COPS, are trained , so they say to unload thier weapons
At a citizen, if they feel threatened. Not the last time, the PDX cops unload thier 9mm at citizens .

Expect more unarmed citizens to follow this path.

Wait for it, the clock is ticking.

High time for fake gun control.

Any sarcastic or cynical thing that could be said about this city's effed-up priorities would only be an insult to the young man's family.

Another casualty in the war on its citizens.

I'm not sure who among us would patiently negotiate with a man brandishing a weapon and refusing to follow police commands.

If you don't mind the Police running away from the gunman, I guess they could call in a mental health professional.

I'm not sure how many of them would put themselves in the line of fire, as in this example.

Clearly, a tragedy for everybody involved. That said, I don't blame the cops one bit.

Here in the mayor's office, we view it as one less guy using plastic bags. #teamadams

Wait to offer mental health care for a year or two. Then with the publication of the new DSM V in 2013, a lot of illnesses and conditions won't exist anymore.

Then again, with the PoPo whatever they say should be taken with a Costco-sized bag of salt. If there's one thing their last few years' of shenanigans should teach us, it's that. It seems like we're already forgetting that simple truth.

That's why I used the word "reportedly."

Can someone just explain something to me. The law says that if someone breaks into my house and threatens me I am supposed to retreat and not shoot them (fat chance by the way). Now my home is my castle under ye old common law. But the PoPo not in the "safety of their own homes" but doing a job with known risks and dangers can shoot with impugnity. Our legal system is so effed.

The two restraining orders and very recent burglary conviction didn't appear to stop him from 'acting out.' Who knows, he may have been able to benefit from some mental health services if he actually did some real jail time.

LucsAvdo - you can legally defend yourself if your life is threatened who told you that you couldn't?

Ms. P: Oregon is a 'duty to retreat' state. That means if there is any opportunity to run or deescalate without using deadly force, you are required to take it... even if its in your own home. That also means you can't just shoot someone just because they have a gun in their hand.

Anthony
I don't think you have Oregon law quite right
Maybe you should refrain from legal advice here...

'Duty to retreat' is news to me, too. It wasn't before. Did that change?

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.

The decision leaves no wiggle room, bet I know a few lawyers that would love to go after them in civil court for any damages ....

They get away with ignoring the law if you fail to not have representation that is stupid.

It's a shame young Mr. Morgan dragged some unwilling police officers into his suicide plan.

Maybe what's needed is another LAW requiring toy guns to have an orange tip on the muzzle so they won't be confused with a REAL gun.

Oh...they already have that? You say his toy was repainted to appear more realistic?

Well can't we outlaw black paint then?

I'd like to know since Mr. Morgan was hit ONCE, how many other rounds were discharged and where did THOSE impact?

Here's where one wound up (Tonkon's managing partner's window).

http://imgur.com/QCWWn