On a warm night in the summer of 2007, Sarah Keirstead awoke around 3 a.m. to the sound of someone in her bedroom.
At first, Sarah, paralyzed by fear, could do nothing. Eventually she squeaked, “Matt, there’s a man in our room.” Her husband, laying next to her, was still asleep.
Matt Keirstead awoke just as the late-night intruder laid on the bed, perpendicular to the couple. Matt began to furiously kick the man and succeeded in knocking the intruder to the floor.
“Ow! Ow! Why does this always happen to me?” Matt remembers the man saying.
It was then that Matt realized that the imposing intruder, who was well over 6-feet tall, was also dead drunk and didn’t necessarily intend harm.
“As soon as I knew he wasn’t threatening, I knew I wasn’t going to need to use force,” Matt says, recalling the disturbing night. “But it crossed my mind. I did think about the 12-gauge.”
After some strong words Matt steered the slurring intruder to the door. He then did what he says he should have done in the first place—he locked the door.
In the case of the Kiersteads, cool heads prevailed. But the result could have been very different if Matt had gone for his gun. And using deadly force may have been justified, according to Oregon’s version of the now controversial stand your ground law and Deschutes District Attorney Patrick Flaherty, given that the intruder was arguably “committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling.”
This law and others like it around the country are in the spotlight after the shooting of Trayvon Martin, an African-American teenager in Florida. Proponents of these laws say they give people the legal security they need to protect themselves. But critics say they make us all less safe.
Statistics reveal an uptick in the number of justifiable homicides in states with stand your ground laws. Should these people have been shot? We don’t know. But we do know that stand your ground laws embolden gun owners to shoot first and ask questions later, and that many attorneys and gun control advocates are likely to push for Oregon legislators to reconsider the controversial law.
The laws and wording differ from state to state, but in most, save for Vermont, New York, Washington D.C. and a few others, deadly force is allowed when someone is threatened in their own home, a concept known in legalese as the Castle Doctrine.
But the Oregon statute, like Florida’s much debated law, goes even further. It allows a person to meet force with force, even deadly force, outside of the home and does away with the long standing legal notion of a person’s “duty to retreat” when threatened outside one’s home—now referred to, famously, as “stand your ground.”
Without a ‘duty to retreat’ clause, Florida now finds itself at the center of a debate about just how much force is justified following the now infamous shooting of Martin earlier this year by George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old neighborhood watch captain. Zimmerman followed, confronted, and eventually shot an unarmed Martin in Zimmerman’s gated neighborhood, believing the 17-year-old to be “a real suspicious guy.”
Martin was, in fact, returning to his parents’ house after walking to a nearby store during half time of the NBA All-Star game for an Arizona Iced Tea and a pack of Skittles.
In 2005, Florida became the first state to adopt a stand your ground law, one that was backed by the National Rifle Association and the now infamous conservative lobbying organization the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. The law explicitly states that a citizen “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.”
Critics, including gun control advocates, of the stand your ground legislation say that while the guidelines around justified self-defense may be clear on paper, the real world operates in shades of gray, where the line between murder and self-defense is often muddied.
Moreover, critics say stand your ground laws are also unnecessary given the common and longstanding self-defense laws, which are almost universally recognized by U.S. courts. While it’s not clear if legislators are willing to take on Oregon’s stand your ground provision when they meet again next year, a number of attorneys and gun control advocates say that now is the time to take another look at Oregon’s law.
“I think it’s absolutely worth analyzing,” says Pete Castleberry, a criminal defense lawyer in Portland. “Do we want to impose this duty to retreat? You’re talking about killing someone. That’s a huge question.”
Daniel Vice, senior attorney of the Washington D.C.-based nonprofit Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, notes that one’s duty to retreat isn’t just about running away, it’s about one’s duty to avoid altercations long before they turn deadly. Oregon law, though, encourages no such thing.
“It’s certainly a reminder of Oregon’s weak gun laws,” says Vice.
