Rapist in Southeast Portland.
Back home you could shoot a predator in the face as soon as they entered your house, unfortunately, it is a little trickier here. Ladies please be aware of your surroundings and don't try to stumble home after drinking in that neighborhood. Pay the cash for a cab. Portland Po Po please do your job and bust this fucker. (The police were called and confirmed the SE rapist information.)
"He forced a woman into her apartment while she was outside smoking at 1am around 30th & Stark and raped her at knife point for over an hour.
The neighborhoods of concern are between 30th & 39, between Stark & Hawthorne.
If anyone can help please do. PLEASE REPOST!
The latest info on him from the woman mentioned above are as follows:
Caucasion male of average build
Green eyes
Very yellow teeth
Black ski mask, two pairs of gloves
Smelled of bourbon and cigarettes"
3 Comments:
It's really not that different here, assuming you have a gun. The moment someone enters your home (or vehicle, if you're in it) without permission you have the right to shoot them. You do not have the right to fire on someone purely to protect property.
Contrary to popular belief there is no requirement to warn someone that you have a gun or any other such nonsense that would be more likely to result in your injury.
As a CHL-holder I had to take Oregon's gun safety/law course - even in public I would be allowed to fire on someone if they were actively posing deadly harm to someone. (A guy with a knife down the block doesn't pose a deadly threat. A guy with a knife 20' from you does. It's a very grey area that has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.)
The big problem is that even if you shoot someone who is in the _act_ of raping you (or shooting you, or...) you can still be sued by that person's family in civil court. It has nothing to do with the law. Trainers tell CHL-carriers that the moment they pull that trigger they're going to be in for a world of emotional and financial hurt.
Interesting, thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression they had to be coming at you with a weapon to prove some intent to harm you. I will do some thorough reading on those laws. I was listening to the news earlier, and they were asking people not to spread warnings about a potential serial rapist because they are afraid of vigilantes. How insane is that? I understand not wanting to scare people unnecessarily, but the idea that ignorance is the only way to keep a lynch mob from forming is absurd. Screw this hippy shit- I hope the mother fucker gets caught, castrated and raped with a pipe every night by his muscle bound, toothless cell mate.
Obviously they generally prefer that you *don't* shoot and just call the police whenever possible, but sometimes that just isn't an option.
The ORS are pretty straightforward when it comes to defense.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/161.html
"Justification" begins at 161.190
If there is no reasonable threat by an intruder they could theoretically throw the book at you, but in most cases an intruder is an implied threat.
I know I'm in the minority (when it comes to the general public), but my first stop is always the ORS when I have any legal question. No sense in assuming.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home