjecture-land??