Supporters of Oregon’s current law, and the right to carry concealed weapons, however, say the law is as it should be.
“I believe that there are bad people in the world who do bad things,” says Oregon Firearms Federation Executive Director Kevin Starrett. “If you have a duty to run away, that’s simply not viable,” in all situations without putting yourself in danger.
“[If I had a duty to retreat] just how far would I have to go?” Starrett asks rhetorically.
Like other concealed carry permit holders, Starrett says that he’s always armed. And he’s not alone.
According to the Deschutes County Sheriff’s office, there are more than 8,500 permit holders in Deschutes County. Statewide, more than 154,000 Oregonians have concealed carry permits, or about one in every 20 people.
Contrary to what gun rights supporters say, not all of these people have been thoroughly vetted. The Brady Center is quick to point out that both Zimmerman and Jared Lee Loughner, the man who killed six people in Arizona and wounded Representative Gabrielle Giffords, were both legally carrying weapons.
While most states have long had concealed carry permit regulations, the stand your ground law is a relatively new concept. Since the law was first enacted in Florida, state data shows that “justifiable” deaths linked to claims of self-defense are up by more than 200 percent.
This trend has been reflected nationally as well. A 2010 FBI study reports 278 “justifiable homicides.” That’s the highest total the agency has seen in 15 years. There are no statistics on how many, if any, of those incidents might have been avoidable.
While Oregon’s current law is less explicit than Florida’s, organizations like the NRA and ALEC are continuously mining for states that appear fertile for more forceful laws.
As of January 2012, 30 states already have some version of a Castle Doctrine on the books, while Texas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Arizona and 13 others now contain versions of the stand your ground law. Closer to home, the Oregon Supreme Court set the current precedent when they interpreted Oregon’s law liberally in the 2007 case State v. Sandoval. The justices found that Oregon law makes no specific reference to “retreat,” “escape,” or “other means of avoiding” a deadly confrontation.
The revised rules of engagement put law enforcement and prosecutors in a precarious position. Deschutes County Sheriff Larry Blanton says the use of deadly force must absolutely be a last resort.
“After they’ve exhausted all other possibilities to remedy the situation [then deadly force is permissible],” says Blanton, noting that there are plenty of people in Deschutes County with concealed guns.
Oregon law, however, makes it easy to invoke self-defense when dealing with a home intruder.
By some accounts, Matt Keirstead, with no duty to retreat in his own home, might well have been within his rights to reach for his gun that summer night in Bend, even if what happened was more a dim-witted home intrusion than a criminal home invasion.
Sandoval, the gun-toting Oregonian who shot and killed another man, was found not guilty despite the fact that he was in his vehicle at the time of the shooting and arguably could have driven away rather than open fire.
Scenarios such as these frustrate opponents of stand your ground legislation who say that Oregon’s self-defense laws make the 95 percent of Oregonians who are not carrying guns less, not more, safe.
“You can engage someone, confront and kill them if you become fearful,” Vice says. “And that’s particularly dangerous, especially when combined with laws that allow people to carry guns.”
Why hasn’t Oregon done more to protect against vigilantism?
As long as the American Legislative Exchange Council maintains a significant presence in Oregon’s political sphere, it’s unlikely that there will be any amendments made to Oregon’s pro-gun self-defense laws. ALEC, a conservative Washington D.C.-based group that sponsored Florida’s stand your ground law, lists one-quarter of Oregon legislators, all of them Republicans, as members.
Among the 22 Oregon ALEC members are Rep. Jason Conger (R-Bend), Rep. Gene Whisnant (R-Sunriver) and Mike McLane (R-Powell Butte).
This article appears in Jun 7-13, 2012.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
This article claims “In 2005, Florida became the first state to adopt a stand your ground law”. This is factually incorrect. Several states have NEVER had a legal duty to retreat, and thus have always been “stand your ground” states. Virginia is an example of that, among others. This fact gets glossed over by anti-gun advocates who want to paint self-defense as a dangerous new idea, rather than a tried-and-tested one.
