Unfortunate daily reminder to carry everywhere

[Gawernator]

False attribution. (*You're young. I'll give you a pass.)

Granted the post was vague, but be careful not to ascribe intentions to others without first understanding motive.

Point: The campus was a soft target due to federal and state bills passed into law like S.2070 (cited above) and SB2. Common sense says that repealing both would give victims a fighting chance to survive such encounters.

 

[Gawernator]

Ok the shooter is not in trouble:
"And to the community member who heroically intervened to stop further loss of life, your actions carry a heavy emotional burden – and my thoughts are with you." - governor

Core Elements
Conduct that violates a law is justified if: [1]

• Emergency Measure: The conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury.
• Balancing of Harms: The gravity, urgency, and desirability of avoiding the threatened injury clearly outweigh the injury or harm that the violated statute seeks to prevent, based on ordinary standards of intelligence and morality. [1]

Key Rules & Limitations

• Objective Standard: A defendant's belief that a threat was imminent must be reasonable from the perspective of an objective, reasonable person rather than a purely personal or subjective belief. [1]
• No Alternative Course: The defendant must show that no other reasonable, legal course of action was available at the time. [1]
• Exclusions: The defense cannot be based on general arguments about the morality, wisdom, or advisability of the criminal statute itself. It is also unavailable if it conflicts with specific public policies or other provisions of law (such as reproductive rights cases under Oregon law). [1, 2]
• Burden of Proof: Under ORS 161.055, the choice-of-evils defense is not an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove beyond a doubt; instead, once properly raised, the state has the burden of disproving the defense