|
|
 |
March 29, 2007 Supreme Court Rules "No Duty To Retreat" |
On March 29 2007, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that Oregonians
have no "duty to retreat" when faced with a violent
confrontation.
This is certainly welcome news. It also means that several bills
that would have accomplished the same thing may now be unnecessary.
That is particularly good news, since in the current legislative
climate, the chances of those bills moving ahead is virtually
zero.
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."
It went on to describe a previous Supreme Court ruling this
way: "The court's analysis
did not focus on or even consider the words of the statutes
that we now recognize to be pivotal." and
"We conclude, in short, 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."
The Supreme Court points out "Indeed,
the entire analytical flow of the Charles opinion is
distinctly odd: The court did not examine the wording of either
ORS 161.209 or 161.219 at all... Instead, the court
set out the wording that the Oregon Criminal Law Commission
had proposed to the legislature regarding the use of deadly
force as part of the final draft of the proposed 1971
Criminal Code, which wording explicitly imposed a duty of retreat
to avoid the necessity of using deadly force. Then, after noting
that the 1971 legislature had rejected that wording,
the court cited a view expressed in the Oregon Criminal Law
Commission's Commentary to the 1971 Code to the effect that
"the statute probably was not necessary" because of
existing Oregon case law.."
This is a great decision for those who are forced to defend
themselves, but at the same time it is chilling that it was
even needed. Oregon law, as we repeatedly remind the Port
of Portland, is clear. We wonder how many innocent people
have been sent to prison for acting lawfully.
This decision also points out how easy it is for judges to ignore
the law and make a ruling that can destroy a person's life.
OFF's experience in courts in Oregon has been similar if less
personally traumatic.
This decision is an overdue recognition that the law is the
law. It is regrettable that it was even necessary. |
|
 |
Copyright
© 2000 - 2008, Oregon Firearms Federation. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
|