As a former wife of a police officer and a former bounty hunter I am far from the anti-gun portion of the population.I firmly believe in one’s right to protection against any attack upon on their person or property.What concerns me is that most of the people who have a permit and pack a piece don’t have the skill or knowledge to use it properly.In many cases the very weapon they carry is used against them when the gun smart “bad guy” disarms them.The average person does not spend hours of practice at the range.The average person does not know the personality or quirks of their gun.The average person is not able to break down and reassemble their gun in under a minute.Most do not factor in the fact that a bullet drops a certain degree when dicharged.Hell,most gun owners don’t even know how to properly clean their gun.Nor are they trained in the mindset it takes to remain calm and without hesitation aim to kill.I would rather see the average person with a no brainer scattershot shotgun and do a Hail Mary attempt to defend themselves.I think they would stand a better chance at surviving the attack.
Oregons laws are spot on.
Dont fall for these stupid political scams.
This “one in a million” story is just smoke and mirrors to distract your common sense.
If I am a dumbass and get drunk then try to crawl into bed with someone in their house while they are asleep I deserve to be shot. Sorry we need to take responsibility for our actions and what they may cause.
@Parrish, I like to see you cite statistics that show that “in many cases the very weapon they carry is used against them when the gun smart “bad guy” disarms them”? I bet you can’t find 10 cases of this occurring in the past 10 years! It happens more often with trained Police Officers than it does with civilians! (that’s no knock on Police Officers) Your statement is patently false! You do know that firearms are used more than 2000 times a day in the U.S. (that’s two thousand) by civilians to prevent crime and bodily harm! You’re worried about bullet drop in a self defense situation? I would worry about that too, if I was “defending” myself with a HANDGUN from someone 100 YARDS AWAY! most self defense situations occur within 21 feet! At 21 feet, bullet drop would only be an issue with a spitball. Last thing, You can’t carry a shotgun concealed!
Pure rubbish! To take Zimmerman, who is currently being put on nothing more than a show trial to appease a lot of race baiting political types, a person that has not yet been convicted of any crime, and in most people’s judgement (those that have actually taken any time to look at the evidence released so far) was justified in his use of force and shouldn’t have been charged with the severity that he has, and compare him with Jared Lee Loughner, an out & out mass murdering nut job is absolutely ridiculous. To try and then weave millions of law abiding gun owners into the same category goes beyond reprehensible. You should be ashamed to use the nonsense published by the Brady Center. They are well known for their unsubstantiated claims and perverted accounts of situations & facts. Their data has been refuted by many independent agencies and studies, including those by the US government. If you are going to use Brady’s nonsense in your article, and if you’re not too biased on the matter, you might as well post the NRA’s take on it At least you might get facts that can be backed up.
I agree with Freddie. This article only cements the fact that people need to be prepared to protect themselves. Drunk people kill innocent people all the time by getting behind the wheel. If they are now resorting to breaking and entering and terrifying homeowners, then they better start wearing some protective gear.
What gets me most about this article is the demonstration of the difference between the crazed interpretation of D.A. Patrick Flaherty that the intruder was arguably “committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling”, vs. the statement by County Sherriff Larry Blanton that the use of deadly force must absolutely be a last resort: “After they’ve exhausted all other possibilities to remedy the situation [then deadly force is permissible].” ORS 161.209 states “that an attacker’s use of unlawful physical force be present or “imminent.”” There he goes again! WTF, Flaherty?
This article is just another bias pile of crap. Stand your ground does not justify murder. It just protects people from being prosecuted for defending themselves. In “Duty To Retreat” states like New Jersey, a DA can come after you for shooting some crackhead that was coming at you with a knife in your kitchen because “There was a door behind you. You could’ve ran.” The couple above are just plain dumb. Door unlocked and Grandpa’s duck gun probably buried in the closet unloaded. I’m sure the writer of this pathetic excuse for journalism was ecstatic when he came across those two.
