161.205 Use of
physical force generally.
The use of physical force upon another person that would otherwise constitute
an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following
circumstances:
(1)(a) A parent
or legal guardian of a minor child may use reasonable physical force upon the
minor child when and to the extent the person reasonably believes the physical
force is necessary to maintain discipline or promote the welfare of the minor
child, unless the physical force constitutes abuse as defined in ORS 418.257 or
419B.005.
(b) Personnel of
a public education program, as that term is defined in ORS 339.285, may use
reasonable physical force upon a student only to the extent that the
application of force is consistent with ORS 339.285 to 339.303 and is not
corporal punishment as defined in ORS 339.250 (9).
(2) Subject to
ORS 161.237 and 421.107, an authorized official of a jail, prison or
correctional facility, including a youth correction facility as defined in ORS
162.135, may use physical force when and to the extent that the official
reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order and discipline or as is
authorized by law.
(3) A person
responsible for the maintenance of order in a common carrier of passengers, or
a person acting under the direction of the person, may use physical force when
and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain
order, but the person may use deadly physical force only when the person
reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.
(4) A person
acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide
or to inflict serious physical self-injury may use physical force upon that
person to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to thwart
the result.
(5) A person may
use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third
person, in defending property, in making an arrest or in preventing an escape,
as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971. [1971 c.743 §21; 1981
c.246 §1; 2011 c.665 §§10,11; 2013 c.133 §4; 2013 c.267 §4; 2019 c.267 §7; 2019
c.333 §2; 2020 s.s.2 c.3 §2; 2023 c.27 §1]
Note: See note under 161.015.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
32
cases (
13 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case:
Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977).
Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977).
· cites it 2× “1976); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 161.205 (1) (1975). [21] See Proehl, supra, at 726, and n.”
Maney v. Angelozzi, 397 P.3d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “As a defense to those charges, petitioner argued that ORS 161.205(1) rendered his conduct lawful because, as a parent, he had used only the degree of physical force reasonably “necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare” of A.”
Willis v. State, 888 N.E.2d 177 (Ind. 2008).
· cites it 2× “2007); Or.Rev.Stat. § 161.205(1) (2003); 18 Pa. Cons.”
State v. Shumway, 630 P.2d 796 (Or. 1981).
· cites it 2× “The Court of Appeals concluded that it was compelled to affirm the conviction due to certain cases decided by this court prior to the enactment of ORS 161.205(4), 161.209 and 161.219, which specify when deadly force may be used in defense of persons.”
Hatfield v. Gracen, 567 P.2d 546 (Or. 1977).
· cites it 3× “See generally ORS 161.205 et seq. 4 Plaintiffs exception was not a model of clarity, but we believe that it was sufficient to preserve the errors asserted on appeal: "[Plaintiffs counsel] Now, I would take exception to the instruction which read, and I quote, 'I instruct you…”
State v. Wright, 799 P.2d 642 (Or. 1990).
· cites it 2× “ORS 161.205 provides in part: “The use of physical force upon another person that would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances: «* * * * * “(5) A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense *…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. D. L., 479 P.3d 1092 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“And what services were those? 2 Reasonable physical force used by a parent to discipline a child is not unlawful, ORS 161.205(1)(a), and state policy protects a parent’s liberty interest in raising his or her children, including the use of reasonable discipline, ORS 419B.”
Commonwealth v. Dorvil, 32 N.E.3d 861 (Mass. 2015).
“21, § 643 (permitting parental “use of force or violence” provided it “is reasonable in manner and moderate in degree”); Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.205 (permitting “reasonable physical force .”
State v. Mickels, 544 P.3d 446 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “275,” which includes 2 ORS 161.205 provides, in part: “The use of physical force upon another person that would otherwise con- stitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances: “* * * * * “(5) A person may use physical force upon…”
Lee v. State of Or., 891 F. Supp. 1429 (D. Or. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiffs argue that the “terminally ill” classification denies them equal protection of the laws, because non-terminally ill persons are entitled to certain statutory “protections” under Oregon law which are arbitrarily and irrationally abrogated by Measure 16.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. L. E. F., 476 P.3d 119 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“Additionally, when making its findings, the juvenile court observed that the children are “clearly terrified” of father.”
State v. Meiser, 524 P.3d 130 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“10 Here, as the state points out, the legislature used the phrase “as a result of” in ORS 161.205(1), rather than the word “cause,” which has an established meaning in Oregon criminal law.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.205(1) — 6 cases
Willis v. State, 888 N.E.2d 177 (Ind. 2008).
“2007); Or.Rev.Stat. § 161.205(1) (2003); 18 Pa. Cons.”
Maney v. Angelozzi, 397 P.3d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“As a defense to those charges, petitioner argued that ORS 161.205(1) rendered his conduct lawful because, as a parent, he had used only the degree of physical force reasonably “necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare” of A.”
State v. Meiser, 524 P.3d 130 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“10 Here, as the state points out, the legislature used the phrase “as a result of” in ORS 161.205(1), rather than the word “cause,” which has an established meaning in Oregon criminal law.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.205(1)(a) — 6 cases
Maney v. Angelozzi, 397 P.3d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“As a defense to those charges, petitioner argued that ORS 161.205(1) rendered his conduct lawful because, as a parent, he had used only the degree of physical force reasonably “necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare” of A.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. D. L., 479 P.3d 1092 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“And what services were those? 2 Reasonable physical force used by a parent to discipline a child is not unlawful, ORS 161.205(1)(a), and state policy protects a parent’s liberty interest in raising his or her children, including the use of reasonable discipline, ORS 419B.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. L. E. F., 476 P.3d 119 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“Additionally, when making its findings, the juvenile court observed that the children are “clearly terrified” of father.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.205(2) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.205(4) — 2 cases
State v. Shumway, 630 P.2d 796 (Or. 1981).
“The Court of Appeals concluded that it was compelled to affirm the conviction due to certain cases decided by this court prior to the enactment of ORS 161.205(4), 161.209 and 161.219, which specify when deadly force may be used in defense of persons.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.205(5) — 6 cases
Hatfield v. Gracen, 567 P.2d 546 (Or. 1977).
“See generally ORS 161.205 et seq. 4 Plaintiffs exception was not a model of clarity, but we believe that it was sufficient to preserve the errors asserted on appeal: "[Plaintiffs counsel] Now, I would take exception to the instruction which read, and I quote, 'I instruct you…”
State v. Wright, 799 P.2d 642 (Or. 1990).
“ORS 161.205 provides in part: “The use of physical force upon another person that would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances: «* * * * * “(5) A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense *…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.