I had always understood Oregon not to be a castle doctrine state.
But in reading the statutes, it seems to indicate otherwise. Keep in mind, Im fluent in layman, so my interpretation may be incorrect. Can anyone confirm or deny my conclusion?
For clarification, here is the aforementioned ORS 161.209:
I guess what I cant say for sure is which preempts the other, specifically regarding the use of the word "notwithstanding" in the first.
But in reading the statutes, it seems to indicate otherwise. Keep in mind, Im fluent in layman, so my interpretation may be incorrect. Can anyone confirm or deny my conclusion?
161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]
For clarification, here is the aforementioned ORS 161.209:
161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person. Except as provided in ORS 161.215 and 161.219, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 §22]
I guess what I cant say for sure is which preempts the other, specifically regarding the use of the word "notwithstanding" in the first.