Granted this slanted piece of trash is a year old your comments look even more foolish as the Zimmerman trial plays out:
“Martin was, in fact, returning to his parents’ house after walking to a nearby store during half time of the NBA All-Star game for an Arizona Iced Tea and a pack of Skittles.”
Evidence is very consistent that Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin, who was in a gated community. But go ahead and make it seems like Trayvon was the victim. Love how you didn’t put your name on this.
The days of the wild west mentality are over. We have trained and armed police who are sworn to uphold the law and in 99% of cases do just that. We don’t need a bunch of untrained vigilantes with concealed weapons running around at night in the rain stalking innocent neighbors. The fault lies first with whomever licensed this concealed weapon and why. Most of my neighbors get upset over someone parking over the line…or playing their music too loud. Should you die for committing this kind of offense? You could today in Florida and 13 other states!
“Evidence is very consistent that Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin, who was in a gated community. But go ahead and make it seems like Trayvon was the victim. Love how you didn’t put your name on this.” quoted as posted by Facts Hurt.
I believe the facts are that the evidence of the deceased weren’t bagged and lost due to the “stand your ground” law as the shooting was “defined” by the officers at the scene. Just because Zimmerman has cuts and blood does not mean Martin inflected them. I believe that because the evidence was fouled, Martin did not have any DNA of Zimmerman on him/or hands.
I believe people have the right to defend themselves and property. But brandishing, shooting a warning shot, and shooting towards/at someone should only be and after you’ve done everything to not have to do any of the above I mentioned. A “Last Resort” vs “Stand Your Ground” might be a better law. But even if someone is stealing, I think shooting goes a little far. It should only be if life/lives are threatened by an advancing force.
The “Stand Your Ground Law” is designed for more than Trayvon/Zimmerman, but for the other 300 million+ Americans who have Second Amendment rights? We have the right to bear arms for the protection of ourselves, our family and property, and to protect ourselves from a corrupt government, if needed. (Actually, it reads, for those of you too lazy to read it for yourselves: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”) It does not say go hide in a closet and retreat. Possibly allow your family member, yourself or your property to be stolen, damaged, hurt, injured, raped or killed prior to usage of a weapon to justify your actions.
I have a son who was molested by a family member, his biological father. He and I have been tracked and attacked in retribution for his father being charged with 2 counts of class A felony for Sexual Abuse of a Child, but then pled down to Child Abuse so he didn’t/doesn’t have to register as a Sex Offender. Since then, we have moved multiple times, because the legal systems have failed us. How many times do you expect a mother to retreat (hide) to protect her son and herself? I had been attacked on multiple occasions, reported the crimes and filed the requisite police reports and crime kits were performed. Unfortunately, those police reports were used by my ex-husband’s resources to locate our new addresses and phone numbers, because they are ‘public records.’ Those same reports were used by the local media outlets to run unauthorized articles. I had Protective Orders in place and still the police did nothing to keep us protected. I then qualified and went to court, at my expense, to obtain a permanent Stalking Order, which was granted, but it still doesn’t protect us.
Now, 7 years later, we have people trespassing, damaging the exterior of our home, writing on windows in lipstick & ink, pouring flammable fluid on our AC unit & lighting it on fire, people following us & calling me to tell me where my son is & what color of clothing he is wearing (using a “Spoofcard” so the calls are untraceable & voice alteration is used as an advertised feature), hacking into email accounts & phones, attacking my son as he walked out the front door thinking it was me, attacking me within a week of a right flank surgery, calling my son’s cell phone and leaving harassing/horrific messages (which are all crimes in Oregon state, yet the police do absolutely nothing, but offer to file reports – that again can be used to locate us because, you guessed it, they are ‘pubic records’). I’ve been threatened to have my brains blown out with a .45 on my own property, and the police did nothing because the gun wasn’t visable. I’ve been stabbed in my hand while blocking myself from being stabbed in the back or chest as I turned, after someone broke through our side gate and hid in our shrubs.
