5 vs 1 in Akron, Ohio true story

[garryc]

Then I hope that you do not have a CCW since one of the main elements of that training is that lethal force is only legal for self defense not defense of property. Ignorance of the law is one of the biggest reasons I feel CCW permits will become harder and harder to obtain over the coming years. For christ sake grow up and read some laws.

In Ohio there is a duty to egress if it can be done safely. You may not use deadly force to protect property. That's what the ORC says,

Yet the Ohio Constitution states:

§ 1.01 Inalienable Rights (1851)


All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.


And:

§ 1.04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851)

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.


The problem is that you can't cite your constitutional rights at a criminal trial. First you must stand trial under the ORC and then after conviction start the constitutional process. By the time you are able to bring that case to a high level, that is probably the supream court if they choose to hear it, you have spent many years in prison. Unless you have a couple million dollars for lawyer fees you'll get bled dry very quickly. Otherwise you're useing prison lawyers, which are other inmates.

 

[DougO83]

You

Me read some laws? I am not the person who claimed that every state he knew of allowed the use of deadly force to protect property. I'd like to see case law on that one! Even in texas finding a jury who would support you for killing a kid for something like shoplifting would be difficult.

are just ignorant. I said STATES THAT I HAD BEEN TO. I'll even throw in the exact quote for ya.

I cannot htink [yes, I know it's misspelled, the edit button wouldn't work to fix it] of a single state I have traveled to that does not allow deadly force for the protection of property.

I even emphasized the imporatnt parts you most obviously missed out on. Hope that helps.Nowhere in there did I claim to know for sure, just what I had seen. Learn to read, then come play again. Good job buddy. As for this blather about Texas at the end of your statement, case law and STATE LAW are two different things. Good job again. I have to go for now. Please give the keyboard to someone who can read.

 

[Justme]

Whatever dude. Your implication is that there are indeed states which you have visited which condone lethal force for the protection of property. I simply pointed out that you are wrong. Since there are no such states you could not have visited them. Of course you admit your ignorance of the laws by stating, "that I know of", so why do you support your erroneous position so vociferously?

There may be states that allow the use of lethal force in the protection of property in specific instances, but not as a general practice.

BTW, you could try being a bit more polite and humble, considering your general level of "knowledge" you might find it helpful in the long run.

 

[DougO83]

Seriously? Why don't you go play somewhere else?

Whatever dude. Your implication is that there are indeed states which you have visited which condone lethal force for the protection of property. I simply pointed out that you are wrong.

Any facts? Hello?? Facts?? Remember those?

Since there are no such states you could not have visited them. Of course you admit your ignorance of the laws by stating, "that I know of", so why do you support your erroneous position so vociferously?

I said that I know of specifically so a$$es like you would not try to say that I said EVERY state, or that I implied that I knew every state law. Unfortunately, your inability to read caused you to make both of those unbased suppositions about my posting. "That I know of" is not an admission of ignorance. However, it brings to light the fact that I have not read the law books of every single state I have been to in the past few years, as I rarely have time to travel anymore. It also brings to light that I do not necessarily remember all of the exact statutes of laws that do not apply to me on a daily basis. Are you getting all this? Want me to draw a picture? As far as the "erroneous:" position; isn't this the same postion you allow for in this statement:

There may be states that allow the use of lethal force in the protection of property in specific instances, but not as a general practice.

Yea, it pretty much is. Wow, this must be really hard for you to follow, maybe somebody on here could help you out or hold your hand while you try to comprehend it.

There may be states that allow the use of lethal force in the protection of property in specific instances, but not as a general practice.

First, you recant what you just said in the above staement. Second, I never said if it was in specific or general terms. Thanks again. Maybe you should read my post before trying to comment on it. Put the keyboard down.

BTW, you could try being a bit more polite and humble, considering your general level of "knowledge" you might find it helpful in the long run.

I find it funny that you make an attempt to insult my intelligence. Why is it that people on here think that just because they didn't see what I saw they are absolutely correct and I am absolutely wrong? Why is it that people who DO NOT READ POSTS and then mis-quote them refuse to see the error of their ways? I only stated what I knew from experience, never made it as a rule. You said yourself that some states probably allow it in specific cases (remember that I never made a distinction.) Remember, you're the genius who isn't a resident of Texas that tried to imply expertise on Texas law. Who's the one who needs to check themselves and their level of "knowledge?"


By the way, the use of big kid words like vociferously, when preceeded by phrases like "whatver dude" show that you just opened a dictionary to make your post look smart. The fact of the matter is, you still DID NOT READ MY POST. Have a nice day.

 

[DougO83]

justme

Do some states allow the use of deadly force to protect property?
NOTE: Very few states have provisions for the use of deadly force to defend property. If your jurisdiction does not have a defense of property statute, it is better not to cover the topic.

Several states, including Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana, have controversial laws that allow persons to use deadly force to protect property against unwanted intruders (whether or not the property owner is confronted with deadly force). These are also known informally as "make my day" laws.

In a few states, deadly force may be used to prevent the trespasser from fleeing with property from the scene of the crime. This is at odds with the self-defense requirement that any threat be immediate. Also, under these laws, there is no duty to retreat when one’s property is involved as there is with self-defense. Normally, under the common law, a person must retreat from harm’s way if possible.

http://www.courttv.com/choices/curriculum/homicide/lesson4.html

I hate being right all the time. It gets old quick...

 

[Capt. Charlie]

It's been a long time since I've seen so many personal attacks in one thread . This one's closed for taking the lowest of roads.

Rather than send out numerous warnings by PM, I'll post one warning here. A number of you here are somewhat new to TFL, so maybe you didn't read the Forum Rules. If you haven't and want to remain members of The Firing Line, I strongly suggest you do so.

The Firing Line isn't a kindergarten class. We post here as mature, polite adults. I'm not going to plead with, beg, or baby anyone here. Personal attacks and thinly veiled profanity will NOT be tolerated.

Those of you responsible for the closing of this thread (and you know who you are), listen up: Do it again and I will ban you, no appeals, no second chances.

Clear enough?