XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source!
 

Go Back   XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source! > Main Room > XDTalk Chatter Box
Register Forum Rules Blogs FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
XDTalk Memberships Gold Sponsorships XDTalk Sponsors XDTalk Pro Logo Shop Photo Gallery Wiki ChatBox


Welcome to the XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source! forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features.

*** Registration also removes the In-Text Advertising when viewing threads on XDTalk! ***

Also, registering gets you started on gaining access to The Trading Post and Blogs after 30 days and 100 posts! Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-29-2007, 04:42 PM   #11
XDTalk 100 Member
 
XDerminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Shawnee, KS
Posts: 404
Interesting how the two provisions differ--note that the first provision addresses the burglary or attempted burglary of a "dwelling"; while the second one discusses "premises." Effectively means that if it is a place in which people live (i.e., a "dwelling") then deadly force may be used to defend against burglary; but if it is a premises other than a dwelling, deadly force is not generally permitted.
XDerminator is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2007, 05:52 PM   #12
XDTalk 100 Member
 
Niner4Tango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 446
The way I read it is that 161.219 (1) and (3) apply anywhere. 161.219 (2) applies to burglarly in a dwelling. Take a look again, what do you think?

And 161.225 is all about your premises.
Niner4Tango is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2007, 05:53 PM   #13
XDTalk 5K Member
 
retired's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: S. Calif.
Posts: 5,599
I think Walter should have followed the police dept.'s lead and not mentioned any names. Now that he has outed his parents' names to the media, any friend or relative of the dirt bag know where to come to avenge his injury/probable death. Dumb, dumb IMO.

Excellent bullet placement to say the least.
retired is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2007, 06:21 PM   #14
XDTalk 100 Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by retired View Post
I think Walter should have followed the police dept.'s lead and not mentioned any names. Now that he has outed his parents' names to the media, any friend or relative of the dirt bag know where to come to avenge his injury/probable death. Dumb, dumb IMO.

Excellent bullet placement to say the least.

You're right. It was incredibly naive/dangerous to out his parents like that. I am sure he didn't mean any harm, just hadn't thought his way through the entire situation yet.
aeneas26 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2007, 06:55 PM   #15
XDTalk 100 Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by orrminator View Post
There is no Castle Doctrine in Oregon but this is one of several in the last few months and thee have been no prosecutions I have been aware of...
The Castle Doctrine is an exception to the duty to retreat (even if you must normally retreat if possible, you do not have to do so in your castle). If the state does not recognize a duty to retreat, then no Castle Doctrine is needed. Oregon does not recognize a duty to retreat.

Last edited by leftywa; 06-29-2007 at 06:58 PM.
leftywa is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2007, 07:42 PM   #16
XDTalk 500 Member
 
Requiem4Senses's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Springfield, OR
Posts: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftywa View Post
The Castle Doctrine is an exception to the duty to retreat (even if you must normally retreat if possible, you do not have to do so in your castle). If the state does not recognize a duty to retreat, then no Castle Doctrine is needed. Oregon does not recognize a duty to retreat.
That's the way a lot of Oregonian CHL holders I know feel about bringing the Castle Doctrine here. If it ain't broke, etc. If a duty to retreat were instituted, I would be pushing for the Castle Doctrine harder.

By the way, the local news just informed the public (thankfully) that the hero was well within his rights by shooting the intruder.
__________________
XD40 V10 (ported)
XD40 SC OD Green

"The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people...that it is their right
and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson to Major John Cartwright June 5th, 1824
Requiem4Senses is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:34 AM.


 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0

XDTalk is a subsidiary of the Kao Holdings Group
Maintained by Kao Solutions, a subsidiary of the Kao Holdings Group