So are we to remain prisoners in a room while someone destroys our property? Should I wait safely inside, on 911, and hope the police show in a timely manner to pull a nut-job off my now 14yr old son? Should I get between my son and the attacker, hoping my son runs inside & calls 911 from the safety of a locked room, and again, hope the police show before the man kills or seriously injures me? Should my son not be allowed to be a regular teenage kid, unable to even walk two and a half blocks to 7-Eleven without being followed? Or should I continue to run and relocate my son & myself, continue changing phone numbers and email addresses?
Are we to forget that our Founding Father’s granted us personal freedoms and potentially sacrificed their lives, family and livelihoods for what they believed in for America and Americans? My answer is NO! We have rights to own and use guns. No one has the right to take these rights from us, unless we are felons who have broken the law, are declared mentally unstable, etc. If someone is breaking into a locked gate on my property or climbing onto a low hanging roof by my bedroom window, do I not have the right to fire, simply because they have not technically entered my house. Do I not have the right to defend my property, because those damaging it are conveniently gone before the police appear, if the police appear?
I have a 9mm, I practice with it, know how to take it apart and have it cleaned. Americans have freedoms and the Right to Bear Arms is a freedom we don’t want to lose. The UK admits crime, especially break ins, is on the rise, because it’s the criminals that break laws & the loss of their rights to defend their own homes and selves with a gun have been taken from them. They rape, kill, injure, and steal. Usually, 99.9% of the law abiding citizens don’t commit crimes. It is completely ignorant to allow the media to bring one case into the limelight and let 1000’s of criminals escape that same media out-pouring of the Zimmerman case. It’s even more ridiculous to allow POTUS to use a tragedy of a school shooting for his own anti-gun personal agenda push. However, it’s disturbing how many so called “journalists” treat guns as an evil, when they forget criminals will always get their hands on guns, they are criminals after all. Criminals don’t worry about registration and legally owning guns, but rather intimidation usage &/or the actual usage of them.
Let’s remember that Japan didn’t actually invade the U.S.A., due to the fact that a minimum of 1 in 2 households were armed. I am pro-gun, pro-protection of my child, pro-protection of myself & home. I feel people should be able to make their own decisions and if you chose to not own or use a gun that is certainly your right. However, do not impinge on my rights. And if you want to use The Brady Center as a source for the ANTI viewpoints (hell, you might as well quote that jackass, Piers Morgan, while you’re at it). BUT, then at least have the guts to use the NRA – National Rifle Association for facts, figures and quotes for the PRO side of gun ownership and rights. – ‘Laine Smith
Wow, cherry-picking facts, quoting out of context and committing several causal logical fallacies and false analogy.
Let me preface by saying I agree that there should be more thorough processes for checking and licensing people who want firearms. However, I do not think self-defense laws or the types of guns allowed by law should change. What I mean to say is that there is a process to allow licensing of drivers, there should be a similar one for gun owners, but doo not limit self-defense, or the types of guns allowed.
Now to the critique:
“Contrary to what gun rights supporters say, not all of these people have been thoroughly vetted. The Brady Center is quick to point out that both Zimmerman and Jared Lee Loughner, …. were both legally carrying weapons.”
First off: Zimmerman was found not guilty and Loughner is a homicidal maniac. Second: Oregon concealed carry law requires a thorough background check, fingerprinting and a required course in gun safety. Arizona and Florida CCLs are NOT Oregon CCL.
What gun right supporters are saying this? Which states’ law are these “gun right supporters” referring to? The sentence before this paragraph leads the reader to assume you are talking about Oregon, not AZ or FL, or even crazy people or trigger-happy neighborhood watch volunteers.
“After they’ve exhausted all other possibilities to remedy the situation [then deadly force is permissible],” says Blanton, noting that there are plenty of people in Deschutes County with concealed guns.
In what context did Sherriff Blanton say this? It sure does sound like several law enforcement agencies “use of force” policies that are commonly used, not self defense laws.
“Sandoval, the gun-toting Oregonian who shot and killed another man, was found not guilty despite the fact that he was in his vehicle at the time of the shooting and arguably could have driven away rather than open fire.”
You forgot to mention that the guy Sandoval shot had a locked and loaded pistol… whoopsie. I’ll admit, that case sounds more like two red-necks fighting over a woman than self defense. However, I would much rather live in a State that finds the Sandoval’s of Oregon not-guilty than a state that requires me to run away from a gun. Why? Bullets are faster than my feet… or in the case of Sandoval, my car.
So, you feel unsafe because 150,000 Oregonians have CCLs? maybe you should look at how many murders with firearms are committed in Oregon. 2009 had 53 of them. Oregon has close to 4 million residence. Knowing those numbers, I feel pretty safe. Even more so knowing I can use lethal force if I genuinely fear for my life, or the lives of others.
http://oregoncatalyst.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Select-specific-categories-of-2009-deaths-in-Oregon.jpg <--- numbers of murders committed in Oregon with guns. Look, I understand that some people believe that if we remove all firearms from the equation, we would be safer. In principal, I agree with that. However, if those who mean to do harm still have access to firearms, then so should law abiding citizens. Allow firearms, but enforce training, testing and suitability checking for those who wish to own them.
Hi.My name is Billy Robertson, and I live in California. I recently looked into what kind of small self-defense weapons I could carry.Other than TRYING to get a firearms permit…NONE!In fact,..if I get pulled over,and I have a baseball bat,a mitt,some cleats,and a baseball,….I’ll PROBABLY be ok.But JUST a baseball bat?I’ll most likely be charged with having a concealed illegal club.Even if I used it to fend off an attacker, I could face illegal club possession charges.How did we get to a place in our society, where a criminal assailant is more protected by the law,than the victims? That whole Oregon “story of a drunken,mistaken intrusion ” in the middle of the night?I don’t have any statistics,or anything,but,..how often is a stranger in your home in the middle of the night going to be an innocent,drunken mistake, with no malicious intent planned?Oh..I’m guessing. .NEVER!If someone is being robbed,why are they to assume that they will ONLY be robbed,then left unharmed?Often,criminals won’t want to leave any witnesses behind.And if someone DOES go above and beyond what is reasonable to protect their loved-ones and themselves,..then deal with THAT instance.Even though,ķinda like I mentioned already,..it could be difficult to “GUESS” how far a criminal is gonna go,until it’s too late to do anything about it.Sorry if I seemed to be on kind of a RANT.Just really pisses me off that citizens minding their own business aren’t viewed as important as criminals out to hurt whoever…whenever they want.
To Rab. No one goes over to the neighbor’s house and kills them because their music’s too loud and if they do they’re total nut jobs. I have to say some of these have some common sense and the other half have none to me you people Ludacris to even think that you shouldn’t be allowed to protect yourself that you shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun. So if you think Trayvon Martin or the Zimmerman trial is that important it’s really not only reason it’s a big deal is because it was a black man shot and go figure it’s a race thing but it’s not because the guy that shot him Zimmerman was Mexican.
This article is ridiculously slanted and written based out of fear. If a guy, drunk or not, comes in my house at night and lays in my bed…I’m going for the gun. I’ll give warning to leave but that’s it. I’m not going to assume he was just being cute and wanted to cuddle. What a bunch of BS. And the guy even said “Why does this always happen?” So he does this often? Umm…maybe he should be accountable for his idiocy one of these times and won’t end up getting shot. How about that? The left seems to forget that there is a reason for the 2nd amendment. It’s not cuddly drunk guys. It’s not a loving nurturing big brother either. Nor just to shoot paper targets Yep…it’s to protect ourselves against true threats. People are more on edge now only because criminals have become more bold. And more numerous.